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

[2sure]

[QUOTE=sxyNYCcpl;2213750]I wonder how many people know that they just aren't the monogamous type, but rather than accepting that and trying to embrace it, they suppress it. They hide that aspect of themselves because they've been taught since the word go that such an attitude is morally reprehensible, while at the same time in far too many cases nudge-nudge-wink-wink is the name of the game when it comes to cheating?

 

Like I said, to each his own. Among consenting adults all is ok.

Sure, many people do not have a comfort level with their sexuality for a number of reasons. If a person doesnt want, or doesnt feel they can be monogamous for whatever reason....and they lie to a partner about that , again, for whatever reason....its deception and betrayal and selfishness.

 

But I think what you are asking is more like....a homosexual that has not come out basically because they have been taught all their lives to suppress that part of themselves. Its painful and a struggle to try to fight your own nature. I dint believe its a choice. Sexuality may not be a choice...but monogamy still is.

[Jersey Shortie]

This is the actual answer:

 

In terms of our body and arousal emotions, No, we are not really meant to be momogamous because we are attracted to many people. .....

 

 

Theres no more discussion to it.

 

That's a completely untrue statement to make. The desires people have for many people and the desire for commitment to one are both chemically influenced. This is what gets to me about this argument. Scientifically, momogamy or promiscuity both have their place in human survival. One isn't more caustic then the other.

 

 

As for the question of whether there are non-monogamous types who

suppress it. Certainly there are. But they don't have to get married.

THis is what pisses women off. A guy claims to want her only and

makes a promise to sexual exclusivity and then starts crabbing about

his rights and the harmless nature of porn (short answer to the whole

"is porn ok" - if your mate is ok with it, YES, if not, NO - if it is that

important, find a new mate who is ok with it, otherwise give it up)

and if he does cheat breaks out the "needs" bit.

 

Yes, this is something that I get personally frustrated over. Guys get into monogamous relationships and then you hear so many guys make excuses for their needs and desires for other women. It's a complete conflict from him declaring his loyalty to you and obviously it is going to make a woman question his real loyatly. I don't expect a man to never feel lust for another woman ever agin if he is dating me. But it's frustrating to care about a guy, have him tell you he cares about you enough to be in an exclusive relationship with you, but then turn around and makes excuses for his need and desire to seek out other women, even if it is through *just* porn.

 

Why do you bother getting into a relationship to begin with? I am fine with a guy wanting alot of different women. If he wants that, please go get that. But please stop pretending you want a real monogamous relationship with one woman when what it really seems like what *most* guys want is a relationship where the woman is loyal to him and he can turn around and get his needs met anywhere short of physically sleeping with other women. Because that has somehow become the current culture climate idea of being loyal.

 

I mean really I get it. Men are men. But you know what? Women are women. And a woman's need for a man to be committed to her is no less valid then a man's desire for sex. And when a man says he is committed to you *BUT* he needs x, y and z as a man that go beyond you, it's plain hurtful and confusing to what he earlier expressed in regards to his loyatly to you.

[Taramere]

This is the actual answer:

 

In terms of our body and arousal emotions, No, we are not really meant to be momogamous because we are attracted to many people.

 

In terms of the whole HUMAN, YES, because we have a conscience, and the power of our conscience HEAVILY OUTWEIGHS the power of bodily emotions by miles.

Therefore, we can stop ourselves from going off with the hottest women with the hottest body/looks/legs and the most fun/cool personalities BECAUSE OF our CONSCIENCE. So listen, ladies and gentlemen, this argument is NEVER an excuse for any cheating.

 

There's no more discussion to it.

 

Wow. I often worry that my pondering monologues are conversation-killers, but that's the effect you're actively aiming for. Errr.....congratulations?

[sxyNYCcpl]

Guys get into monogamous relationships and then you hear so many guys make excuses for their needs and desires for other women.

 

There is a difference between acknowledging (but not acting on) an attraction to another human besides your partner, and acknowledging, not only to yourself, but to others as well that you do not wish to have a monogamous relationship. Relationships do not require monogamy to be successful, though if one party expects it and the other does not that is a recipe for disaster.

