Epilogue

Hey folks! Remember me from here and here?

I just wanted to pop in to say that Michelle and I have reached a pretty good place. I think Mono was right, I am a serial monogamist. I'm not sure how I'm going to adjust to this, since I love Michelle being her polyamorous self, but at least I can dial down the angst a bit.

I miss Bree terribly. I haven't heard from her in weeks. I suspect she's licking her wounds and focusing on classwork. I'm surprised we're not talking at all. I hope she's not mad at me, and, maybe I'm too optimistic, I still hold out hope for a rekindling. Eventually.

Anyway, I've chronicled the whole thing over at YourTango. Take a read, let me know what you think.

FYI, I changed the pseudonyms for the blog:

Natalie = Bree
Allison = Michelle
Rafael = Ralph
 
Glad that you seem to have found a happier place. Interested though in how you see "serial monogamy" working long term? Can serial monogamy be a positive thing?
 
I think basically serial monogamy is just what people in general are. It is extremely rare that a person only is intimate with one person in their lives. Sure, the time between partners is longer for some, but most people seem to go from one partner, to another, to another.
 
I think you need to make a distinction between the NRE addicts who are serial monogamists on the short-term, and "regular" serial monogamy, as is the most common form of monogamy (up to years with a person, more than one partner during your lifetime). I'm pretty sure ThatRomanticGeek means he is the latter, not the former.
 
I think you need to make a distinction between the NRE addicts who are serial monogamists on the short-term, and "regular" serial monogamy, as is the most common form of monogamy (up to years with a person, more than one partner during your lifetime). I'm pretty sure ThatRomanticGeek means he is the latter, not the former.


Yep, that's the conclusion I'm drawing.

I wish Michelle/Allison and I had been able to recognize that and discuss it with Bree/Natalie before it was too late. Sigh.
 
I think basically serial monogamy is just what people in general are. It is extremely rare that a person only is intimate with one person in their lives. Sure, the time between partners is longer of some, but most people seem to go from one partner to another, to another.

Redpepper, the definition I'd heard for serial monogamy was someone who sought out monogamous relationships, but eventually would seek out a new person and cheat. Then the first relationship would go down in flames, the serial monogamist would swear to be faithful to the new love, and then repeat the cycle. I don't see that as quite the same as someone who has more than one monogamous relationship in their lifetime.
 
Redpepper, the definition I'd heard for serial monogamy was someone who sought out monogamous relationships, but eventually would seek out a new person and cheat. Then the first relationship would go down in flames, the serial monogamist would swear to be faithful to the new love, and then repeat the cycle. I don't see that as quite the same as someone who has more than one monogamous relationship in their lifetime.

At the debate I went to the other night, "Is Monogamy Natural?" this is what was come up with: that our society is about serial monogamy, which includes what I talked about, and also what you said, Lemondrop. Those debating, as far as I could tell, were saying that we humans apparently fall in and out of love throughout our lives. We don't fall in love just once. This can happen over a short period of time, which can lead to cheating, or we might have a long-term relationship, then break up and find someone else. The point is that the feelings are the same and common.
 
Can serial monogamy be a positive thing?

I don't see why not. I think that this form of monogamy can have its pluses and minuses. You still spend time with one person at a time, learn their inner workings without distraction of another relationship, and then move on when you discover that either you are not as compatible as you should be to stay together, or things just didn't work out. Then you try again.

This behaviour has given me the opportunity to learn what I want in my romantic (and platonic) relationships, and to seek those traits in people. If something doesn't work with someone, and yet they or I want to remain mono, then we can break it off in search of what will work "better." In the end, it is just another relationship style that WORKS for some people. The problem with any relationship is when you are not being honest with yourself or your partner. I don't understand why people shame serial monogamy as if it is a bad thing. It's just different!
 
Those debating, as far as I could tell, were saying that we fall in and out of love through out or lives. We don't fall just once.

Some people do just once, and some don't ever.

I understand your generalization here is not purposeful, RP. But, I think it is important to always note and be aware that everyone works differently. Some view love differently than others, and just that can make it impossible to love twice in a lifetime. Others do find it possible.

One thing that I have learned through my adventures with O and on this forum is to never think that something HAS to be the way it is. I can shape my own relationships. Others can too. Nothing is better than another, and nothing is the same. Anything is possible, and to be open-minded means understanding that this is truly the case.
 
Some people do just once, and some don't ever.

I understand your generalization here is not purposeful, RP. But, I think it is important to always note and be aware that everyone works differently. Some view love differently than others and just that can make it impossible to love twice in a lifetime. Others do find that possible.

One thing that I have learned through my adventures with O and on this forum is to never think that something HAS to be the way it is. I can shape my own relationships. Others can too. Nothing is better than another, and nothing is the same. Anything is possible, and to be open-minded means understanding that this is truly the case.

Oh, I I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just saying that these profs of evolutionary psychology at this debate were coming up with this conclusion about monogamy as being more of the serial variety than otherwise, that it was somehow more natural. Of course, it was being debated as if monogamy were natural, and that serial monogamy was what they thought was more on the natural side.

