home.social

#monogamy — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #monogamy, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1. CW: Article: The Husbands by Holly Gramazio

    One of the best books I've read so far this year (although my review is about three months late!) was Holly Gramazio's debut novel, The Husbands. A proper page-turner that keeps you engaged through all of its twists and turns, I can't recommend it strongly enough.
    Read more: danq.me/2026/09/07/the-husband

    #article #book #books #memorable #monogamy #reading #relationships #review #reviews

  2. CW: Article: The Husbands by Holly Gramazio

    One of the best books I've read so far this year (although my review is about three months late!) was Holly Gramazio's debut novel, The Husbands. A proper page-turner that keeps you engaged through all of its twists and turns, I can't recommend it strongly enough.
    Read more: danq.me/2026/09/07/the-husband

    #article #book #books #memorable #monogamy #reading #relationships #review #reviews

  3. CW: Article: The Husbands by Holly Gramazio

    One of the best books I've read so far this year (although my review is about three months late!) was Holly Gramazio's debut novel, The Husbands. A proper page-turner that keeps you engaged through all of its twists and turns, I can't recommend it strongly enough.
    Read more: danq.me/2026/09/07/the-husband

    #article #book #books #memorable #monogamy #reading #relationships #review #reviews

  4. CW: Article: The Husbands by Holly Gramazio

    One of the best books I've read so far this year (although my review is about three months late!) was Holly Gramazio's debut novel, The Husbands. A proper page-turner that keeps you engaged through all of its twists and turns, I can't recommend it strongly enough.
    Read more: danq.me/2026/09/07/the-husband

    #article #book #books #memorable #monogamy #reading #relationships #review #reviews

  5. CW: Article: The Husbands by Holly Gramazio

    One of the best books I've read so far this year (although my review is about three months late!) was Holly Gramazio's debut novel, The Husbands. A proper page-turner that keeps you engaged through all of its twists and turns, I can't recommend it strongly enough.
    Read more: danq.me/2026/09/07/the-husband

    #article #book #books #memorable #monogamy #reading #relationships #review #reviews

  6. DATE: August 31, 2026 at 09:00AM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: How monogamous and polyamorous individuals envision multiple romantic partners

    URL: psypost.org/how-monogamous-and

    When people imagine having two long-term romantic partners at the same time, a majority envision two people with similar, well-rounded traits, though monogamous men often show a preference for one partner focused on physical attractiveness and sexual skill. These findings highlight how intended time and emotional investment shape human mating preferences in non-monogamous contexts. The research was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

    Historically, research into human mating preferences has centered on monogamy, an exclusive relationship between two people. In this context, researchers have mapped out how individuals prioritize traits like kindness, intelligence, and physical attractiveness in a single long-term partner. Consensual non-monogamy and concurrent mating structures have been present throughout human history and across various cultures. This historical prevalence led researchers to question whether human mating psychology is adapted to generate distinct preferences when multiple partners are involved.

    Ashley J. Coventry, a researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and her colleagues initiated a project to determine whether people prefer the same traits in multiple concurrent partners or if they seek different characteristics in each person. The research team hypothesized that the costs and benefits of certain traits might shift depending on how many partners a person has. For example, a single wealthy partner could theoretically provide enough financial stability for a whole family unit, potentially decreasing a person’s need to seek out high financial prospects in a second partner.

    In their first study, the researchers recruited 267 primarily monogamous individuals. Participants completed a budget allocation task, a method where they received a fixed amount of 70 points to spend on specific traits for two hypothetical long-term partners. This forced-choice format creates artificial scarcity among traits like ambition, physical attractiveness, intelligence, and kindness. The researchers then used a statistical technique called cluster analysis to group the hypothetical partners based on how participants distributed their limited points.

    The analysis revealed two primary categories of ideal partners, the first of which was labeled “well-rounded” because participants distributed their points evenly across traits. The second category was labeled “good in bed and attractive,” where points were heavily concentrated on physical appearance and sexual skill. Nearly three-quarters of the participants preferred two partners of the same type, but over a quarter of the respondents preferred distinct traits for each partner. In this group, male participants were much more likely than female participants to design at least one partner who prioritized attractiveness and sexual skill.

    To confirm these patterns, the researchers conducted a second study with 227 mostly monogamous participants. This study replicated the point-spending methods of the first but added questions about how participants would divide their resources between the two hypothetical partners. Participants rated how they would allocate their financial investment, their daily time, and their emotional closeness across the two relationships.

