(calm music)
- What's up, guys, Michael here.
Now, is it just me or are we living
in a never ending cuffing season?
Instagram's wallpapered with that classic shot.
And it seems like every other reality show is obsessed
with helping people find their one true soulmate.
- You're my person.
- And yet, even as monogamy is plastered across our screens,
polyamory is still on the rise.
It's estimated that 20% of single adults have engaged
in a consensual non-monogamous relationship at least once.
So is monogamy natural in the first place?
What's more, is it even ethical?
And with the recent rise of polyamory,
is monogamy headed towards extinction?
Let's find out in this Wisecrack edition.
Why is monogamy weird?
But before we get into it,
I want to tell you about this video's sponsor, Scentbird.
Scentbird is a fragrance subscription service
that let's you try out scents
from cool brands you've never heard of.
And from luxury brands
you might not otherwise be able to afford.
Now, instead of investing in a huge bottle of scent
that you don't actually like,
or that you won't be able to use
before its shelf life expires,
Scentbird takes all the risk out of choosing
a personal fragrance.
And they make it fun by offering scents
from more than 600 brands for you to try
such as Prada, Confessions of a Rebel and Gucci.
And because Scentbird works directly with these brands,
you know your spritzing yourself with the real stuff.
Every month, your subscription includes
a new fragrance of your choice,
packed in a cute bottle that holds a 30 day supply.
It's perfect for taking a new scent for a test drive
or for mixing up your scent with the seasons.
This month, I received a Versace perfume.
That's right, your boy can afford Versace now.
And it's the Versace pour homme or for him.
And I really like it.
It has sort of a springy smell.
There's lemon, there's sage.
I've never really thought of myself
as a perfume guy or a cologne man, but I like this a lot.
And just look at how efficiently this works.
Can you hear it?
Just listen to that.
ASMR, that's what that means.
Now, if you aren't sure where to start,
Scentbird can point you in the right direction
with help from a handy online quiz.
This flexible subscription
let's you skip any month without penalty.
So you've got nothing to lose.
Stick to 1 scent per month for just $16
or upgrade to try out two or 3 scents every month, instead.
All of your scents will arrive in cute and colorful cases
that look great on your dresser or countertop.
If you're in the US or Canada
and you wanna get 55% off your first month of Scentbird,
go to Scentbird.com and enter code Wisecrack at checkout.
That's promo code Wisecrack
to get your first fragrance for just $7.
And now back to the show.
First off, let's talk terminology.
In the past, monogamy used to mean one marriage
till death do us part but we currently understand it
to mean engaging in one relationship at a time.
Polyamorous individuals in contrast,
engage in multiple relationships at a time,
or in the case of polygamy are married to multiple people
at the same time.
Now, it turns out
that despite most of Western society practicing monogamy,
lots of contemporary philosophers actually dig polyamory.
And this is nothing new.
Two of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century
and total power couple, Simone De Beauvoir
and Jean-Paul Sartre were making the case
for consensual polyamory almost a century ago.
De Beauvoir was a pioneer of second wave feminism
and Sartre is often credited
as the father of 20th century existentialism.
They were basically the Beyonce
and Jay-Z of French philosophy.
Simone and Jean-Paul met in Paris in 1929
when they were both studying
for an extremely prestigious exam.
It was your classic love story.
He placed first, she placed second.
Thus academic success lit the flames
of what might be called a 50 year soul partnership
that was sexy and romantic but not exclusive.
Notably, the two never once lived under the same roof.
And though their unconventional love life
wasn't awesome for their reputations.
These two were down for it
because it aligned with their philosophical ideals.
Importantly, De Beauvoir believed in authentic love
which she described
as the reciprocal recognition of two freedoms.
In layman's terms,
neither partner is subordinate to the other
and neither derives all their meaning from the other.
In layman's layman's terms,
Romeo and Juliet ain't (beep).
Sartre took it a step further,
love wasn't a blissful merging of two freedoms
but a constant struggle.
