To be or not to be mongamous

[Tiger]

That is a question that I'm sure that the evangelical Christians would answer "yes" to even if they liked to go dabble in extramarital affairs. Others may have a more open-minded view on the matter. As I am starting this topic, I'm doing a Google search of the question just to see what I might find. Interestingly enough, my personal opinion is no. People can be monogamous, but it takes a certain level of restraint. I'm not saying we're necessarily meant to be totally promiscuous, though many people are. But we're not beavers either. Considering that a lot of men and women cheat at one time or another, it's not likely that humans are meant to be monogamous, at least not entirely. According to this article, humans are mildly polygamous. That's not a surprising determination. I think the idea of monogamy is more or less a social construct rather than a natural occurrence for humans. I'm not one to say that it can't be done, because it can. However, people need to be more honest about what they want.

 

It's certainly never a good idea to "cheat". My idea of cheating is when you have sexual encounters with people other than your significant other rather he/she is your wife/husband, boyfriend/girlfriend, life partner, or whatever you call him/her without permission to do so. If it's done with consent, it's not cheating, and if that kind of arrangement is better for both people involved, then it is probably a good idea. If there isn't agreement in the area, then there is a potential for cheating. The problem is that many do not communicate about the issue, and cheating becomes an issue about 22% of the time. All-in-all, I thought it would be significantly more than that. It's mostly out of fear that people do not cheat. I have no idea what percentage of people are in open marriages/polyfidelitous relationships, but my guess is less than 10%. Is this because society says that we should or because it is natural for humans to be monogamous? I personally think it's social, but I'm sure someone will disagree.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Tiger

[Nephylim]

These days I would tend to suggest that monogamy is a preferred state, if for no other reason than safety. However, I don't think that monogamy is any more a natural human state than heterosexuality.

 

One of the main genetic drives in humanity is to procreate and than means for a man spreading your seed as widely as possible and for women to take your seed from as wide a gene pool as possible.

 

Another basic drive is the need for companionship and closeness... a need to be cared for and loved.

 

The idea of monogamy came, I believe with a desire to keep bloodlines 'pure', the whole social construct of heredity and legitimacy. Maybe it is a natural progression of society as it evolved but not a basic human drive I think.

[darkfirewolf]

Monogamous relationships are more or less an creation of the churches.

[JamesSavik]

If you were meant for one, then why are there so many flavors of ice cream?

[darkfirewolf]

If you were meant for one, then why are there so many flavors of ice cream?

 

Yeah there are many but only one is the best ..... mmmhhhh hazelnut ice cream:lmao:.

[Nephylim]

Give me some tutti frutti with a liberal sprinkle of nuts... AND some mint choc chip... and a tiny bit of vanilla with pink sprinkles Actually make that a banana split

[Cia]

LOL..Tiger posted a so very serious topic and post and it devolved into an ice cream discussion in less than 10 posts...LOL.. for the record.. I love vanilla, mud pie and mint chocolate chip..they're like Pringles, I can never have just one!!

 

Speaking to Tiger's original post. I don't believe monogamy should be considered "natural". IMO, it is very much a social convention, one highly touted by religions through the ages to preserve the patriarchal society as the dominant culture. I also agree that with the diseases today that monogamy is almost becoming a survival mechanism. If we develop another virulent disease such as HIV and AIDS, I see it becoming even more the society norm. This all does not change the fact that humans are geared to a biological imperative to find the best person to "mate" with. One would think that would provide for a more polygamous society. I was also surprised at the low numbers you posted on cheating Tiger..one would think those number would be higher.

 

From a personal standpoint I believe in being monogamous. Looking is okay, completely natural, even flirting (though not in front of one's sig. other, that is just rude!!) is to be expected. Sexual contact is, however, a violation of the trust that a relationship is based on if both partners aren't open to extra-marital/partner affairs. It may not be in our genetic make-up to be faithful to just one person all the time but we are far from unable to overcome our base impulses. While I have not been adverse to looking and flirting I have been in a monogamous relationship for 12 years. I have not found it to be overly difficult to remain faithful in that time..

Edited November 14, 2009 by Cia

[Toast]

I think there has always been a correlation between sex and the level of freedom in a society. But the biggest factor I think is disease. Monogamy stops the spread of disease. Monogamy was the only way to stop the spread of disease in the past.

[darkfirewolf]

I think there has always been a correlation between sex and the level of freedom in a society. But the biggest factor I think is disease. Monogamy stops the spread of disease. Monogamy was the only way to stop the spread of disease in the past.

 

Wrong .... they had condoms. And they had the abstinence.

[Mark Arbour]

I think there has always been a correlation between sex and the level of freedom in a society. But the biggest factor I think is disease. Monogamy stops the spread of disease. Monogamy was the only way to stop the spread of disease in the past.

 

In the past, as in 200 years ago, or 300 years ago, or in 1000 years ago? Not that it mattters. Let's go back in time to the court of Louis XV of France (reigned 1715-1774). The King, like most of his courtiers, had several mistresses. In fact, they built a house right outside the Palace of Versailles called Les Parc aux Cerfs, where they brought nubile young peasant girls in for the King to f**k. When he was done with them, he provided them with a good dowry and married them off to a man much higher in social rank than they were. Most of the Stuarts were noted libertines, and Henry VIII was noted for his various women. Evidently the fear of venereal diseases did not dissuade any of them.

