Do you think we're (humans) meant to be monogamous?

[TaraMaiden]

I disagree with your conclusion that its because of Church, State, and National laws (which do fall under: State).

 

Humans are thinking animals. We aren't driven by instincts like wild animals. We lived by our base emotions and urges at one time and decided that it wasn't the best way of life.

Actually, I am sorry, but we are more driven by instinct than you think. it is just modern and hip-technologically slanted.

We live in packs. (family--> neighbourhood--->work environment--->towns/cities...) and we are governed by pack Alphas (dad, local police officer/teacher/priest, supervisors, bosses, mayors, presidents...See the hierarchy?) we 'hunt' (go shopping) and maintain a pack environlment, and mate.

The problem with all of this, is that we select our leaders through intellect alone, which does not always make for good leaders. Not all leaders we elect have what it takes.....The fact that we recognise we still need 'people in charge' denotes a need for survival. If anybody has ever gone on one of these company-organised ventures where your group cohesion is tested, you will always see who the leaders are.....

 

Regardless of what a church or state might decide, before the age of condoms and other means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and STDs, monogamy was the best alternative.

Ok, how far are we going back with this? Because men didn't care, and women were objects of possession, so I am unclear as to where you are going with this. Adultery and sexual promiscuity have existed since the dawn of time.

 

I certainly believe that humans are capable of both monogamy and polyamory-type relationships. But I think our reasoning capabilities are and should be stronger than our base urges.

 

And there is the crux of the matter, right there. if they should be - whay aren't they?

 

Even though polygamy is practiced by many Muslims around the word, they know about jealousy first hand. Allowing our base urges to rule us seems to lead to all kinds of other base emotions showing up: jealousy, anger, envy, hatred.

They show up anyway, don't they?

Is it not arguable that it is by suppressing those base urges that we permit the emotions showing up?

 

I think monogamy is the best choice, but respect that others may not feel that way and choose differently. Heck, I might even choose differently if my circumstances warranted it.

Aaaaaaah.... There you go.

Circumstance.

You have made a choice via circumstance. A circumstance born of.... what? What circumstance do you find yourself in that, had it not existed, MIGHT make you choose differently?

 

So, I agree that its a choice but not necessarily that its a choice only made because of church or state legalities.

So - what then?

 

Yes, but they aren't inseminating all the females in the pack and chasing the other males away.

 

Well....Clinton springs to mind.... And I think the UK has had very few monogamous monarchs....

They don't have to chase anyone away. They are in a position of not having to.

That is the position we have afforded them.

"Top Dog"...."leader of the Pack"....Alphamale...... (and so we come full circle.

 

It's all HIS fault!! :laugh:

[surgngnl]

I believe that it's more about being with one person for the rest of your life. that's what seems unreasonable to me. I can be monogomous within my relationships with no problems whatsoever. It's when the relationship is dying that it gets harder. But when you're happy, truly happy, with your other, then I just don't understand how being with another makes any sense. But once you recognize that you've run your course together, that's when people screw up and make bad cheating decisions. We don't have to be with just one person for ever and ever. That's the beat-in-me belief that I've been fighting against instead.

[TaraMaiden]

I believe that it's more about being with one person for the rest of your life. that's what seems unreasonable to me. I can be monogomous within my relationships with no problems whatsoever. It's when the relationship is dying that it gets harder. But when you're happy, truly happy, with your other, then I just don't understand how being with another makes any sense. But once you recognize that you've run your course together, that's when people screw up and make bad cheating decisions. We don't have to be with just one person for ever and ever. That's the beat-in-me belief that I've been fighting against instead.

 

Relationships die because our needs are not being met, and we are suffering.

But this is as much 'natural' as emotive and psychological.

If the answer were to simply engage with someone else on an intellectual level, then there would be no infidelity.

But many people have 'emotional affairs'. Where mental needs are acknowledged, but there is always the spectre of sex there.

Physical affairs result from a physical need.

Physical needs are largely mammalian urges.