 

Once again I will say to you that your expectations of a human being never being attracted to a member of the opposite sex while in a relationship are simply counter to human nature. It's literally impossible. I do agree with your unspoken point, though, and that is that if you are someone who does not want monogamy, do not mislead your partner about that. That will probably lead to the relationship dissolving if you are not of like minds about that issue, but that's okay because that relationship should dissolve. Monogamists and non-monogamists are not compatible, though I suppose it is possible to make an educated decision to change.

[Jennifer26]

I don't expect a man to never feel lust for another woman ever agin if he is dating me.

 

 

Once again I will say to you that your expectations of a human being never being attracted to a member of the opposite sex while in a relationship are simply counter to human nature.

 

I don't think JS is saying that she expects a man to never feel attraction towards another woman. I think she is saying that him going out of his way to indulge that lust, through porn, or strip clubs, or even affairs is the problem.

[Jersey Shortie]

 

Once again I will say to you that your expectations of a human being never being attracted to a member of the opposite sex while in a relationship are simply counter to human nature.

 

 

Hi SxyNYccpl, did you really read my post? If you had you would have seen me say this:

 

I don't expect a man to never feel lust for another woman ever agin if he is dating me. But it's frustrating to care about a guy, have him tell you he cares about you enough to be in an exclusive relationship with you, but then turn around and makes excuses for his need and desire to seek out other women, even if it is through *just* porn.

 

 

 

Thanks for listening!

[burning 4 revenge]

Wow. I often worry that my pondering monologues are conversation-killers

haha, sometimes, but only because you say things so well there's nothing left to add

[NoIDidn't]

The "biological imperative" excuse from men who cheat is just insulting.

 

Especially when they consider that most of the other mammals with the "biological imperative" they are claiming to be operating under, only have lots of sex during mating season.

 

I'll give that human women are fertile more often than other mammals are, but these cheating men aren't checking for her fertility period. If anything, they make a point of trying to avoid that as they aren't looking to procreate like the non-monogamous animals they claim to be imitating.

[luvstarved]

We have lots of needs and urges that we keep in check...

 

I think part of the problem is that because these particular urges (attraction to other people) feel good, people tend to CULTIVATE

these feelings, when they could be REDIRECTING those feelings

positively back into their monogamous relationship.

 

True in some cases this redirection might be rebuffed...it is also

important to acknowledge, when complaining about men and

porn, etc, that women also need to acknowledge the man's needs

and not expect him to not only not view porn, but to not expect

any sort of sexual compromise/accomodation. Some women

simply treat the man's urges with some contempt, and that is also

not fair.

 

But, I think both parties, if they have entered into a committed

monogamous relationship, should try to fulfill each other's needs

as best they can...I guess this is not always possible, between

biology and communication/compatibility issues, but I think with

real love and consideration and respect it is possible...and it's

sad you don't hear more success stories...

[Jersey Shortie]

That was a great post Luvstared.

[Rooster_DAR]

Please try to stay on topic and leave your religious beliefs out of the thread.

 

Regards,

 

What part of, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" don't you understand?

 

The Bible says, "The man that commits adultery destoys himself," and also:

 

"Such is the way of an adulteress: she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and sayeth, 'I have done no wickedness,'' and also:

 

"Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell," and also:

 

"Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well."

 

Your problem is that you have no fear of God, and of the certain fact that you will stand before Him to be judged for all you have done in your life, according to His moral laws.

 

So many people in our society forget this, or just plain don't care! So to answer your original question--yes, men have a sinful nature that some people label as "polygamous", but it is the Bible which provides the definition of right and wrong.

[GorillaTheater]

Please try to stay on topic and leave your religious beliefs out of the thread.

 

Regards,

 

Looks to me that z1850 was on topic, and why should he/she leave religious beliefs out of the discussion? If you find religious content disturbing, don't read the goddamn post.

[Rooster_DAR]

It's not fair at all.

 

Lying, hiding, and making excuses for these activities is a whole other deal. If you've entered into a marriage, with the agreement of monogamy and you break that deal - shame on you. If the marriage isn't going well, and you're not getting your needs met (sexually or emotionally) or if you just find that monogamy and marriage aren't for you I think you have a responsibility to address the issues with your partner. If no agreement can be made, it may be time to discuss divorce at that point.

