dyermaker Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I've heard it said before, here and otherwise. Firstly, despite the claims of some that we're just animals, we DO possess at least one thing above the (rest of the) animal kingdom, and that's an awareness of the consequences of our actions. Just like animals, we possess instincts. But unlike, say a dog, we have the cognitive ability to CHOOSE whether to obey such an instinct. Secondly, there ARE animals who breed for life, monogamous. On a tangent, there are also monogamous homosexual animal couples. These animals are monogamous, but are still capable of functioning with another partner, for example if their mate is seperated or dead. Thirdly, some men, and certainly women, desire monogamy. Monogamous men may not be as popular or have your ear, but they exist. Because our brains are so complex, how do we know whether our sexual desires are instinctual (i.e., wiring) or just merely a product of our rational thinking, which other animals do not have? We're obviously capable of fantasy, who are we to say that our fantasies, if they involve unfaithfulness, are not products of our advanced brain capabilities, and have nothing to do with primal urges? So to those who make the assertion that we're not monamous, how do you do so? As humans we can seperate instinct from desire. How do you know that you're not denying our instinctual monogamy? You have a desire to be unfaithful, so you are. Is it just through some vain attempt at justification that you decide that's somehow fulfilling a biological urge? This thing about women wanting emotional commitment and men wanting as much sex with as many people is likely a product of society. I'm in the minority, sure, but it's not something that I'm after. And plenty of women choose to go after sex sex sex, avoiding emotional commitments altogether. We as humans have a complex emotions, yes. We're also capable of making choices, choices to seek pleasure, or to seek emotions, or both, or neither--we're just cool like that. But who is to say we're wired for promiscuity? When we're in a monogamous sexual relationship (and few would doubt that sex can be wonderful with someone you love, perhaps moreso than a drunken fling) and that connection is severed (e.g., a break-up) we suffer emotionally. Is this emotional suffering perhaps a biological consequence of the fact that we're wired for just one person, and whereas humans are emotionally strong (or at least some of us are) to overcome such emotional pain, it's enough to keep other animals honest? Who knows really, just wanted to start a discussion on an assumption that bothers me. Link to post Share on other sites
Papillon Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I don't think men wanting to hump everything left right and center is a product of society. Monogamy ITSELF is a product of society, a relic of religious and cultural indoctrination. There are many "primitive" cultures (note the double quotes, this is a relative term) who practise polygamy, and it's normal and accepted. I think people are programmed that monagamy is the right thing, and polygamy is the wrong thing. Many people swing, because they've been able to push aside all that cultural baggage. All in all, we live in an artificial world, and we don't even choose our partners on pure biological "fitness" anymore. We use artifical criteria such as wealth, perceived attractiveness (ie being "thin" as opposed to being "fat", this was inverse in the 17th Century, proof that it's an artificial selection), and social status, to choose our mates. Along with all this artificiality we have to drag along a false sense of self-worth, and this directly affects how we see ourselves in relation to the opposite sex. That's why people frown on "swinging" and so-called "cheating", because the way we're indoctrinated to see it as "wrong", we automatically assume that doing it reflects badly on ourselves, therefore the feelings of resentment and jealousy. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Papillon I don't think men wanting to hump everything left right and center is a product of society.Are slutty women a product of society? Papillon Monogamy ITSELF is a product of society, a relic of religious and cultural indoctrination.Let’s change “Monogamy” to “Marriage.” Papillon We use artifical criteria such as wealth, perceived attractiveness (ie being "thin" as opposed to being "fat", this was inverse in the 17th Century, proof that it's an artificial selection), and social status, to choose our mates.If men were once hunters, then there were also good and bad hunters. I can understand the desire to find a more productive hunter. There is also the desire to have a healthy partner. What changed since the 17th century is the perception that being “fat” is unhealthy. Chances are, a physically fit partner is in better health than an unfit partner. Papillon Along with all this artificiality we have to drag along a false sense of self-worth, and this directly affects how we see ourselves in relation to the opposite sex. That's why people frown on "swinging" and so-called "cheating", because the way we're indoctrinated to see it as "wrong", we automatically assume that doing it reflects badly on ourselves, therefore the feelings of resentment and jealousy.Why do some people experience intense jealousy? Sometimes the jealousy is borderline psychotic. Why do so many women hate pornography? I think this jealousy is biological. “artificial world” Why should a high-rise building be less natural than a beehive? Why should a house be less natural than a bird nest? Why should a mine be less natural than an anthill? Is there something wrong with being more clever and versatile than other creatures? Link to post Share on other sites