 

I said earlier in the thread that my partner is more monogamous than anyone I have ever met.... he is completely devoted to our relationship.

Because of his devotion to it, I would never ever dream of abusing that premise and consider being in anything more than a monogamous relationship.

 

If I were not with him, though, would I sleep around?

No, actually, I would not.

 

Why?

Because of my social and cultural conditioning.

It would 'go against the grain'.

So I am just as conditioned as anyone else to remain faithful to my partner.

I have always maintained that fidelity is not the issue.

It's the deceit and causing pain, that is the issue.

For me, anyway.

[tami-chan]

I agree. Monogamy is a result of social and cultural conditioning-many, many years of conditioning. It allows for easier control and order in society.

[Skylar]

Relationships die because our needs are not being met, and we are suffering.

But this is as much 'natural' as emotive and psychological.

If the answer were to simply engage with someone else on an intellectual level, then there would be no infidelity.

But many people have 'emotional affairs'. Where mental needs are acknowledged, but there is always the spectre of sex there.

Physical affairs result from a physical need.

Physical needs are largely mammalian urges.

 

I said earlier in the thread that my partner is more monogamous than anyone I have ever met.... he is completely devoted to our relationship.

Because of his devotion to it, I would never ever dream of abusing that premise and consider being in anything more than a monogamous relationship.

 

If I were not with him, though, would I sleep around?

No, actually, I would not.

 

Why?

Because of my social and cultural conditioning.

It would 'go against the grain'.

So I am just as conditioned as anyone else to remain faithful to my partner.

I have always maintained that fidelity is not the issue.

It's the deceit and causing pain, that is the issue.

For me, anyway.

 

Excellent insight...

[LucreziaBorgia]

Monogamy is a choice, and a hard one at that. It requires constant and daily reaffirmation.

 

Desire and attraction for others is a part of our biology and it is something that you have to choose to keep in check or at the very least try to ignore if you expect to remain monogamous.

[stuckinoz]

That's fine, but why would church and state have made it so? Why do we all go along with it?

 

If it weren't somewhere in our dna, we'd be living like animals in packs, with a dominant male. But, we don't.

 

If monogamy were completely against our nature, it wouldn't have caught on as societal/cultural institution.

 

Monogamy is a societal/cultural instutution! Since when?

 

It may be in our DNA on a very small level....But seems to me there's an awful lot of infidelity, swingers, secrets, cheating....etc....going on for us to be created as monogamous creatures. Just look here in LS.

I have friends, who have friends, that know about everyone's infidelities. This guy covers for that guy, this girlfriend covers for that girlfriend. They keep 2 lives. Their "monogamous marriage" & their "fun affair lifestyle" They stay married because of financial security, because of kids, because it's what they know. And if truth be told, the other spouse is probably cheating too. So, no harm, no foul.

[2sure]

It seems that the term monogamy means different things to different people, regardless of the definition.

 

Like I said, I believe it is a choice.

It means deciding whether to have one sexual partner or more than one.

The decision can be based on hormones, cultural expectations, laws, or moral's. Still always a decision.

 

When I think of monogamy / sex/infidelity:

 

I dont think sex with others is the motivation for infidelity as often as we think. I think the real motivation is simpler than that, although possibly ALSO based on a natural, basic, and inherent need. Basically, Selfishness. The need to have a little piece of something secret just for one's self.

Often the sex is just the end result.

 

I know I havent explained myself well, but thats what I meant when I previously posted that sex really doesnt have much to do with the definition of either monogamy or infidelity - for me. Its just the part that we focus on, its tangible.

[confusedinkansas]

I dont think sex with others is the motivation for infidelity as often as we think. I think the real motivation is simpler than that, although possibly ALSO based on a natural, basic, and inherent need. Basically, Selfishness. The need to have a little piece of something secret just for one's self.

Often the sex is just the end result.

 

I know this particular thread is about manogamy - but 2sure - You hit the nail on the head as far as infidelity goes anyway!!! I believe it's EXACTLY THAT. That little secret that is yours ONLY!