    The second study produced the exact same two partner categories as the first, with most participants again preferring two well-rounded partners. Among those who desired different partner types, men frequently preferred one well-rounded partner and one partner focused on attractiveness and sexual skill. The investment questions revealed that participants who designed two different types of partners planned to divide their resources unequally. These individuals typically intended to invest more time, money, and emotional energy into the well-rounded partner compared to the partner valued primarily for physical and sexual traits.

    In a third study, the research team recruited 169 individuals who currently identified as polyamorous. Polyamory is a relationship structure where people can have multiple consensual, romantic partnerships at the same time with the knowledge of everyone involved. The participants completed the same budget allocation and investment tasks as the previous groups. This allowed the researchers to test whether the patterns found in monogamous people applied to those actually practicing non-monogamy.

    The cluster analysis for this group yielded slightly different categories. While the well-rounded partner type remained the most common, the second category centered on kindness and sexual skill rather than physical attractiveness. Similar to the previous studies, nearly three-quarters of the polyamorous participants preferred two partners of the same type. Unlike the monogamous groups, polyamorous men and women displayed no statistical divergence in their partner preferences.

    Both men and women in the polyamorous group most commonly designed two identical partner types. While participants who designed two different partner types again reported intentions to divide their time unequally, the polyamorous group generally aimed for more equal investment across both partners. The sex-based variations seen in the monogamous sample simply did not appear among the polyamorous respondents.

    The researchers note a few limitations to the project. The statistical clusters represent general patterns of point allocation in a specific task rather than rigid, real-world categories of human beings. The reliance on a point-spending system forces participants into trade-offs that might not capture how human attraction naturally unfolds.

    The total number of polyamorous participants was lower than initially planned, which can reduce a study’s statistical power to detect minor behavioral patterns. The survey also did not ask polyamorous participants about their specific relationship structures. Some polyamorous individuals practice a hierarchical structure with primary and secondary partners, while others avoid relationship hierarchies entirely. These structural differences likely influence how people imagine investing their time across multiple partners.

    The monogamous participants may have inherently imagined a primary and secondary relationship dynamic when asked to envision two partners, prompting them to assign different traits to each. Additionally, the participant pool was limited to individuals living in the United States. Future studies could explore how specific types of consensual non-monogamy alter these preferences in different cultural settings. The authors also suggest exploring these questions with larger groups of non-binary individuals, as they were excluded from the current analysis to maintain sample parity across binary sex categories.

    The study, “Preferences and Polyamory: Investigating Ideal Mate Preferences for Concurrent Partners in Monogamous and Polyamorous Individuals,” was authored by Ashley J. Coventry, Benjamin Gelbart, Kathryn V. Walter, Tamsin German, and Daniel Conroy-Beam.

    URL: psypost.org/how-monogamous-and

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Polyamory #Monogamy #RomanticPartners #RelationshipResearch #MatePreferences #WellRoundedPartner #Attractiveness #Kindness #IntentionalInvestment #DatingPsychology

  7. DATE: August 31, 2026 at 09:00AM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: How monogamous and polyamorous individuals envision multiple romantic partners

    URL: psypost.org/how-monogamous-and

    When people imagine having two long-term romantic partners at the same time, a majority envision two people with similar, well-rounded traits, though monogamous men often show a preference for one partner focused on physical attractiveness and sexual skill. These findings highlight how intended time and emotional investment shape human mating preferences in non-monogamous contexts. The research was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

    Historically, research into human mating preferences has centered on monogamy, an exclusive relationship between two people. In this context, researchers have mapped out how individuals prioritize traits like kindness, intelligence, and physical attractiveness in a single long-term partner. Consensual non-monogamy and concurrent mating structures have been present throughout human history and across various cultures. This historical prevalence led researchers to question whether human mating psychology is adapted to generate distinct preferences when multiple partners are involved.

    Ashley J. Coventry, a researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and her colleagues initiated a project to determine whether people prefer the same traits in multiple concurrent partners or if they seek different characteristics in each person. The research team hypothesized that the costs and benefits of certain traits might shift depending on how many partners a person has. For example, a single wealthy partner could theoretically provide enough financial stability for a whole family unit, potentially decreasing a person’s need to seek out high financial prospects in a second partner.