Author dyermaker Posted March 19, 2004 Author Share Posted March 19, 2004 Originally posted by Papillon We use artifical criteria such as wealth, perceived attractiveness (ie being "thin" as opposed to being "fat", this was inverse in the 17th Century, proof that it's an artificial selection), and social status, to choose our mates. Isn't it just possible that being skinny is like a peacock with big feathers? Peacocks with big feathers have difficulty surviving, because their big feathers are an impedement. Yet the females, who pick their mates, go towards the ones with the biggest feathers. Because if he can survive with that huge impedement, his genes must be extra good. Human males, in the position of choosing a mate, could be attracted to the less fat one, because she's able to survive in the environment without an excess of food--it's what makes her attractive. And who is to say society, which you claim is responsible for human mating behavior, ISN'T a product of biology. I mean, it's not something we fell into, we certainly created it. Who is to say the memes behind our establishment of society aren't of the same breed that told us "me want jane" ? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Go Dyer!!! You are absolutely correct. Nice to see that someone gets it! Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 because she's able to survive in the environment without an excess of food--it's what makes her attractive. But she's not. The one with the fat stores will live longer in a situation of deprivation. The skinny ones will drop like flies Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Monogamy ITSELF is a product of society, a relic of religious and cultural indoctrination. There are many "primitive" cultures (note the double quotes, this is a relative term) who practise polygamy, and it's normal and accepted. Agreed. One cannot argue that monogamy is or is NOT a product of social change. But, therein is the real (relative) question: Does monogamy represent social progression? IMHO, societal progression depends on how well the present generation attends to the needs of future generations. In an extreme microchosim of this concept, parents of a family who allow children to die cease to exist. As long as monogamy increases the survival rate of future generations, it will be the choice of societal progression. Fairly recently in terms of human history, attending to these needs has become a more important factor as human lifespans have increased. It seems it is no coincidence that in cultures (or in nature) with shorter average lifespans, monogamous relationships are less valuable. Link to post Share on other sites
tattoomytoe Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 well it sounds more like personal morals to me. i do not equate sex with love, sex is a physical thing. a relationship is different than sex. i definatley would not consider all the men i slept with as contenders for marriage, or even boyfriends...but it is nice to learn and experience. Monogmy was probably made up by the ugly chick who could only entice one man, so that was how it had to be! Monogomy is also good for less STD's, but that never stopped anyone either! Link to post Share on other sites
soontobesolo Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Hmmm, alot of good things to think about here. Whether or not we are "wired" biologically or affected by our culture to be monogamous is difficult to say. I agree with one of the members who said you might be better off inserting "marriage" for monogamy. Our culture puts a huge emphasis on the sanctity of marriage, but monogamy doesn't seem to be necessary for the institution. It is fully recognized, and even acceptable, that humans may stray from their marriages. Public figures do it and people turn their heads and say, "ah well, they're only human." Isn't it our very humanity that should have us thinking twice before we hurt another human by violating their trust? And yes, as humans we not only have instinctual urges but the ability to choose whether to act on them or not. I find it frustrating when people fall back on instinct as an excuse to behave in ways that hurt others. You can find thousands of websites telling you how to "survive" infidelity, and how to "salvage" your marriage after cheating has occurred. Again I agree with somebody who said that monogamy may be biological in nature, because when it is broken we do suffer emotionally on a very visceral level. With all that said, I took an anthropology course several years back that went into detail on cultures around the world. There are places where polygamy is the accepted norm, and I have to wonder whether monogamy would be looked down upon in such societies. That may seem unusual to us (assuming we all live in western cultures), but it does exist. What does this say about biological influences on keeping to one partner? I pride myself on being open to human choices, but swinging and cheating to me are still issues that frighten me. Maybe frighten seems like a strange word to use here, but I think it applies on two levels. When you are in a monogamous relationship you are placing a huge amount of emotional trust in another human being. You are assuming that your partner desires you, values you, and respects you as a human being who has opened up enough to let you into their life on a very emotional level. To break that bond is to say that those elements are insignificant, which is unacceptable on a "human" level, let alone a cultural level. That old adage came into being for many reasons, "treat others as you would have them treat you." The other side of infidelity that frightens me is the physical repercussion. Today with the advent of aids and more rampant sexually transmitted diseases, isn't it up to us as humans to minimize our exposure to them? Do I hear "survival of the fittest" again? Speaking as somebody who is "older", I can honestly say I had multiple sexual partners earlier in life and wouldn't even entertain the idea these days. I wonder how my daughters are going to be able to have healthy sex lives. Isn't it going to take some of the "magic" out if you have to request a full physical history before you become intimate with somebody? Ah, what the human race does to itself!!! Just food for thought, this is a good topic - it has so many sides to it!! Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Monogamy ITSELF is a product of society, a relic of religious and cultural indoctrination. There are many "primitive" cultures (note the double quotes, this is a relative term) who practise polygamy, and it's normal and accepted. Agreed. One cannot argue that monogamy is or is NOT a product of social change. But, therein is the real (relative) question: Does monogamy represent social progression? IMHO, societal progression depends on how well the present generation attends to the needs of future generations. In an extreme microchosim of this concept, parents of a family who allow children to die cease to exist. As long as monogamy increases the survival rate of future generations, it will be the choice of societal progression. Fairly recently in terms of human history, attending to these needs has become a more important factor as human lifespans have increased. It seems it is no coincidence that in cultures (or in nature) with shorter average lifespans, monogamous relationships are less valuable. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Isn't it our very humanity that should have us thinking twice before we hurt another human by violating their trust? That's what I keep thinking. Apparently, this reasoning doesn't seem to be very common People keep mentioning polygamy. There is a HUGE difference between polygamy and cheating/adultery. In the former, the wives know there are other wives. The families usually live together and cooperate in bringing up the children. Adultery involves deception. People going into a polygamous relationship understand that they are part of a group, though I understand they can still suffer from jealousy. However, nobody is being lied to or led to believe that they have someone's entire affection and full loyalty. Similarly, swingers are not deceiving each other. It is the loss of trust that is so damaging when people cheat. Biologically, there are two imperatives; procreate with the best candidate and guard the product of your procreation. Obviously, there are plenty of 'monogamous' species so one can argue that monogamy is as biologically determined as is polygamy. Either system can fulfil both biological imperatives so the argument that biology requires multiple mates is bogus. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 What are the combinations? These are committed relationships 1 man + (>1) woman *Advantages -The man could have many children -The women can get top-notch DNA *Disadvantages -The man also spends less time with each individual woman and child -The man’s resources are spread thin -Women are now competing with each other, and jealousy becomes an issue (>1) man + 1 woman *Advantages -The woman has more resources *Disadvantages -You can’t guarantee that each man will have a child -Men are now competing with each other 1 man + 1 woman *Advantages -No competition -Both can focus on each other’s needs as well was their children No comittment *Advantages -Men don’t have to commit resources if parenthood cannot be proved -Women can get top notch DNA *Disadvantages -Men don’t have to commit resources if parenthood cannot be proved -Cannot guarantee that a man will father a child -Children could grow up without a father figure -Disease -Disease -Disease How many African countries are being decimated by AIDs? Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 How many African countries are being decimated by AIDs? Has absolutely no bearing or relevance to the point at hand. Is a result of lack of education and good medical facilities and nothing else. Link to post Share on other sites
tattoomytoe Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Monogamy says nothing about social progression. it is just a way for the Man to push religious ideals on everyone. Link to post Share on other sites
InmannRoshi Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Humans are wired for monogamy, and there are several biological factors. The first sign that humans are wired for monogamy is that that the females and males of the species are relatively the same size. When there are huge discrepencies in size between the genders of the species, it usually indicates a reproduction practice where males have to compete against other males for "breeding rights". For example, male elephant seals can be upwards of three times larger than female elephant seals, and they live in a society where the top male usually has a harem of females to chose from, but they don't live as King of the Hill longer than a year because they are always involved in brutal battles for rights, and there's a never ending supply of challengers. As far as primate cousins go ..... Male gorillas, who run large harems, are twice as large as females. Male chimps, who in groups dominate smaller bands of females, are about a third larger than females. But human men are just 15 percent larger than women. Secondly, unlike our other primate cousins, female humans have hidden ovulation. In