 

Yes.

 

However, it does not excuse having an affair. Ever. I cannot stand when I hear others excusing their behavior because their 'needs aren't being met' - it's simply not a good reason. Throughout my marriage there have been many times when I felt my needs weren't being met, and I talked to my husband about it.

 

Whether we're meant to be monogamous or not, I do think if you make a commitment to another person you need to uphold it. If you find it's something you are having difficulty doing, be honest about it.

 

Yes.

 

Further back someone mentioned that while men are very sexually and visually oriented, women too, have needs that that can lead to affairs and not being monogamous. I thought that was an interesting point. So often men are viewed as the 'non-monogamous' ones in relationships, but women often will have emotional affairs and that can ultimately lead to physical affairs. I know for myself, in the past, when my needs weren't being met at home I thought about other men romantically. I didn't want to have sex, but the flirting, talking, etc. all seemed very enticing. I've never actually had an EA, but the thought was there at one point. So I think perhaps women too, may struggle with monogamy along with men, just in different ways.

 

And Yes...! Very good points I totally concur.

[Rooster_DAR]

Looks to me that z1850 was on topic, and why should he/she leave religious beliefs out of the discussion? If you find religious content disturbing, don't read the goddamn post.

 

 

It's off topic, this thread is not asking about religious takes on the subject. Last thing we need is holy rollers quoting the bible.

 

Geez!

[GorillaTheater]

It's off topic, this thread is not asking about religious takes on the subject. Last thing we need is holy rollers quoting the bible.

 

Geez!

 

His(?) post concerned his take on monogamy based on his belief system, and whether based on the bible, the koran, or Kant, so what? Show a little tolerance, man.

[luvstarved]

I also think that the fact that it takes human offspring two decades (or more!!) to mature is a pretty strong argument that we were "meant" to be monogamous...

 

Unless you want to argue that fathers aren't supposed to be AT ALL involved in their upbringing. Some certainly think and act like that but I think most men would feel insulted at that suggestion...

[TaraMaiden]

It's off topic, this thread is not asking about religious takes on the subject. Last thing we need is holy rollers quoting the bible.

 

Geez!

 

GIven that Monogamy is partly instilled into us via religious indoctrination, I think it's highly relevant.

When you marry, (unless it's a civil union or ceremony) you promise, in the eyes of God, to 'remain true to one another as long as you both shall live'

If Religion has nothing to do with Monogamy, and it's off-topic, then I'm a bromeliad.

[redtail]

GIven that Monogamy is partly instilled into us via religious indoctrination, I think it's highly relevant.

When you marry, (unless it's a civil union or ceremony) you promise, in the eyes of God, to 'remain true to one another as long as you both shall live'

If Religion has nothing to do with Monogamy, and it's off-topic, then I'm a bromeliad.

 

That's a good response TaraMaiden, even though I don't agree with you. Your use of "us" is too broad in that context for me. Monogamy, or a moral compass in general for some is dictated by their belief in a diety. But not for me and as such I too agreed with Rooster_DAR that the bible thumping justification of monogamy was inappropriate. But I think you're correct in pointing out that some do.

[Jilly Bean]

I think that monogamy is a much harder and unnatural state for males, as they are built to seed and populate, whereas women are more biologically hardwired to pair bond for life.

[TaraMaiden]

That's a good response TaraMaiden, even though I don't agree with you. Your use of "us" is too broad in that context for me. Monogamy, or a moral compass in general for some is dictated by their belief in a diety. But not for me and as such I too agreed with Rooster_DAR that the bible thumping justification of monogamy was inappropriate. But I think you're correct in pointing out that some do.

 

Rooster's main objection seemed to be that it was off-topic.

Whilst I am in agreement that shoving religious doctrine down the throats of others is highly objectionable, I just don't think that the inclusion was off-topic.....

 

 

But I think mainly, we're in agreement!

[TaraMaiden]

I think that monogamy is a much harder and unnatural state for males, as they are built to seed and populate, whereas women are more biologically hardwired to pair bond for life.