    In their first study, the researchers recruited 267 primarily monogamous individuals. Participants completed a budget allocation task, a method where they received a fixed amount of 70 points to spend on specific traits for two hypothetical long-term partners. This forced-choice format creates artificial scarcity among traits like ambition, physical attractiveness, intelligence, and kindness. The researchers then used a statistical technique called cluster analysis to group the hypothetical partners based on how participants distributed their limited points.

    The analysis revealed two primary categories of ideal partners, the first of which was labeled “well-rounded” because participants distributed their points evenly across traits. The second category was labeled “good in bed and attractive,” where points were heavily concentrated on physical appearance and sexual skill. Nearly three-quarters of the participants preferred two partners of the same type, but over a quarter of the respondents preferred distinct traits for each partner. In this group, male participants were much more likely than female participants to design at least one partner who prioritized attractiveness and sexual skill.

    To confirm these patterns, the researchers conducted a second study with 227 mostly monogamous participants. This study replicated the point-spending methods of the first but added questions about how participants would divide their resources between the two hypothetical partners. Participants rated how they would allocate their financial investment, their daily time, and their emotional closeness across the two relationships.

    The second study produced the exact same two partner categories as the first, with most participants again preferring two well-rounded partners. Among those who desired different partner types, men frequently preferred one well-rounded partner and one partner focused on attractiveness and sexual skill. The investment questions revealed that participants who designed two different types of partners planned to divide their resources unequally. These individuals typically intended to invest more time, money, and emotional energy into the well-rounded partner compared to the partner valued primarily for physical and sexual traits.

    In a third study, the research team recruited 169 individuals who currently identified as polyamorous. Polyamory is a relationship structure where people can have multiple consensual, romantic partnerships at the same time with the knowledge of everyone involved. The participants completed the same budget allocation and investment tasks as the previous groups. This allowed the researchers to test whether the patterns found in monogamous people applied to those actually practicing non-monogamy.

    The cluster analysis for this group yielded slightly different categories. While the well-rounded partner type remained the most common, the second category centered on kindness and sexual skill rather than physical attractiveness. Similar to the previous studies, nearly three-quarters of the polyamorous participants preferred two partners of the same type. Unlike the monogamous groups, polyamorous men and women displayed no statistical divergence in their partner preferences.

    Both men and women in the polyamorous group most commonly designed two identical partner types. While participants who designed two different partner types again reported intentions to divide their time unequally, the polyamorous group generally aimed for more equal investment across both partners. The sex-based variations seen in the monogamous sample simply did not appear among the polyamorous respondents.

    The researchers note a few limitations to the project. The statistical clusters represent general patterns of point allocation in a specific task rather than rigid, real-world categories of human beings. The reliance on a point-spending system forces participants into trade-offs that might not capture how human attraction naturally unfolds.

    The total number of polyamorous participants was lower than initially planned, which can reduce a study’s statistical power to detect minor behavioral patterns. The survey also did not ask polyamorous participants about their specific relationship structures. Some polyamorous individuals practice a hierarchical structure with primary and secondary partners, while others avoid relationship hierarchies entirely. These structural differences likely influence how people imagine investing their time across multiple partners.

    The monogamous participants may have inherently imagined a primary and secondary relationship dynamic when asked to envision two partners, prompting them to assign different traits to each. Additionally, the participant pool was limited to individuals living in the United States. Future studies could explore how specific types of consensual non-monogamy alter these preferences in different cultural settings. The authors also suggest exploring these questions with larger groups of non-binary individuals, as they were excluded from the current analysis to maintain sample parity across binary sex categories.

    The study, “Preferences and Polyamory: Investigating Ideal Mate Preferences for Concurrent Partners in Monogamous and Polyamorous Individuals,” was authored by Ashley J. Coventry, Benjamin Gelbart, Kathryn V. Walter, Tamsin German, and Daniel Conroy-Beam.