Of course, it's totally a generalization. I thought I indicated that in saying that there is some what of a scale. Maybe not. *shrug* :)
 
At the debate I went to the other night, "Is Monogamy Natural?" this is what was come up with: that our society is about serial monogamy, which includes what I talked about and also what you have said, Lemondrop. Those debating, as far as I could tell, were saying that we fall in and out of love throughout our lives. We don't just once. That can be in a short period of time, which can lead to cheating, or long term, where we might have a long-term relationship and then break up and find someone else. The point was that the feelings are the same, and common.

Hmmm... By this definition, all monogamy would be serial, except in the very rare case where a person only loves and is in a relationship with one other person for their entire life.
 
By this definition, all monogamy would be serial, except in the very rare case where a person only loves and is in a relationship with one person for their entire life.

I think people are more serial monogamous than "lifelong" monogamous. I certainly have always been one. I don't mean that all mono relationships will inevitably end, just that one ends before another begins. I don't equate the word monogamous with eternal bonding; I equate it with intimate exclusivity.
 
I think people are more serial mongamous than "lifelong" monogamous. I certainly have always been one. I don't mean that all mono relationships will inevitably end, just that one ends before another begins. I don't equate the word monogamous with eternal bonding, I equate it with intimate exclusivity.

Agreed!
 
I think the word "serial" is the problem. It conjures up a picture of regular episodes in relatively quick succession, which isn't really what you guys are talking about.

A fellow blogger did quite a nice post about the seasons of a relationship: from spring through to winter. My take on this is: spring full of promise and beauty; summer ripe and luscious; autumn being the harvest, but also getting a bit rougher; and winter giving yourself the choice between cold and bleak, or wrapping up cosily by a fire together in harmony. In reality, the winter of a relationship is a bit of both.
 
When I head serial monogamist, I do understand it to mean quick successive monogamous relationships. I think that is the intention of the term. That could well be an assumption of mine, though.
 
Maybe people use the word monogamous incorrectly by adding in the idea that it implies forever, and not being just exclusive while in a relationship.
 
By this definition, all monogamy would be serial, except in the very rare case where a person only loves and is in a relationship with one person for their entire life.

Yes, the argument here is that people who say "You can't love more than one person that much," can be replied to with "Most people do, just usually not at the same time."

Maybe people use the word monogamous incorrectly by adding in the idea that it implies forever, and not just exclusive while in a relationship.

As far as I know, that's what it originally meant (only one spouse in your lifetime, no sex outside of marriage). For many religious people, that's still what it means. After all, adultery technically includes sex with your spouse before you're married, too.

I think serial monogamy makes sense from a biological point of view. You find someone, stay together long enough to have a child and get them out of the most vulnerable time, then part ways and get another partner and do the same, thereby multiplying the DNA variety or something.
With that definition, the amount of time with each partner would probably be something like 3 years, which I think is the longest NRE can last, so it makes sense.

While "serial monogamy" might sound like a succession of quick relationships (but really, what's your definition of quick? 3 years can be considered quick or very long, depending) to me really the point of it is saying, "If someone new shows up, you might fall for them and stop loving the person you were previously with, and leave them."

I think it's different from lifelong monogamy, where it's assumed that if someone new comes along, it won't matter, because you have found your lifelong love.

I went to check Wikipedia's article on monogamy and found a part on serial monogamy (emphases mine):

Serial monogamy

Serial monogamy is characterized by a series of long- or short-term, exclusive sexual relationships entered into consecutively over the lifespan. [...] In common usage referring to humans, the two partners need not be married, but may be involved in a sexually monogamous relationship. This behavior is sometimes referred to as a form of,[21] or replacement for,[22] polygamy.

In animal sexuality, serial monogamy often means that an animal will have a different, but exclusive, breeding partner each mating season. Generally, any animals that do not mate with one partner, for life, but do mate exclusively with one partner per mating season can be considered serially monogamous, including those who find a second mate only upon the death of the first.

Western culture

Within Western culture, several academics have put forth the position that serial monogamy is considered more fundamental than "full" monogamy.[23][24]

Break up

Serial monogamy has always been closely linked to divorce practices. Whenever procedures for obtaining divorce have been simple and easy, serial monogamy has been found.[25] As divorce has continued to become more accessible, more individuals have availed themselves of it, and many go on to remarry.[26] It has been suggested, however, that high mortality rates in centuries past accomplished much the same result as divorce, enabling remarriage (of one spouse) and thus serial monogamy.[27][28][29]

I think as part of the polyamorous community, we tend to hear about serial monogamy in a negative light, because it can be used as an argument: "We stay with the people we love, instead of dumping them for the next one that shows up!" or equated with NRE-addiction caused serial monogamy (in which the relationships are generally much shorter and pretty much never long term at all).

EDIT: I don't think that's in itself a bad thing, the problems arise when the other party is being taken for a ride.

But outside of the polyamorous community, it seems to me that "serial monogamy" is a term that's already used, and it simply refers to the fact of having more than one partner in your lifetime, but only one at a time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess a lot of ideas around words are regional. Regardless, at the very basis of monogamy is one love at a time. I'm comfortable with that, serial or whatever else.
 
Back
Top