monogamy

>>I also have doubts that the benefit is due to monogamy.

The problem with monogamy is that you can guarantee you are, but you cannot guarantee your partner is.

The difference is that you can't really convince people to practice abstinence and monogamy.

Your description of human monogamy does not gel with my understanding.

I like that this article focuses on the word "commitment" rather than "monogamy", instead of conflating them like the first article did.

Besides, the notion of marriage enforces the status quo of monogamy.

Does anyone else want to take a different tack here?Perhaps we need to start considering if we're entering a somewhat polyamorous age. Perhaps monogamy makes less sense today.

Instead of monogamy or polygyny, they have two-way polyamory.

Certainly there is a cause-and effect misunderstanding if one says that online dating is threatening monogamy.

The assumption that Christianity, monogamy, or even the nuclear family can be removed with no negative consequences is full of reckless hubris

As we become more secure and confident in our ability to find someone else, usually someone better, monogamy and the old thinking about commitment will be challenged very harshly.

Interestingly, the genetic conflict described in the article approaches zero in species with lifetime monogamy because maternal and paternal fitness becomes the same.

And it's mainly in a voice that's both Machiavellian and threatening...Maybe the level of enthusiasm is all positive and innocent: But reading the recent news, it seems that Spotify has tied itself closely to Facebook, but the monogamy only goes one way.

Is it fundamentally different from, say, alcoholism, or serial monogamy, or any other semi-consciously self-destructive behavior?Of course, there are sacrifices to be made.