    URL: psypost.org/how-monogamous-and

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Polyamory #Monogamy #RomanticPartners #RelationshipResearch #MatePreferences #WellRoundedPartner #Attractiveness #Kindness #IntentionalInvestment #DatingPsychology

  8. DATE: August 31, 2026 at 09:00AM
    SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG

    ** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
    -------------------------------------------------

    TITLE: How monogamous and polyamorous individuals envision multiple romantic partners

    URL: psypost.org/how-monogamous-and

    When people imagine having two long-term romantic partners at the same time, a majority envision two people with similar, well-rounded traits, though monogamous men often show a preference for one partner focused on physical attractiveness and sexual skill. These findings highlight how intended time and emotional investment shape human mating preferences in non-monogamous contexts. The research was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

    Historically, research into human mating preferences has centered on monogamy, an exclusive relationship between two people. In this context, researchers have mapped out how individuals prioritize traits like kindness, intelligence, and physical attractiveness in a single long-term partner. Consensual non-monogamy and concurrent mating structures have been present throughout human history and across various cultures. This historical prevalence led researchers to question whether human mating psychology is adapted to generate distinct preferences when multiple partners are involved.

    Ashley J. Coventry, a researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and her colleagues initiated a project to determine whether people prefer the same traits in multiple concurrent partners or if they seek different characteristics in each person. The research team hypothesized that the costs and benefits of certain traits might shift depending on how many partners a person has. For example, a single wealthy partner could theoretically provide enough financial stability for a whole family unit, potentially decreasing a person’s need to seek out high financial prospects in a second partner.

    In their first study, the researchers recruited 267 primarily monogamous individuals. Participants completed a budget allocation task, a method where they received a fixed amount of 70 points to spend on specific traits for two hypothetical long-term partners. This forced-choice format creates artificial scarcity among traits like ambition, physical attractiveness, intelligence, and kindness. The researchers then used a statistical technique called cluster analysis to group the hypothetical partners based on how participants distributed their limited points.

    The analysis revealed two primary categories of ideal partners, the first of which was labeled “well-rounded” because participants distributed their points evenly across traits. The second category was labeled “good in bed and attractive,” where points were heavily concentrated on physical appearance and sexual skill. Nearly three-quarters of the participants preferred two partners of the same type, but over a quarter of the respondents preferred distinct traits for each partner. In this group, male participants were much more likely than female participants to design at least one partner who prioritized attractiveness and sexual skill.

    To confirm these patterns, the researchers conducted a second study with 227 mostly monogamous participants. This study replicated the point-spending methods of the first but added questions about how participants would divide their resources between the two hypothetical partners. Participants rated how they would allocate their financial investment, their daily time, and their emotional closeness across the two relationships.

    The second study produced the exact same two partner categories as the first, with most participants again preferring two well-rounded partners. Among those who desired different partner types, men frequently preferred one well-rounded partner and one partner focused on attractiveness and sexual skill. The investment questions revealed that participants who designed two different types of partners planned to divide their resources unequally. These individuals typically intended to invest more time, money, and emotional energy into the well-rounded partner compared to the partner valued primarily for physical and sexual traits.

    In a third study, the research team recruited 169 individuals who currently identified as polyamorous. Polyamory is a relationship structure where people can have multiple consensual, romantic partnerships at the same time with the knowledge of everyone involved. The participants completed the same budget allocation and investment tasks as the previous groups. This allowed the researchers to test whether the patterns found in monogamous people applied to those actually practicing non-monogamy.

    The cluster analysis for this group yielded slightly different categories. While the well-rounded partner type remained the most common, the second category centered on kindness and sexual skill rather than physical attractiveness. Similar to the previous studies, nearly three-quarters of the polyamorous participants preferred two partners of the same type. Unlike the monogamous groups, polyamorous men and women displayed no statistical divergence in their partner preferences.

    Both men and women in the polyamorous group most commonly designed two identical partner types. While participants who designed two different partner types again reported intentions to divide their time unequally, the polyamorous group generally aimed for more equal investment across both partners. The sex-based variations seen in the monogamous sample simply did not appear among the polyamorous respondents.

    The researchers note a few limitations to the project. The statistical clusters represent general patterns of point allocation in a specific task rather than rigid, real-world categories of human beings. The reliance on a point-spending system forces participants into trade-offs that might not capture how human attraction naturally unfolds.

    The total number of polyamorous participants was lower than initially planned, which can reduce a study’s statistical power to detect minor behavioral patterns. The survey also did not ask polyamorous participants about their specific relationship structures. Some polyamorous individuals practice a hierarchical structure with primary and secondary partners, while others avoid relationship hierarchies entirely. These structural differences likely influence how people imagine investing their time across multiple partners.