other primate species, the females give off some indicator that they are ovulating and ready to reproduce, "in heat", in other words. Either they get a rid rear end like the baboon, or they omit an odor. The males copulate with the females during this time, but the rest of the time they have little to do with the females. There's no coupling involved or shared responsibilities in child raising. Its wham, bam thank you ma'am. Hidden ovulation has developed coupling and monogamy, because the evolutionary objective of the male is to spread his seed. The best way to do that with hidden ovulation is to pair up with a female and have sex throughout her cycle, knowing eventually you'll get it at the right time. To just randomly have sex with any female and just keep your fingers crossed that she is ovulating is not an efficient way to reproduce. Why the human primates developed this is still a mystery. Some think that when early humans descended from the trees, we were vulnerable to predators, so the females needed a male around for protection for her and her offspring. Others think hidden ovulaton allowed females to keep one male around for usefullness, and seek out a more desirable male when her time for ovulation actually came. Also, human males are not very well equipped for polygamy. Human males have relatively small testes and produce low sperm counts compared to non-monogamous primates. So to say that promiscuity is the "norm" is not scientifically proven. In fact, quite the contrary. If you do it, its because its your personal choice, not because you're a victim of your biological wiring. Link to post Share on other sites
soontobesolo Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Why do you say the MAN pushing religious morals on everybody? I don't see alot of men solely pushing monogamy............. Again, I'd rather see this as a human issue - treating each other as a valued person, not purely an object of sexual desire. Moimeme had a good point about polygamy - that is a cultural more that has nothing to do with "cheating". Same for swinging, if you are engaging in it willfully then there is no infidelity. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Also, human males are not very well equipped for monogamy Think you need an edit, there. Link to post Share on other sites
tattoomytoe Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 not the man as men.... but THE MAN- as in the ever present do-gooders, or religious nutsm, or WHOM EVER that wants everyone in the world to belive what they say if to be true. Link to post Share on other sites
soontobesolo Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 ok, gotcha Sarah.................. Link to post Share on other sites
InmannRoshi Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme Also, human males are not very well equipped for monogamy Think you need an edit, there. \ gracias Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 moimeme Is a result of lack of education and good medical facilities and nothing else.Do you believe in evolution? Did our ancestors have those facilities? I don’t think more than a hundred thousand years of evolution can be undone in a hundred years. InmannRoshi I think it is related to the way our children are born. In other animals, the newborns can move on their own while our children are vulnerable for many years. To ensure the survival of her children, she needed all the help she could get. InmannRoshi Some think that when early humans descended from the treesWhy are my fingers and toes webbed? tattoomytoe What makes you so sure that there is nothing biological about religion? There are so many religions, and they have been worshiped for tens of thousands of years. Link to post Share on other sites
InmannRoshi Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 If your fingers and toes are webbed, then you must have some sort of genetic defect. Are you suggesting the Aquatic Ape Theory ?? Link to post Share on other sites
tattoomytoe Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 well i am not sure about religion, which is why i question it. but i do not think humans are naturally monogamous, we are very social animals Link to post Share on other sites
clia Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Monogamy ITSELF is a product of society, a relic of religious and cultural indoctrination. Agreed. Monogamy came about as a division of labor back in the old, old, old days. It made more economic sense to work as a unit, where the man went off and hunted, and the woman prepared the food and watched the kids and took care of the house (or cave, as the case may be). Because of this, at the time, monogamy was social progress that benefitted both the man and the woman and was basically necessary to help the tribes succeed. It's questionable to me whether this economic division of labor is truly necessary in today's society. Is it helpful and beneficial, yes. Is it really necessary? No. Our culture puts a huge emphasis on the sanctity of marriage, but monogamy doesn't seem to be necessary for the institution. It isn't anymore, although way back when adultery was a crime (albeit not largely enforced). Marriage came about when private property ownership came about, to ensure that a person's property would pass to their children upon their death. Link to post Share on other sites
InmannRoshi Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Originally posted by tattoomytoe well i am not sure about religion, which is why i question it. but i do not think humans are naturally monogamous, we are very social animals Being social and being monogamous are not mutually exclusive in biology. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts