This is an obvious argument of convenience that would sound silly if we replace monogamy with a litany of other human traits or tendencies that we don't practice well but like more than lifelong monogamy.

We've not exactly done a stellar job of being honest with one another over the centuries, or peaceful, or any other positive trait we would love for us to all practice, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive for perfection of those ideals.

A lousy history of practicing monogamy is not a good reason to stop trying, any more than a lousy history of peace among men should lead us to shrug our shoulders and resign ourselves to constant war.

The author uses history to "prove" that we should relax our standards on lifelong commitment to another person, simply because it's been proven that it is hard to do. If we applied that view of history to racism (humankind has a much worse track record on this than on monogamy), we'd have to shrug our shoulders, relax our standards and say "history tells us some societies do okay with racial equality and most don't. So just relax.

Sometimes history isn't the best place to look to find out how we should live. If the author believed in evolution, he might make the argument that we need to move beyond our shameful history regarding our long-term commitment to others.

Payshiactric, and psychological care numbers after divorce may not agree with your evaluation of multiple divorce, nor may the statistics on the children of these serial manogamies. While it is true that by nature, we are just sexual mammals, that would go in the fase of evolution, where we are supposed to progress and evolve into something higher and more suited for our surroundings than we started. Maybe a little more research is in order?

I posted the comment below in another blog entry of Dr. Ben-Zeev's but will post it here too as it seems to be relevant in both pieces. The other one is here: http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200811/proclaimed...

Someone had mentioned The Ethical Slut (ie: a book about polyamory or open sexual/romantic relationships) in the other blog entry as something to consider in regards to alternatives to monogamy/serial monogamy.

My message is that "different" isn't necessarily better than monogamy. Polyamory comes with its own set of problems - in ADDITION to the usual ones present in two-person relationships and because there are more people involved, there is beaucoup more complexity and difficulty - and more chances for more people to get hurt.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I've had the opportunity to become involved with and to try out the polyamorous "lifestyle" as an alternative. It made sense and was certainly worth looking into. After 7 years of it, I learned that the biggest difference between that lifestyle and monogamy is that with polyamory - there is simply opportunity for more people to get hurt - and in just as many if not more ways.

The thing with polyamorists is that many of them have problems with emotional intimacy. They cannot have or do not want emotionally close relationships. They seemed to mostly prefer superficial involvements.

Further, they also seemed to have issues sustaining relationships long-term.

Worse than these two things, too many of them were also emotionally abusive - and they used polyamory as a sort of justification for emotional abusiveness.

Many of them were also "new relationship junkies". Meaning, they LIVED for the thrill of romance. The moment that feeling wore off in an existing relationship, they were on to the next one - with little regard for the other ones whose "shiny newness" (ie NRE as it's referred to) had worn off.

The "old" lovers could just get out of the way or get off the bus. Usually it didn't matter to the "NRE junkie". So, it's an understatement to say these types of relationships can often be emotionally brutal - and to more than two people.

Not that they all are, or that all polyamorists have these issues. I did see several families who had been successfully together for years and had their systems for opening up to new members worked out with respect for all. It CAN be done.

Mostly, though, this was not the case in the circles I associated with (several of them) and polyamory seemed to be a place for people who have trouble with intimacy, with sustaining relationships, with addiction, who lacked emotional maturity, and who were emotionally abusive - to hang out and have the behaviors stemming from their various pathologies validated by and hidden behind that lifestyle.

My message?

Proceed with caution. Your mileage may vary. Offer void where prohibited. No warranty is offered or implied. Skate at your own risk.

...

Serial monogamy means being with other people until it ceases to be fun, exciting, or you find someone else, and then you leave. In addition to causing broken hearts, I think these arrangements destabilize the family by telling kids that nothing is permanent and you can't trust people that get close to you. Also, people that engage in such relationships are frequently cold, shallow, and superficial sensation seekers. Nothing that is good is easy and as a society we are taking the easy way out. Permanent exclusivity (read "marriage") means you give up things that are important to you--money, hobbies, friendships, interests--for the sake of the love of another human being. What could be better than that? Personally, if that's not what I get in being with someone else, then I would rather be alone. "Settling" for second is not in my nature, nor should rational people settle for instability and disrespect. Wanna go sailing without me on a Saturday? Fine. But don't ask me if you can come back; don't ask me to compete for your time and affections.