    The monogamous participants may have inherently imagined a primary and secondary relationship dynamic when asked to envision two partners, prompting them to assign different traits to each. Additionally, the participant pool was limited to individuals living in the United States. Future studies could explore how specific types of consensual non-monogamy alter these preferences in different cultural settings. The authors also suggest exploring these questions with larger groups of non-binary individuals, as they were excluded from the current analysis to maintain sample parity across binary sex categories.

    The study, “Preferences and Polyamory: Investigating Ideal Mate Preferences for Concurrent Partners in Monogamous and Polyamorous Individuals,” was authored by Ashley J. Coventry, Benjamin Gelbart, Kathryn V. Walter, Tamsin German, and Daniel Conroy-Beam.

    URL: psypost.org/how-monogamous-and

    -------------------------------------------------

    Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: clinicians-exchange.org

    Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

    -------------------------------------------------

    #psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Polyamory #Monogamy #RomanticPartners #RelationshipResearch #MatePreferences #WellRoundedPartner #Attractiveness #Kindness #IntentionalInvestment #DatingPsychology

  9. Google will tell you monogamy offers emotional security and clear boundaries... What it won't mention is that no relationship model has ever successfully contained human desire, curiosity or the need to grow. I am not even starting on boundaries... #relationships #humannature #monogamy

  10. Google will tell you monogamy offers emotional security and clear boundaries... What it won't mention is that no relationship model has ever successfully contained human desire, curiosity or the need to grow. I am not even starting on boundaries... #relationships #humannature #monogamy

  11. You know, you don't have to fit your romantic relationships into specific traditional boxes if you don't want to. As long as what you're doing is healthy for you and any partner you're with, and you're both happy together, that's the important thing🥰

    #relationships #romance #love #polyamory #monogamy

  12. You know, you don't have to fit your romantic relationships into specific traditional boxes if you don't want to. As long as what you're doing is healthy for you and any partner you're with, and you're both happy together, that's the important thing🥰

    #relationships #romance #love #polyamory #monogamy

  13. You know, you don't have to fit your romantic relationships into specific traditional boxes if you don't want to. As long as what you're doing is healthy for you and any partner you're with, and you're both happy together, that's the important thing🥰

    #relationships #romance #love #polyamory #monogamy

  14. You know, you don't have to fit your romantic relationships into specific traditional boxes if you don't want to. As long as what you're doing is healthy for you and any partner you're with, and you're both happy together, that's the important thing🥰

    #relationships #romance #love #polyamory #monogamy

  15. 💁🏻‍♀️ TIL: 🐦💞 Most #birds practice social #monogamy, but only a few species actually mate for life.

    Ornithologist Bart Kempenaers from the #MaxPlanck Institute explains that longevity, predation risk, and site fidelity all influence whether #animals stay partnered. Even lifelong animal pairs don’t always mate exclusively, with “cheating” and “divorce” playing a role.

    👉 popsci.com/science/do-animals-

    #mating #wolves #science #biology #evolution #ornithology #nature #wildlife #swans #eagles #albatrosses #love

  16. 💁🏻‍♀️ TIL: 🐦💞 Most #birds practice social #monogamy, but only a few species actually mate for life.

    Ornithologist Bart Kempenaers from the #MaxPlanck Institute explains that longevity, predation risk, and site fidelity all influence whether #animals stay partnered. Even lifelong animal pairs don’t always mate exclusively, with “cheating” and “divorce” playing a role.

    👉 popsci.com/science/do-animals-

    #mating #wolves #science #biology #evolution #ornithology #nature #wildlife #swans #eagles #albatrosses #love

  17. 💁🏻‍♀️ TIL: 🐦💞 Most #birds practice social #monogamy, but only a few species actually mate for life.

    Ornithologist Bart Kempenaers from the #MaxPlanck Institute explains that longevity, predation risk, and site fidelity all influence whether #animals stay partnered. Even lifelong animal pairs don’t always mate exclusively, with “cheating” and “divorce” playing a role.

    👉 popsci.com/science/do-animals-

    #mating #wolves #science #biology #evolution #ornithology #nature #wildlife #swans #eagles #albatrosses #love

  18. 💁🏻‍♀️ TIL: 🐦💞 Most #birds practice social #monogamy, but only a few species actually mate for life.

    Ornithologist Bart Kempenaers from the #MaxPlanck Institute explains that longevity, predation risk, and site fidelity all influence whether #animals stay partnered. Even lifelong animal pairs don’t always mate exclusively, with “cheating” and “divorce” playing a role.