As far as just being monogamous in relationships in general.....I don't think we're built that way - for the most part -

I think that those that go thru life being 100% manogamous have worked very hard to do that. But there are some that don't wanna work that hard.

[redtail]

It seems that the term monogamy means different things to different people, regardless of the definition.

...

When I think of monogamy / sex/infidelity:

...

 

This is a definite, this thread has caused me to think about how I define it. Since monogamy/polygamy/swinging/etc all have rules of "engagement", cheating or infidelity is not unique to monogamy. So I think for the sake of argument, isn't monogamy our agreement to a specific behavior? One can wrestle with whether or not nature intended it that way, but I don't believe that argument holds up in court.

[sxyNYCcpl]

isn't monogamy our agreement to a specific behavior?

 

Well, I don't know if you can define monogamy that way, as monogamy has a commonly accepted definition, the issue is that when you get outside of non-monogamy there are different areas, and as you suggested many different rules of engagement.

 

Monogamy is simple- an emotional/sexual relationship that consists of 2 people and only 2 people who (in theory, anyway) remain faithful to one another physically and emotionally.

 

Non-monogamy is not so simple. Is it poly? Swinging? Cheating? FWB?

 

What has surprised me a bit about this thread is the number of folks who agree with the idea that monogamy is not our "natural" state.

[redtail]

Monogamy is simple- an emotional/sexual relationship that consists of 2 people and only 2 people who (in theory, anyway) remain faithful to one another physically and emotionally.

 

Right, that's the generally accepted agreement.

 

What has surprised me a bit about this thread is the number of folks who agree with the idea that monogamy is not our "natural" state.

 

I am too! Not that they're necessarliy wrong about that...

[Trialbyfire]

Monogamy is a choice, and a hard one at that. It requires constant and daily reaffirmation.

 

Desire and attraction for others is a part of our biology and it is something that you have to choose to keep in check or at the very least try to ignore if you expect to remain monogamous.

If someone has to fight themselves this hard, whereby they're always needing the constant affirmation, then IMO, they shouldn't pretend to be monogamous.

 

As difficult as it might be for some of you to believe, for some of us, it's easy to be monogamous.

[Rooster_DAR]

I don't find much evidence to support either really. Not from credible sources that is. So I'm not sure if there is information I am missing or not. But I did want to get your thoughts on the matter.

 

The evidence is all around you in nature, that is if you believe that humans share many of the same characteristics of the animal world. From my experience I believe the answer is no, we are not monogamous by nature.

 

If we did truly evolve from anthropoids and prosimians, that may be evidence enough to support the non-monogamous idea. Very few species in the animal world are monogamous, perhaps humans are no different from the mass.

 

If you just think about it, why do we lust after someone else's GF/BF/Wife etc...? And sometimes it's seemingly impossible to stop the urge or action (Cheating/Adultery). It's probably just an instinctual trait that has much to do with procreation.

 

Can we be monogamous? I think we all can figure out the answser to that question.

 

Cheers!

[Jennifer26]

There are so many interesting replies in this thread, I don't know where to begin.

 

I agree I am surprised that many think we're not meant to be monogamous, not that I disagree with that.

 

One thing my husband once said to me was that it's easier to be monogamous in these days as men. Because of porn. He said men can fulfill (to an extent) that desire for multiple women through fantasy, but remain faithful to their partner. I asked him if there was no porn, if he thought he'd be able to be faithful to me - his reply was yes, of course.

 

I wonder also what nature intended for us women. If men are more promiscuous by nature, and want more sexual partners what is 'supposed' to happen to us once the courting, and procreation period are over? Find a new partner and wash, rinse and repeat? Or are we women who have had children are are towards or past our reproductive years supposed to care for each other in a group? Or are we supposed to be polygynous?

 

And if we are supposed to be polygynous, why are we often so jealous? I can't imagine my husband being with another women. I think that would be absolutely devastating. Is this more because I've been brought up and conditioned to think that this is wrong? Or are we inherently jealous over this type of thing?

