The seven year marriage

So I heard a theory recently that human relationships may be moving toward a time when monogamous partnerships will span a period of seven to ten years, whereupon, the partners, having lost that loving feeling toward each other will then amicably split to seek others more suitable to their current maturity, interests, whatever they feel are the traits they have most outgrown in their previous partner. There are some definite pros and cons to this idea, so I thought I would explore a few.

Pros: Easing time pressure. Many have fallen prey to the tightening noose of age or availability. People feel pressure from family to find a mate, friends to prove they are worthy of attracting a partner, and from society that there are certain expectations when one ventures into a relationship. All of these factors can contribute to a person vowing to partner with another forever when they are not prepared, not willing, or simply ignorant of the full consequences. Young people are expected to make a very important decision when, in reality they may be more suited to solidifying their life partner a decade later than when they are presented with the opportunity. So how would it affect people if there were no pressure from society. If it was expected that they partner up with the person of their choosing for the period of time that suited the relationship. Then they could split amicably and move on to a more mature partner, and what if there were no time pressure because most of the people in their generation were doing the same thing so at any given moment there were a significant pool of available singles to choose from for your next string of monogamous years. Would this lead to more general satisfaction, possibly more intellectual growth or more brain activity into the later years of life as our brains must adjust to a new person with new interests every decade or so of our lives?

Allowing personal growth. It is hard to know what a person in their twenties will be like in their thirties or forties. Will their interests or career change? Will they still feel the same way about you or will they be bored? What if two people just don’t mature in the same direction or at the same pace. Many people complain about the excitement of newlywed life fading into a stagnant place of boredom. What if there were a no guilt escape hatch at the end of that gray place where people would agree to seek other partners peacefully. What if everyone did it to the point that angry fights and litigation were no longer necessary. It is relatively well established that humans need struggle, in the form of goals or purpose: something to shoot for, to maintain a desire for living. People who are denied struggle are often depressed and suicidal. Could not our continued goal be a better and better partner? Would that influence people to have more satisfaction in life overall? Would people find they were more true to themselves? Would they follow their dreams more because they knew if their partner didn’t approve they could just leave for a saner partner?

More equal opportunity? would a scenario including multiple monogamous partners mean that the less eligible in our society would stand a better chance of finding a partner. Maybe a more eligible partner would submit to having a far less eligible partner because they knew it was for a limited time. Could people with mental or physical deficiencies be able to enjoy a satisfaction that is normally only afforded to those better off? Would this lead to people being more compassionate because they are able to have close experiences with those they ordinarily would ignore. Would it lift the spirits of those who would normally be overlooked for mating to an extent that would in general give them a better, more satisfying life, possibly even alleviating their conditions to a certain extent?




Cons: Misconstruing the basis of a satisfying relationship. It is hard to say, but I wonder how likely it would be, if our relationships were of a temporary sort, even a long term temporary kind, that we would really invest our whole selves in them. If we knew that when our differences with our partner mounted up to a level we did not feel comfortable with we could leave guilt free, would we sacrifice much to accommodate our partner? Would we work very hard to try to bring our partner into our lives? Would we try very hard to understand their feelings and interests? If we were given such leeway to be ourselves that it didn’t matter how well it coincided with another person why would we really, truly care that much about them? We would not have much at stake. What if, then we discover that what makes a relationship truly satisfying is giving of ourselves for another and finding that the other person similarly loves us enough to give of themselves for us. Would we really be motivated to experience that selfless love if we didn’t have to? Obviously many, possibly the majority of American marriages are devoid of this kind of love already so a move to make that state of being more acceptable would have little affect. But what if true love is the complete and most deeply satisfying human experience and it depends on the partners involved being if not selfless, than at least concerned with the wellbeing of another to the extent that they would sacrifice some of their own selfish happiness. Would it really profit the human race to encourage a system that would favor convenience over long term satisfaction? It is already established that married people, men at least live longer lives. There may be something to be said for doing the work that it takes to maintain a relationship over giving up on it for another.

The affect on future generations. There is no mention in the seven year plan about what should be done with the children produced in these temporary relationships. Obviously there is already a large population of children who are the products of divorce, and statistically these children are generally at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts in a stable two parent household. In general I attribute the breakdown of these families in large part to selfishness and most often where I see an overbearing concern with self more than a concern for others I see anger, depression, violence, and most other negative characteristics that keep a person from performing well in society and their own lives. I can’t imagine that a system that would encourage selfishness in relationships would provide much in the way of producing well rounded children that contribute positively to the world around them.

Altering the General worldview. When people find themselves in a loving family stemming from the selfless devotion of parents, it is much easier to learn compassion for others. It would be logical to surmise that parents who were attempting to give of them selves for the love of their partner would find it more natural to teach younger generations compassion for others in general and the value of sacrifice for the greater good. In a society that revolved around short term monogamous relationships as the standard it seems more natural that a more selfish worldview would be taught to future generations. Possibly something more resembling survival of the fittest than opportunity for all. While we seek to pursue modern relationships we may find ourselves throwing out the social evolution that has made humans so superior to animals.


Health Impact. I do not know what kind of health impact these short term monogamous relationships may have. While sex won’t in general be completely careless, those with ongoing std’s will have more partners to potentially pass the diseases to. At the same time there could potentially be more genetic diversity among offspring as there more children by more combinations of people.

These are just a few issues related to short term serial monogamy. What do you think?