In a monogamous relationship, you dominate or are dominated.
Either way, freedom is lost.
For him, the best way to handle this issue
was to leave himself and his partner open to loving
as many people as they wanted.
And interestingly,
their respective positions parallel elements
of the philosophies they were espousing at the time, too.
So were these brainiacs onto something
or were they just two fun French alcoholics?
To understand why Sartre and De Beauvoir's relationship
still feels weird or unusual,
we need to look at how monogamy became the norm.
Monogamy as we know it has only been a thing
since the late 17th to early 18th century.
At the time, philosophers like Immanuel Kant
and Friedrich Nietzsche were totally on board.
Kant saw marriage as the only solution to the problem
of using people for purely selfish reasons.
By being married, you use your partner.
They use you back and the cycle goes on.
So a little less selfish and super romantic, am I right?
Then again, he also thought the marital sex cycle
was only virtuous if procreation was a possibility.
So if you have really loved boning down,
get ready for a cheaper by the dozen scenario.
Nietzsche was even less lovey-dovey about relationships.
He was pro-monogamy, anti-romance.
His advice was to marry your best friend
which is a very sweet start
but he also advised ignoring appearances
and romantic feelings completely.
He also had some pretty unsavory views surrounding love.
Like that all your wife needs to be happy is a baby.
So it's no surprise
several of his marriage proposals were turned down
and he died lonely and miserable.
But if monogamy is still a relatively new concept,
what were we doing before, you ask?
Well, in ancient times,
the goal of marriage was procreation.
So polygamy was A-okay.
We should note that historically,
the majority of polygamous situations
came in the one man to multiple women model.
While this sounds not ideal for the ladies,
there were advantages.
When survival was at stake,
you were much better off as the wife
of a resource rich fat cat
than as the Miss Weasley of a penny-less beggar.
And we know society swung this way
because of Hammurabi's Code and the Bible,
which agree that if your wife couldn't reproduce,
there's no shame or sin in taking one who can.
Then Greece and Rome changed everything
with the creation of socially imposed monogamy,
which at the time was geared more
toward practicality than romance.
You see, monogamy is far better suited
to building larger armies.
That's because polygamous societies ran
into female scarcity problems.
With multiple women married off
to the same high ranking group of men,
the common man was kind of screwed
or not screwed, as it were yet.
You get it?
'Cause he doesn't get to (beep) anyone.
So he usually either skipped town in search of a wife
or turned to crime.
When society shifted toward monogamy,
there were finally enough women
to go around for all the men,
regardless of their social status.
With wives on lock, men would more productively contribute
to society by doing stuff like inventing the aqueducts
and going to war and thus monogamous marriage became law.
Although you could have sex with other people.
So don't worry about that.
But despite Greece's shift towards monogamous marriage,
Plato was pro-poly.
In his perfect world, families would be communal.
People would take on lovers on mass
and sickly offspring would be thrown off a cliff.
Plato also came up with the concept of platonic love,
which has been misinterpreted over the years
like a bad game of telephone.
Whereas people today see platonic love
as sexless friendship.
Plato originally described a ladder of love
where the bottom rung is carnal attraction
to someone's physical appearance.
And the top rung is platonic love
in which one is more entranced by someone's mind
than their body and contemplates more spiritual matters
like supreme beauty and the divine.
But as Christianity rose to dominance,
it did not subscribe to Plato's pro-poly messaging
with a side of chucking kids off mountains.
Instead, in the Middle Ages
the Christian Church doubled down on monogamy.
See, Christianity added religious stakes to the whole thing.
If you wanted to make God happy,
you would share your body with only one other person.
Nevermind that the Bible has plenty of polygamists
like Jacob and Solomon.
As is often the case,
there was an economic motivation
to push the idea of monogamy.
It was the best way
for the church to get the aristocracy's riches.
After all, one spouse means fewer opportunities
to have children,
especially sons who could inherit your wealth.