    👉 popsci.com/science/do-animals-

    #mating #wolves #science #biology #evolution #ornithology #nature #wildlife #swans #eagles #albatrosses #love

  19. 💁🏻‍♀️ TIL: 🐦💞 Most #birds practice social #monogamy, but only a few species actually mate for life.

    Ornithologist Bart Kempenaers from the #MaxPlanck Institute explains that longevity, predation risk, and site fidelity all influence whether #animals stay partnered. Even lifelong animal pairs don’t always mate exclusively, with “cheating” and “divorce” playing a role.

    👉 popsci.com/science/do-animals-

    #mating #wolves #science #biology #evolution #ornithology #nature #wildlife #swans #eagles #albatrosses #love

  20. Is #monogamy just a bad idea, forcing us to repress some of our most basic instincts? Or is it necessary for a functioning society and the rearing of well adjusted little humans? Would our #mentalhealth be better or worse if we embraced the alternatives? I guess it’s different for everyone. Personally, I don’t like sharing my partner with others, but I’m terribly promiscuous inside my own mind, so as a compromise I’m outwardly monogamous. Not very authentic.
    #relationships #sex

  21. Do humans have a high capacity for commitment? One way to find out is to explore the default of nearly all of our romantic relationships: monogamy. Are we wired for it? Scientists have searched for the answer to this for decades. Here’s more from @sciencefocus:

    flip.it/77UWgh

    #Science #Relationships #Dating #Marriage #Monogamy #Humans

  22. Do humans have a high capacity for commitment? One way to find out is to explore the default of nearly all of our romantic relationships: monogamy. Are we wired for it? Scientists have searched for the answer to this for decades. Here’s more from @sciencefocus:

    flip.it/77UWgh

    #Science #Relationships #Dating #Marriage #Monogamy #Humans

  23. Do humans have a high capacity for commitment? One way to find out is to explore the default of nearly all of our romantic relationships: monogamy. Are we wired for it? Scientists have searched for the answer to this for decades. Here’s more from @sciencefocus:

    flip.it/77UWgh

    #Science #Relationships #Dating #Marriage #Monogamy #Humans

  24. Do humans have a high capacity for commitment? One way to find out is to explore the default of nearly all of our romantic relationships: monogamy. Are we wired for it? Scientists have searched for the answer to this for decades. Here’s more from @sciencefocus:

    flip.it/77UWgh

    #Science #Relationships #Dating #Marriage #Monogamy #Humans

  25. Do humans have a high capacity for commitment? One way to find out is to explore the default of nearly all of our romantic relationships: monogamy. Are we wired for it? Scientists have searched for the answer to this for decades. Here’s more from @sciencefocus:

    flip.it/77UWgh

    #Science #Relationships #Dating #Marriage #Monogamy #Humans

  26. monogamy is the way you organize, if you can't trust the rest of the world.
    of course you can't create trust with the partner either but at least you are able to control one person better then many relationships.
    monogamy looses it's purpose when humankind abolishes war.

    #abolishwar #monogamy #control

  27. monogamy is the way you organize, if you can't trust the rest of the world.
    of course you can't create trust with the partner either but at least you are able to control one person better then many relationships.
    monogamy looses it's purpose when humankind abolishes war.

    #abolishwar #monogamy #control

  28. Hey, if I (As a feminist.) go into a relationship with a sexist with the attempt in making them feminist that's fine, right?
    Sure, they violate the rights of anyone who's not a man for fun, but I like them too much.
    Hey, if I (As a vegan.) go into a relationship with a non-vegan with the attempt in making them vegan that's fine, right?
    Sure, they violate the rights of non-human animals for fun, but I like them too much.
    What do you mean that's not real love?
    I understand the premise, but I don't get how you could go into a relationship with such people. You're already starting the relationship wrong. And you can like such a person enough to get into A RELATIONSHIP with them? Yuck. #Relationship #Relationships #Couple #Couples #Monogamy #Polygamy #Vegan