 

In fact, if you go explore history, you will find that monogamy was very very rare. George III (the King that lost the American Colonies) was a good loyal husband. So was Louix XVI, the one who got his head chopped off during the French Revolution. It seems to me that the moral of the story is that only the dipwads in history were monogamous.

[tomon]

Literally can't answer this question as humans vary so much, there's no answer.

 

I've been thinking about it lots after speaking to some new people I'd met.

 

Some people will never be monogamous or even entertain the idea.

 

Some people that's all they want in life, and will usually go to great extents to make that one marriage/relationship work, which can sometimes be devastating.

 

Some people won't seek a partnership, sex, or any relationship with another person. They just don't and that could be for any number of ideas.

 

I realise this topic is for debate but going off the ice cream analogy, chocolate and mint have dreamt of finding their soul mates from the age of 5 and haven't mixed with another flavour since meeting, vanilla can't help but mix with everyone and this week alone got it on with raspberry sauce and toffee cream, and chilli ice cream really doesn't mix with any other flavour...it just doesn't go.

Edited November 15, 2009 by tomon

[Mark Arbour]

Literally can't answer this question as humans vary so much, there's no answer.

 

I've been thinking about it lots after speaking to some new people I'd met.

 

Some people will never be monogamous or even entertain the idea.

 

Some people that's all they want in life, and will usually go to great extents to make that one marriage/relationship work, which can sometimes be devastating.

 

Some people won't seek a partnership, sex, or any relationship with another person. They just don't and that could be for any number of ideas.

 

I realise this topic is for debate but going off the ice cream analogy, chocolate and mint have dreamt of finding their soul mates from the age of 5 and haven't mixed with another flavour since meeting, vanilla can't help but mix with everyone and this week alone got it on with raspberry sauce and toffee cream, and chilli ice cream really doesn't mix with any other flavour...it just doesn't go.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure that's the question. As I interpret it, the question is are humans naturally monogamous. Yes there are people who find their soul mates and settle down. Some people make the commitment and live up to it. Some do it because they're so ugly they have to. But are they doing it because they want to, or do they have to make a massive, conscious effort to remain monogamous?

[Nephylim]

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure that's the question. As I interpret it, the question is are humans naturally monogamous. Yes there are people who find their soul mates and settle down. Some people make the commitment and live up to it. Some do it because they're so ugly they have to. But are they doing it because they want to, or do they have to make a massive, conscious effort to remain monogamous?

 

 

I'd guess at the massive conscious effort

[JamesSavik]

I've known a lot of gay guys and I've heard a lot of bullshit about monogamy- usually a few minutes before mr. morals tries to get in my pants.

 

I don't know WTF we think we're trying to prove by creating this fiction.

 

Gay guys f**k. Woo hoo and thank god for it. I'd shoot myself if I had a fat assed old hag that I was supposed to be monogamous with.

 

I don't want to be the guy that sits at home on his hands and gets HIV from his lover that been out getting ass-ploughed on the side.

 

I've never met any "monogamous gay men" that weren't full of shit. I'm pretty sure that it is an urban legend.

[Mark Arbour]

I've known a lot of gay guys and I've heard a lot of bullshit about monogamy- usually a few minutes before mr. morals tries to get in my pants.

 

But who could blame them.

 

I don't know WTF we think we're trying to prove by creating this fiction.

 

Trying to prove we're not sluts. It's a deniability thing. It's not working. We know better.

 

Gay guys f**k. Woo hoo and thank god for it. I'd shoot myself if I had a fat assed old hag that I was supposed to be monogamous with.

 

So do straight guys. Monogamy isn't a gay dilemma, it's a human dilemma.

 

I don't want to be the guy that sits at home on his hands and gets HIV from his lover that been out getting ass-ploughed on the side.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is here. If you have a partner that f**ks around, you can only hope that he uses condoms.

 

I've never met any "monogamous gay men" that weren't full of shit. I'm pretty sure that it is an urban legend.

 

And usually a line you hear right before bare-backing.

 

 

 

[shadowgod]

Honestly... if you have to ponder this question the reality is that you are not monogamous. If you are you are. If you have to debate the pros and cons the simple answer is you are not.

[Mark Arbour]

Honestly... if you have to ponder this question the reality is that you are not monogamous. If you are you are. If you have to debate the pros and cons the simple answer is you are not.

 

You make a good point, but the question was whether humans (as a group) are naturally monogamous. An individual may or may not be, but what does his inbred programming tell him?

[shadowgod]

depends on the individual.

 

As humans we have a higher capacity. We can choose to ignore more base drives, or we can give into them. The argument of what is"natural" or not is circumvent, for just as there are polygamous animals in animal kingdom there is also instances of animals who mate for life.

 

So it comes down to the question... If you have to ask you aren't. Don't look to the natural realm for empirical evidence just accept that you (or your prospective) are not ready to be monogamous and move on.

 

Just because one guy cheats... or you feel the urge to cheat doesn't mean that the whole human race is this way. The logic used to draw this conclusion is flawed.

 

Furthermore we need to get away from shoving everyone into to tidy little boxes. Our complexity makes such arbitrary categorization impossible. What is true for one individual today is not true of another or even the same individual tomorrow. We are ever evolving. Today I may be seeing three guys ... tomorrow I could choose one and decide that he is worthy of all my attention.