How many friends do you sleep in the same room with, wake up to, go to work with, and have fun with? None, right? The thing is, that situation was the norm for most of humanity. It's not a surprise that so many people are neurotic. It's not a surprise that it makes us a bit happier to have that situation partially fulfilled.

I'd like to see a study comparing the happiness of close-knit, tribal, polygamous communities with close-knit, tribal, monogamous communities.

Just to nit-pick - I'm not sure how that study would help you in making your decisions. After all, you are not living in a close-knit tribal community, but in a vast and complex global community. What works in the context of life fifty thousand years ago may very well be disastrous in today's radically different world.

So, what you really need is a study comparing the happiness levels of polygamists and monogamists in today's society, controlling for factors like how deliberate the choice is (as pointed out in the parent comment, some polygamists are so because they can't get a long-term relationship, rather than by choice). I.e. the study referred to in this article - but done properly.

</nit-pick>

It could also be that those who are happy are more likely to end up in a relationship.

The below quotation gives a flavour of what it's like for the Irish non working class, living in or applying for social housing. From what I've read of the book Promises I Can Keep and Charles Murray's Coming Apart it's pretty close to the situation in the US non working class, with the no college working class trending that way.

==

I don’t care if you break up with your significant other, spouse, or what it was, or who was at fault, but if I get one more file like the soap opera I have just been handed this week (you may wish to take notes)…

…wherein Household A comprised of B, C and child D and Household Q comprised of R, S and children T and U have both had applications in for a couple of years for social housing.

(i) Household A’s application failed because the parties B and C were not in communication with us as to whether they wanted to proceed. B did not answer our letter, C did; they’ve since split up and are at different addresses. More letters on our part to the new addresses. B doesn’t answer but C does, he still wants to apply for a house because now he’s with a new partner and they have a new baby. Fine, that’s what we’re here for.

(ii) Household Q’s application has been approved. Except that R and S have also since split up, but they never bothered to tell us, and I only discovered this because

(iii) C and S are now cohabiting. And have a new (third) application in for social housing. All of which means:

(iv) We don’t know where B is; we presume she took child D with her wherever she is now. Maybe she will or maybe she won’t apply for social housing on her own behalf. R’s application which has been approved now has to be nullified or something of the like because the circumstances have changed. R may be cohabiting with a new partner and with a new baby of their own; we don’t know and will have to find out.

Meanwhile, C and S and her children T and U and their new baby W are all in a fourth new address, have a new application in as Household Y, and will have to be processed as soon as we disentangle Household A’s application, deal with terminating Household Q’s application, and enter Household Y’s application with the two persons from A and Q that the computer system – which was not designed to deal with the game of “musical chairs” when it comes to swapping your partners – won’t let us assign C and S to a new application because they’re already on the system with their prior applications.

And that means delay, which means C and S (and possibly R and/or B) will be on the phone yelling at us about being on the housing list with years and why the delay when they’re qualified they’re going to the local paper, their local councillor, their local representative about this!

You can see why I’m all NO CANOODLING UNTIL YOU SORT YOURSELVES OUT AND GIVE US ALL AND I DO MEAN ALL THE PERTINENT DETAILS IN A TIMELY MANNER, I trust?

That's all that happened. It's only "complicated" in the writer's mind because the two families had put in applications in the same apparently-awful social housing computer system.

The complaint about needing this info "in a timely manner" is a bit ironic... the original two applications have apparently been pending for "a couple of years" before the story even begins.

Not a study, but National Geographic did an in-depth piece on the Hadza people in 2009 that you may find interesting. It's available on their web site in full. If I remember correctly, the journalist described them as 'serial monogamists', having many monogamous relationships throughout their lifetime.

I do not like the idea of sleeping in the same room as other people on a regular basis and in general being around them most of the time. I need some privacy or else I get cranky.

Distance makes the heart grow fonder.

It should also be taken with a grain of salt that the conclusion they draw just so happens to fit into several powerful institutions decreed standards of morality.

However only survivors after tens or hundreds of thousands of years are able to log in and comment on HN about it. Some of the abhorrent ancient "wisdoms" are well, ...abhorrent. Others maybe the reason we are still here (as opposed some other people being here, or, no human species at all).

Also, it is probably reasonable to assume the same "morals" the kept a group of hunter gatherers together are today responsible to racism and hate between groups.