 

Not so...

We're just as genetically hard-wired to seek the best possible inseminator for our eggs to ensure strong genetic traits.....

 

Women too are hardwired to appreciate certain 'good looks'. Psychologists say that women like a man that is very 'masculine' looking-with a square jaw, jutting brow, broad shoulders and a strong chest (think of, maybe, the Marlboro man?). These features indicate high levels of testosterone. High levels of testosterone indicate hardiness and resistance to disease (unless he smokes as much as the Marlboro man). Pragmatically, such specifics suggest good breeding material. The part of our brain that we share with our evolutionary ancestors is playing a big role in what we perceive as sexy and desirable

 

I cannot give the link because it has commercial sub-links.....

[NoIDidn't]

GIven that Monogamy is partly instilled into us via religious indoctrination, I think it's highly relevant.

When you marry, (unless it's a civil union or ceremony) you promise, in the eyes of God, to 'remain true to one another as long as you both shall live'

If Religion has nothing to do with Monogamy, and it's off-topic, then I'm a bromeliad.

 

I agree with your conclusion, while not with the religious indoctrination part.

 

There isn't any real proof that religion is the only thing doing this indoctrination. Before actual religions were on the scene, many societies modelled themselves after some or certain animals. Take Bald Eagles, for instance. Bald Eagles practice monogamy. How many Native tribes revered the mighty Bald Eagle?

 

But I do agree that religion is very much a part of the conversation because so many do currently practice their monogamy (marriage or cohabitating) in the eyes of (a) God.

[Holding-On]

I think that monogamy is a much harder and unnatural state for males, as they are built to seed and populate, whereas women are more biologically hardwired to pair bond for life.

 

I strongly recommend you read "Sperm Wars". It's fascinating. It is true that women have more to lose by sleeping around indiscriminately and genetically speaking men have had much to gain. However, the author makes a pretty good biological case for selective sleeping around.

[JayJ]

NO. And the fact that cultural mores trap us in monogamous relationships punishing us with the legal division of wealth should we decide to follow our instincts to be aroused my sexual newness and variety, has caused untold millions lives of misery, divorce, sexlessness and spousal abuse.

 

Men are genetically programed to spread their seed as far and wide as possible and every day they are married is a struggle to reign in these desires.

 

This is why porn is a multibillion dollar business. It allows married men a sexual outlet involving fantasy newness and variety without (usually) having to pay the price of a broken family unit and the resulting societal punishments.

 

More here:

http://www.heretical.com/wilson/coolidge.html

[Island Girl]

I think that monogamy is a much harder and unnatural state for males, as they are built to seed and populate, whereas women are more biologically hardwired to pair bond for life.

 

Not necessarily although this a widely accepted theory (usually men LOVE to throw this one around as justification for not settling down).

There is another side to the coin.

 

Women are difficult to get and keep pregnant - more so before prenatal care, etc.

Our ancestors dealt with these difficulties along with a long gestation period combined with a high infant mortality rate.

 

Because of this we do not just have one or two cycles a year but monthly intervals for pregnancy.

 

All of this would suggest that the male would have to perform many times all throughout the cycle to achieve conception, then, in many cases, try again and again due to miscarriage or infant death.

 

The likelihood of a woman becoming pregnant by sleeping with her once and then moving on to another and another would reduce his chances of offspring.

While staying with one woman and using every chance possible his odds increased.

 

When conception was achieved it was obviously in his best interest to make sure that baby had every chance of survival. So if that baby didn't survive gestation he was right there to try again. And if the baby made it into the world he would assist in raising the child, protecting it, providing food, etc.

 

As another poster pointed out children are difficult to care for and require assistance in their care for many many years.

 

Both a mother and father would be required for survival.

 

And of course the whole cycle starts again the second the baby is born because parents wouldn't just have one child and then focus solely on that one. They had to have more so that if illness or "accident" struck they were not left with an empty nest (so to speak).

 

This combined with the pheromones released during attraction and sexual contact, etc., as mentioned in the original post, would seem to create a bond of continued attraction which would assist with all of the above.

This strengthens the "created for monogamy" argument considerably.