[Rooster_DAR]

There are so many interesting replies in this thread, I don't know where to begin.

 

I agree I am surprised that many think we're not meant to be monogamous, not that I disagree with that.

 

One thing my husband once said to me was that it's easier to be monogamous in these days as men. Because of porn. He said men can fulfill (to an extent) that desire for multiple women through fantasy, but remain faithful to their partner. I asked him if there was no porn, if he thought he'd be able to be faithful to me - his reply was yes, of course.

I wonder also what nature intended for us women. If men are more promiscuous by nature, and want more sexual partners what is 'supposed' to happen to us once the courting, and procreation period are over? Find a new partner and wash, rinse and repeat? Or are we women who have had children are are towards or past our reproductive years supposed to care for each other in a group? Or are we supposed to be polygynous?

 

There was a study done by a couple of respected researchers (I can't remember their names) that were tackling these questions, I will see if I can find their findings and post them. One can only speculate, but I think women are not far behind men in that they also want or need more partners, but in a different way than men pursue it (contrary to popular belief).

 

Women are more emotionally drawn to a partner, they are aroused more by the courtship skills a man demonstrates, where men are driven visually by instinct. This is seen as a strength by the female (perhaps subconsciously), which is needed to care for siblings in the long haul as long he can maintain his demeanor. This may also have something to do with women that seem to be attracted to the so called (bad boy), or the Valentino romantic characteristics, they appear to be more adapted and better suited than a seemingly boring average Joe.

 

 

And if we are supposed to be polygynous, why are we often so jealous? I can't imagine my husband being with another women. I think that would be absolutely devastating. Is this more because I've been brought up and conditioned to think that this is wrong? Or are we inherently jealous over this type of thing?

 

Jealousy may have much to do with procreation as well. If survival of the species and procreation are truly as powerful a force as we think they may be, jealousy may be a protection mechanism. Think about this, if we never worried about what our partner is doing, he/she may just as well go off and find another mate abandoning his position as a provider. The offspring may suffer if a single provider/parent cannot provide the nurturing of offspring that two parents can. It's also very difficult to replace a parent that had sibling(s) from a different parent, if you are a single mom you would know what I mean.

 

Again, not all of the above are proven completely (some very speculative), but they sure fit the script pretty well.

 

Cheers!

[luvstarved]

Interesting.

 

My personal opinion is just as we are not "wired" to be physicians or teachers or serial killers, we are not "wired" to be monogamous. We

are a product of our complex genetics...we all have our talents and

flaws...and our experience...and our values, which constitutes the

"choice" part.

 

I think monogamy came about as something of a cultural convenience,

but also as a favored scenario for the majority of people who seek

not only to acheive domestic stability and avoid jealousy and interpersonal drama, but also to forge a uniquely intimate relationship in which they

can be fully themselves, and know and be known as a human at a level

that is not really possible with multiple partners, just on a sheer difficulty

level.

 

In an ideal world, having this relationship would be no more boring and

no less satisfying than we find ourselves to be through the course of

our lives. What I mean is, we find our own twists and turns endlessly

fascinating, and to me there is no reason why being deeply loving and

curious toward ONE someone else would not be sufficient.

 

Unfortunately, many people aren't really, at least consciously, seeking

this know-and-be-known relationship, they're just looking for stability

...typically domestic/sexual for men and economic/emotional for women but please don't slam me for "stereotyping", I AM generalizing...

 

To be satisfied in a monogamous relationship, I think this mutual sustained

interest is necessary. I am saying that I don't think it would be that

difficult to sustain if the interest really were mutual...but when one is

more interested in having one's own needs fulfilled than in openly sharing

the full depth of themselves and seeking that also from another, it's

virtually impossible.

 

That is not to say that people are in denial about what they want...I am

saying that in my observations it is the people who want this type of

intimate relationship who succeed in marriage. I do believe there are people who are not monogamous in their own personal nature - they like people but tend not to want intimacy past a certain level, so ... their

partners do become boring.

 

If I could choose an ideal partner, I would want someone who DOES

want that, as I do...to really get to know one other person deeply,

to that seemingly trite but really profound "two becoming one" level.

Someone who might feel some attraction for others but who feels

a special something for me that not only makes cheating "not worth it"

but...not much of an urge...because...they have something with me that

can't be duplicated elsewhere...something that makes them not

only willing to be faithful but, feeling that what they have with me is

BETTER than that. Not because I am sexier, smarter,better in bed, or more

even termpered, or more flattering to their egos...but very simply, because I am ME.

 

Honestly, to my nature, this seems like the most natural scenario in

the world. And in my opinion any other scenario is not conducive to

HAPPY monogamy...

 

But I admit that I have yet to achieve it, and...doesn't look like I will.

[m-j]

Dishonesty and betrayal tears people apart. Having sex with multiple partners does not.

 

Monogomy may not be key to our survival as humans, but it satisfies our human emotions and personal needs.

 

If a person chooses to have multiple romantic/sexual partners and they are consenting, honest with each other and avoid STIs then theres nothing wrong with that.

[Rooster_DAR]

Dishonesty and betrayal tears people apart. Having sex with multiple partners does not.

 

Monogomy may not be key to our survival as humans, but it satisfies our human emotions and personal needs.

 

If a person chooses to have multiple romantic/sexual partners and they are consenting, honest with each other and avoid STIs then theres nothing wrong with that.

 

Could not agree more.

[redtail]

Interesting.

 

My personal opinion is just as we are not "wired" to be physicians or teachers or serial killers, we are not "wired" to be monogamous. We

are a product of our complex genetics...we all have our talents and

flaws...and our experience...and our values, which constitutes the

"choice" part.

 

I think monogamy came about as something of a cultural convenience,

but also as a favored scenario for the majority of people who seek

not only to acheive domestic stability and avoid jealousy and interpersonal drama, but also to forge a uniquely intimate relationship in which they

can be fully themselves, and know and be known as a human at a level

that is not really possible with multiple partners, just on a sheer difficulty

level.

 

Wow, I like your insight!

 

If I could choose an ideal partner, I would want someone who DOES

want that, as I do...to really get to know one other person deeply,

to that seemingly trite but really profound "two becoming one" level.

Someone who might feel some attraction for others but who feels

a special something for me that not only makes cheating "not worth it"

but...not much of an urge...because...they have something with me that

can't be duplicated elsewhere...something that makes them not

only willing to be faithful but, feeling that what they have with me is

BETTER than that. Not because I am sexier, smarter,better in bed, or more

even termpered, or more flattering to their egos...but very simply, because I am ME.

 

Honestly, to my nature, this seems like the most natural scenario in

the world. And in my opinion any other scenario is not conducive to

HAPPY monogamy...

 

But I admit that I have yet to achieve it, and...doesn't look like I will.

 

Yeah, me too. While it all seems so perfectly natural, rarely is it ever naturally perfect. But, I guess that's for another thread...

[BadKittyNo]

Most people are monogamous, it's our societal norm and the only commonly accepted way to conduct a relationship. I'm sure for many of them, it just feels right to them and always has felt right to them. I believe that it is a combination of nature/nurture although how much of which I have no idea. But for others it may not feel completely right but they believe that it's just how things should be and do the best they can. Some of those succeed, some of them fail. Some wind up cheating while trying to maintain one committed long-term relationship. Some practice serial monogamy and bounce from partner to partner to partner, but only ever one partner at a time and never stay with any of them long-term.