Don't have a son when you die?
Oh no, guess all your money is going
to your younger brother instead,
who, while you were busy being a Lord,
very likely has joined the clergy.
It was a pretty plush and popular gig for second sons.
Your money becomes his money
which becomes the church's money.
So on some level, monogamy shifted
from being a mating system, centered around procreation
to being a marriage system
that ensured the church's coffers stayed full.
This continued on
until around the time of the French Revolution.
By this point, people were tired
of marriages of reason, an enlightenment era trend
where people were encouraged to get married
purely out of financial interest
because it turns out these led to very unfavorable outcomes,
like adultery or domestic violence.
So we kicked reason to the curb,
transitioned from the age of enlightenment to romanticism
and embraced marriages of feeling.
Release the doves.
Okay who the (beep) forgot the doves?.
Like angsty teens determined
to be the opposite of their parents,
romantics hated unions predicated
on finances and practicalities.
Sure, some people were still trying
to land the richest dude in town
but the overall vibes had changed.
Because romantics were adorably hopeful about marriage.
They believed that the honeymoon phase should last forever
and dopamine-induced passion should never fade.
- You guys are so sweet together.
- Because we're still on our honeymoon.
- 35 wonderful years of marriage.
- Feels like two to me.
- Note scientists have now determined
that dopamine release as a result of relationship excitement
fades over time and eventually stops.
Yikes.
But back then, this natural occurrence was a sign
that your marriage was on the rocks.
Romantics also believed that true love means accepting
and delighting in everything about your partner,
including the fact that her family visits her constantly.
And they're always there.
You never get to be alone, they're always there.
The madness didn't stop there.
In an incredibly destructive move,
they made love synonymous with sex.
Mind-blowing frequent sex
became the benchmark of a good relationship
and infrequent sex and or infidelity
suddenly became huge offenses.
True love became a cure-all for loneliness.
Why complete yourself
when your partner can Jerry McGuire it for you?
- You complete me.
- Romanticism also taught us
that we should be able
to intuit our partner's thoughts and needs.
That's right, romanticism discouraged open communication.
Society so wholly embraced these romantic ideals
that even in the secular world,
it was to your political advantage
to make sure everyone knew how much you loved your wife.
Is this sounding eerily familiar and certifiably chaotic?
It should, because the template
for contemporary romance was laid
by these moon-eyed romantics
and their unrealistic understanding of love
is a major reason why we suffer from heartbreak
and spend a crap ton on couple's therapy today.
So why are we still doing this chaotic tap dance
from over 200 years ago?
In part, you can thank the industrial revolution.
Which brought an influx of people
moving from farms to cities.
As a result, people became less concerned
with having enough kids to man a plow
and with fewer kids to wrangle
it became easier to focus on the quality of your marriage.
And the weakening of religious and community bonds
made monogamy more important than ever.
Fewer friends and family members meant
you needed your partner to take on more roles.
Best friend, therapist, sex God
and hey, monogamy has its perks.
Committing to one partner over time
can lead to greater intimacy
and it can feel nice to have someone's undivided attention.
Interestingly enough,
polyamory and swinging did have a brief resurgence
after World War II created a scarcity of men.
In a less dramatic version of "Y: The Last Man",
widows of the war were taken in by married men who survived.
Group marriage
and open relationships ramped up in the 60s and 70s
until AIDS took all the momentum
out of the free love movement.
But nobody puts polyamory in a corner.
Eventually the internet gave us broader access
to potential partners
and apps helped poly people find each other.
But we're not finished talking
about the connection between wealth and monogamous marriage.
Socially imposed monogamy, even in loving marriages,
still functions as a way to protect wealth.
And couples who got married in the 20th century
were better able to pull resources
since women were more likely to have access
to their own money or an inheritance.
And today not only are rich
and well-educated people more likely to marry.
They're also less likely to get divorced.