  29. Hey, if I (As a feminist.) go into a relationship with a sexist with the attempt in making them feminist that's fine, right?
    Sure, they violate the rights of anyone who's not a man for fun, but I like them too much.
    Hey, if I (As a vegan.) go into a relationship with a non-vegan with the attempt in making them vegan that's fine, right?
    Sure, they violate the rights of non-human animals for fun, but I like them too much.
    What do you mean that's not real love?
    I understand the premise, but I don't get how you could go into a relationship with such people. You're already starting the relationship wrong. And you can like such a person enough to get into A RELATIONSHIP with them? Yuck. #Relationship #Relationships #Couple #Couples #Monogamy #Polygamy #Vegan

  30. Nice paper out in @PNASNews on the #evolution of #monogamy. It shows that monogamy worldwide mostly appeared as a result of competition for heritable wealth at the individual level, rather than as a way to promote cooperation at the group level.

    pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2514

  31. Nice paper out in @PNASNews on the #evolution of #monogamy. It shows that monogamy worldwide mostly appeared as a result of competition for heritable wealth at the individual level, rather than as a way to promote cooperation at the group level.

    pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2514

  32. You know what would probably blow the mind of your average monogamist? Asexual polyamory people. The next time someone finds out I'm poly and jumps right to talking about sex and threesomes, I'm going to bring up that counterexample and let them sit with what that says about their ideas of love and relationships.
    #polyamory #lgbtqia #asexuality #ace #monogamy #ENM #ethicalNonmonogamy #poly #lgbtq #queer

  33. You know what would probably blow the mind of your average monogamist? Asexual polyamory people. The next time someone finds out I'm poly and jumps right to talking about sex and threesomes, I'm going to bring up that counterexample and let them sit with what that says about their ideas of love and relationships.
    #polyamory #lgbtqia #asexuality #ace #monogamy #ENM #ethicalNonmonogamy #poly #lgbtq #queer

  34. You know what would probably blow the mind of your average monogamist? Asexual polyamory people. The next time someone finds out I'm poly and jumps right to talking about sex and threesomes, I'm going to bring up that counterexample and let them sit with what that says about their ideas of love and relationships.
    #polyamory #lgbtqia #asexuality #ace #monogamy #ENM #ethicalNonmonogamy #poly #lgbtq #queer

  35. You know what would probably blow the mind of your average monogamist? Asexual polyamory people. The next time someone finds out I'm poly and jumps right to talking about sex and threesomes, I'm going to bring up that counterexample and let them sit with what that says about their ideas of love and relationships.
    #polyamory #lgbtqia #asexuality #ace #monogamy #ENM #ethicalNonmonogamy #poly #lgbtq #queer

  36. You know what would probably blow the mind of your average monogamist? Asexual polyamory people. The next time someone finds out I'm poly and jumps right to talking about sex and threesomes, I'm going to bring up that counterexample and let them sit with what that says about their ideas of love and relationships.
    #polyamory #lgbtqia #asexuality #ace #monogamy #ENM #ethicalNonmonogamy #poly #lgbtq #queer

  37. Just how monogamous are humans? Scientists break down how we compare with other animals | CNN

    edition.cnn.com/2025/12/09/sci

    #monogamy

  38. Just how monogamous are humans? Scientists break down how we compare with other animals | CNN

    edition.cnn.com/2025/12/09/sci

  39. A scientist produced a monogamy ranking of dozens of mammals, including humans.

    From @WSJ: "Humans are less monogamous than some mice but rank higher than one breed of sheep."

    Gift link: flip.it/7nkbWY

    #Animals #Monogamy #Science #Biology #Anthropology

  40. A scientist produced a monogamy ranking of dozens of mammals, including humans.

    From @WSJ: "Humans are less monogamous than some mice but rank higher than one breed of sheep."

    Gift link: flip.it/7nkbWY

    #Animals #Monogamy #Science #Biology #Anthropology

  41. A scientist produced a monogamy ranking of dozens of mammals, including humans.

    From @WSJ: "Humans are less monogamous than some mice but rank higher than one breed of sheep."

    Gift link: flip.it/7nkbWY

    #Animals #Monogamy #Science #Biology #Anthropology

  42. A scientist produced a monogamy ranking of dozens of mammals, including humans.

    From @WSJ: "Humans are less monogamous than some mice but rank higher than one breed of sheep."

    Gift link: flip.it/7nkbWY

    #Animals #Monogamy #Science #Biology #Anthropology

  43. A scientist produced a monogamy ranking of dozens of mammals, including humans.

    From @WSJ: "Humans are less monogamous than some mice but rank higher than one breed of sheep."