To really even begin to look at cause you'd at least want a situation where two very similar groups differed only in one aspect you are trying to measure and then observe how both groups evolved.

Good point. It's important to remember that evolution (including of the cultural variety) ultimately selects for survival. If group A is super happy and peaceful, and group B is unhappy and violent, if group B uses its capacity for violence to conquer group A then ultimately it will be group B's genetic/cultural traits that survive into the future.

It is an abhorrent moral compass.

Your hypothesis is very interesting but from what I've seen of others, this doesn't work well in the long run. There are spikes of more-than-normal happiness but eventually, someone is jealous, someone gets cuckolded (as hard as it is in such an arrangement!) and you crash hard. Not everyone is so far evolved to avoid these problems.

As a guy, I know I am at my happiest when I have one primary woman and side women that the primary does not know about explicitly. Oddly enough, the vagueness of her not really knowing makes her more attracted. But I still have to treat my primary as if she is the only one. This is the only stable configuration I've found.

Doesn't sound very stable if your "primary" finds out about your secondary.

Because most people would, whether they realize it or not, and that is why they agree to commit to a relationship in the first place---because they expect the same from their partner.

Also, your "primary" will know at some point. Is a configuration really stable if it sets the stage for collapse?

No, I wouldn't be OK with it if it was flipped.

"I may do injury to others, but they may not to me."

From observation, many women are NOT OK with it. They may be not explicitly not OK with it (which of course is wrong too).

A few other thoughts:

Causing injury is fine as long as the recipient, and "most of the world," is unaware? The onus is on the rest of the world not to "cause a problem," and for the recipient to point out that injury is being done, and not on the afflicter not to do injury in the first place? A woman should just be happy to be with you "as long as you give her what she needs," which apparently doesn't include fidelity?

I would be less sure.

2) You sound very controlling.

A woman is free to be who she wants to be when she is with me, with the understanding that her fidelity is part of that. Most women want to be monogamous, or at least are serially monogamous. Men are perpetually non-monogamous. I think Dave Chappelle had a bit on this.

2) Also nope! Sorry if I seem a bit amused now. Controlling implies "You have to do such-and-such and be dominated by me, and I don't have to do such-and-such and be dominated by you." My philosophy is that what I expect from my partner, I follow all the way through myself. There is no power issue, because both contribute equally to the relationship.

I will again point out the seeming contradiction between "I don't need to be faithful; my partner[s] do," or if you don't like that, "Men don't need to be faithful; women do." Perhaps that's not what you intend, but it sure sounds that way.

In terms of "controlling," if you expect fidelity from your partners but not yourself, and if you say that expecting fidelity sounds controlling, that would logically imply you are controlling.

Incidentally, I hope you recognize nothing I've said should be taken as ad hominem attacks. Again, I'm just pointing out how many people might take your points.

You use too much passive aggressive language for me to seriously consider your points.

My points are straightforward, so perhaps you're reading more deeply than you need.

I understand why you would say their language is passive aggressive though.

It's been an interesting discussion at any rate. Best of luck!

The number of arguments for 'sexual liberation' in western society has increased over the years, but my limited life experience has shown me that this only encourages a mindset that leads to behaviors that lead to emotional anguish because people begin chasing their next sexual dopamine rush instead of spending time establishing means to care for their longer term needs.

A monogamous long term partner offers benefits that cannot be achieved any other way, and a lot of it revolves around the physiological validation of value that comes with intercourse. Sex, in a manner of speaking, is the acceptance of a person by another that they are viewed as successful enough to contribute in passing on DNA. You could say it is the pinnacle of biological success. This is where most arguments stop with the conclusion that: Sex = Good so More Sex = Better. By doing so they are failing to see the whole picture.

The above conclusion works for many animals; humans are psychologically far more complex than animals. Humanity has to balance many other concerns including: - The well being of other people (primarily their mate) - their desires to progress a career - social standing among peers - emotional distress caused by 'loneliness' - the rearing of children and fulfillment of personal instinct to see them succeed - etc

All of these are areas that benefit from a monogamous relationship because the physiological and psychological needs for co-validation can be met which then frees up mental energy to focus on other things that bring more lasting value to life than the intense yet fleeting moments of an orgasm.