And because people typically marry
within their socioeconomic class, the rich get richer
while the poor remain unhitched and broke.
Fewer people are walking down the aisle in the first place
because millennials are putting financial security
before marriage, cohabitation is more widely accepted
and weddings are (beep) expensive.
At this point, marriage could be seen
as more of an achievement of status
rather than something everyone does
regardless of where they are in life.
Of course, just because you're rich and married
doesn't necessarily mean you are monogamous.
A study by Match.com, of all places,
found that polyamorous relationships
aren't just for rich influencers
like Bella Thorne or Jake Paul.
There's a willingness to engage
in polyamorous relationships, independent of race,
gender and socioeconomic status.
But the question continues to puzzle
many (mumbles) enthusiasts.
What relationship formation are humans
actually wired for?
Monogamy is found only in three to 5% of animal species
but polyamory does have its challenges
for humans from an evolutionary perspective.
If fathers wanted to protect their offspring
from being clubbed by other males,
they couldn't just Don Draper their way
through the paleolithic period.
Instead, they had to stick around
and offer bi-parental care.
Of course, this came with its own reward.
They could be all but certain
that their kid wasn't the milkman's.
Though in caveman times,
that was the guy who milked mammoths.
Other fun theories suggest polyamorous societies
could have been wiped out by STDs.
The jury's still out
on whether we're innately monogamous or polyamorous
but most scientists have concluded
we're somewhere in between.
In other words, monogamish.
But evolutionary wiring aside, what's actually best for us
as intelligent and enlightened humans of the 21st century?
Some contemporary philosophers would argue
that monogamy is more practical from a resources standpoint.
Who has the time and spaghetti budget
to Lady and the Tramp multiple partners.
There's also the problem of jealousy.
I mean, romcoms and ideas like true love's kiss
are so deeply entrenched in our psyches from childhood
that we get a little surge of oxytocin,
anytime we picture our boo
taking some other hottie to the bowling alley.
Our brains literally don't want us to share.
But if that's true, then why do studies show
that polyamorous relationships
actually experience less jealousy than monogamous ones?
Well, in successful poly relationships,
the problem of jealousy is addressed
through the idea of compersion.
Which is a relatively new term
for the whole-hearted participation in the joy of others.
It's basically the opposite of jealousy
where you give your partner a sincere high five
after they slept with Channing Tatum without you.
Of course, for folks who aren't into compersion,
engaging in a polyamorous relationship
may simply be more stress than it's worth.
However, contemporary scholars like Harry Chalmers
and Carrie Jenkins lean in the opposite direction.
And some go so far
as to say that monogamy isn't even morally permissible.
Chalmers argues that putting the brunt
of our emotional and sexual needs
on one romantic partner is unfair and unreasonable.
Especially when multiple partners could carry the load.
Why make one person do all that emotional labor?
As for jealousy, these philosophers would argue
that we don't restrict friendships.
So why restrict lovers?
Romantic love, like friendship is an important human good.
Shouldn't we be happy for our partner and ourselves
to have more access to Channing Tatum?.
In the end, it's weird.
We're all mostly locked
into the monogamy framework by centuries of reinforcement.
But of course,
it's up for every person to figure out for themselves.
Monogamy may be a social construct
but so is say, using a toilet.
As University of Washington professor of psychology,
David P. Barash puts it,
"Perhaps what makes human beings special
is our ability to do things that are unnatural.
Whether those things are obsolete
or like monogamy, are socially imposed
and thus new to our evolutionary experience."
But what do you guys think?
Should we override our romantic conditioning
to experiment with new types of relationships?
Is there a future where polyamory is the norm
rather than the exception?
Let us know what you think in the comments.
Big thanks to our patreons for all your support
and be sure to check out our podcast.
Hit that subscribe button
like you're slapping some sense into the romantic era.
And don't forget to ring that bell.
As always, thanks for watching.
And I love you,
platonically, but I still love you.
See you later.
(upbeat music)