 

Then there is the minority who are not monogamous. Non-monogamy covers a broad range of relationship dynamics. There are people who have multiple casual lovers at once. People who have a committed partner as well as casual lovers. And, people who have more than one committed partner at a time. Non-monogamy is not accepted in our society. Sure, there are plenty of people who have the "whatever floats your boat" attitude, but when it comes down to it, people who are openly non-monogamous are not accepted. Even those "whatever floats your boat" responses are usually followed by a bit of criticism or snark. Most critisicm (that comes from monogamous people) seems to be based on their belief that non-monogamy cannot be personally fulfulling and is in someway inferior to a monogamous lifestyle. Even in cases involving committed, stable, long-term polyamorous relationships. Since it's not the norm, there has to be something wrong with it.

 

And because of that, non-monogamous relationships are not validated or supported. You'll hear people say "that kind of thing never works out" when so many monogamous relationships don't work out either. There are plenty of support networks to help people build and maintain healthy monogamous relationships, but people who are non-monogamous are generally on their own with it. Look at how non-monogamy is portrayed in the media. It seems like if you are not monogamous, you are either a player, hardcore swinger, or polygamist. And your story never has a happy ending.

 

And I think that also feeds right back into it. Most people never know about the happy and fulfilled non-monogamists. Probably because they tend to fly under the radar and aren't publicly "out" about it. I was surprised to find out that the man who I knew as a boarder who rented a couple rooms from a friend and her husband was really the third in their polyamarous triad. No clue. They'd been together for years. No drama at all. But, they didn't feel okay being out about it so only very close friends knew once they decided it was "safe" for them to know.

 

I think there are a lot more non-monogamous people out there than people think. Not a huge number, but quite a few.

[luvstarved]

 

I think there are a lot more non-monogamous people out there than people think. Not a huge number, but quite a few.

 

You're probably right and as I said before I think we all land somewhere on

a large continuum.

 

But I don't think that being attracted to other people is the same as being

inherently non-monogamous. Seeing an attractive person, even to point

of arousal, is just a natural response.

 

Having these feelings overtake you to the point that you frequent porn

or strip clubs or start having sex with other people doesn't even mean

to me that you are inherently non-monogamous...it MIGHT mean that,

or it might mean that your relationship has issues...that you are looking

for fulfillment that you aren't getting from the source you should be

getting it from.

 

Most people who have affairs don't want real multiple relationships.

Most of the time they are looking just for superficial sex and ego

stroking...or without realizing it perhaps, looking for a replacement

monogamous relationship. If they are staying with their spouse it

is either because they don't WANT more from the other relationship

and still consider their spouse their "real relationship" OR they just

aren't certain about long term prospects with the other person and

are afraid to risk their safe haven.

 

I guess I think of a relationship as by definition having a component

of emotional investment, friendship etc. Bopping other people for

sport does not generally include this, even though it might be "friendly".

 

I think non-monogamous relationships in which one has emotional

AND sexual bonds with more than one person are rare ... but I am

a live and let live type and think that the right or wrong of any relationship can only be determined by the people who are in it.

[Rooster_DAR]

Most people are monogamous, it's our societal norm and the only commonly accepted way to conduct a relationship

 

If you mean most people try or want to be monogamous, I would agree. However; most people probably are not monogamous by nature (This may explain why some people cheat). That is, we have the biological disposition to claim more than one partner.

 

Read this:

http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/fys/barash%20on%20monogamy.htm

David P. Barash

[NoIDidn't]

Dishonesty and betrayal tears people apart. Having sex with multiple partners does not.

 

Monogomy may not be key to our survival as humans, but it satisfies our human emotions and personal needs.

 

If a person chooses to have multiple romantic/sexual partners and they are consenting, honest with each other and avoid STIs then theres nothing wrong with that.

 

I agree. Too many people know they have no intention of being monogamous and that one lie causes more hurt than if they were just honest.

[NoIDidn't]

I would love to hear an opinion on this from someone that is elderly. I know that nursing homes and independent living communities are now exploding with elderly swingers and the like, but there is no real conclusion on why they do it other than because they can.

 

It seems like serial cheaters (usually not monogamous is the assumption) eventually settle down with one woman when they deem themselves "too old" to keep up with that lifestyle.

 

What do you guys think?