    Gift link: flip.it/7nkbWY

    #Animals #Monogamy #Science #Biology #Anthropology

  44. Shameless #Sexuality: More than Monogamy Panel

    youtube.com/watch?v=1GUc0r9urY

    #ICYMI

    From #pansexuality to #polyamory, join us for a discussion that is guaranteed to be about More than #Monogamy, featuring:

    Janice Selbie
    Founder of CORT, Divorcing Religion Workshop, & Shameless Sexuality: Life After #Purity Culture, Divorcing #Religion
    Keith Mullin
    Mandisa Thomas
    - Founder and President, Black Nonbelievers
    Marie LePage
    Sheldon and Katherine Roberts

  45. Shameless #Sexuality: More than Monogamy Panel

    youtube.com/watch?v=1GUc0r9urY

    #ICYMI

    From #pansexuality to #polyamory, join us for a discussion that is guaranteed to be about More than #Monogamy, featuring:

    Janice Selbie
    Founder of CORT, Divorcing Religion Workshop, & Shameless Sexuality: Life After #Purity Culture, Divorcing #Religion
    Keith Mullin
    Mandisa Thomas
    - Founder and President, Black Nonbelievers
    Marie LePage
    Sheldon and Katherine Roberts

  46. Shameless #Sexuality: More than Monogamy Panel

    youtube.com/watch?v=1GUc0r9urY

    #ICYMI

    From #pansexuality to #polyamory, join us for a discussion that is guaranteed to be about More than #Monogamy, featuring:

    Janice Selbie
    Founder of CORT, Divorcing Religion Workshop, & Shameless Sexuality: Life After #Purity Culture, Divorcing #Religion
    Keith Mullin
    Mandisa Thomas
    - Founder and President, Black Nonbelievers
    Marie LePage
    Sheldon and Katherine Roberts

  47. Shameless #Sexuality: More than Monogamy Panel

    youtube.com/watch?v=1GUc0r9urY

    #ICYMI

    From #pansexuality to #polyamory, join us for a discussion that is guaranteed to be about More than #Monogamy, featuring:

    Janice Selbie
    Founder of CORT, Divorcing Religion Workshop, & Shameless Sexuality: Life After #Purity Culture, Divorcing #Religion
    Keith Mullin
    Mandisa Thomas
    - Founder and President, Black Nonbelievers
    Marie LePage
    Sheldon and Katherine Roberts

  48. Shameless #Sexuality: More than Monogamy Panel

    youtube.com/watch?v=1GUc0r9urY

    #ICYMI

    From #pansexuality to #polyamory, join us for a discussion that is guaranteed to be about More than #Monogamy, featuring:

    Janice Selbie
    Founder of CORT, Divorcing Religion Workshop, & Shameless Sexuality: Life After #Purity Culture, Divorcing #Religion
    Keith Mullin
    Mandisa Thomas
    - Founder and President, Black Nonbelievers
    Marie LePage
    Sheldon and Katherine Roberts

  49. My first iOS app is finally available on the App Store! I am really excited about this and super hyped about everyone who gives it a try or shares it 🥰

    Relationship Menu is an app that can help people to reflect on what they need and want in a relationship - alone or together with one or multiple partners.

    Get it here: apps.apple.com/app/id6746169721

    You can also use it on the web: relationshipmenu.org

    #SwiftUI #Swift #iosdev #relationship #polyamory #monogamy #nonmonogamy #indiedev #ios26

  50. My first iOS app is finally available on the App Store! I am really excited about this and super hyped about everyone who gives it a try or shares it 🥰

    Relationship Menu is an app that can help people to reflect on what they need and want in a relationship - alone or together with one or multiple partners.

    Get it here: apps.apple.com/app/id6746169721

    You can also use it on the web: relationshipmenu.org

    #SwiftUI #Swift #iosdev #relationship #polyamory #monogamy #nonmonogamy #indiedev #ios26

  51. My first iOS app is finally available on the App Store! I am really excited about this and super hyped about everyone who gives it a try or shares it 🥰

    Relationship Menu is an app that can help people to reflect on what they need and want in a relationship - alone or together with one or multiple partners.

    Get it here: apps.apple.com/app/id6746169721

    You can also use it on the web: relationshipmenu.org

    #SwiftUI #Swift #iosdev #relationship #polyamory #monogamy #nonmonogamy #indiedev #ios26