Monogamy - Human nature or Unrealistic Social Ideal

[opus10no2]

And what are the differences in the sexes? 

[wishful thinker]

Um, you don't know?

In a world absent religious and social constraints/ customs, men would probably have sex with anything and anyone 

Women, since they are able/designed to have children are not likely to be so promiscuous (unless they live in the north of England, of course  )

[prometheus]

One cannot really dispute that humans have a nature of being polygamous, both males and females.


Doesn't mean one can't make a conscious or cultural choice to be monogamous, if that turns out better.


Just as humans could be culturally favouring polygamy if their nature was monogamous.

[jlh]

Well, polygamy is illegal in the USA due to the 19th century struggle with the Mormans...

The reason it's illegal and not going to change?? The Defense of Marriage Act, which was written to prohibit a federal recognition of same-sex marriages, specifies that legal marriage joins one man and one woman. If the law is challenged successfully, both the man and woman part, and the one and one part, could be rejected.  [because then gay marriages could happen... GOD FORBID!!!!!] lol

Kind of sucks for the women, who greatly outnumber the men of the world...  In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has 1 million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York 1/3 are gay. The USA as a whole has more than 25 million gay men. Great Britain has 4 million more females as compared to males. Germany has 5million more females as compared to males. Russia has 9 million more females than males. Who knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males...

[shortyshort]

Women, since they are able/designed to have children are not likely to be so promiscuous (unless they live in the north of England, of course  )

  very funny

[counterpoint]

Um, you don't know?

In a world absent religious and social constraints/ customs, men would probably have sex with anything and anyone 

 

And when they are married, they don't...? 

[opus10no2]

Indeed, the design of female human desire is generally different for that very reason.

Thing is, it it more honourable to have an instinctive desire to find a suitable partner to bring up a child, or (more common with males) to have an instinctive desire to have sex with an attractive mate?

Another point, which really interests me, is the importance sex plays in modern relationships.

Saying you have a relationship, which would upset you more?
Your partner having a deep platonic connection with another person, or having sex with another person?

If you love someone, truly, should there be a kind of selflessness - allowing your partner to do whatever makes them happy, as long as they are honest and don't decieve you.

Is the idea of monogamy selfish, rooted in insecurity?

I'm speaking of ideas here...I have felt a need for monogamy myself, and would have felt hurt if someone I felt for even had a strong attraction to someone else.
But I'm wondering if those feelings were based on unrealistic ideals enforced by the modern ideal of monogamy, and not based in natural reality.

[wishful thinker]

And when they are married, they don't...? 

we are taking about monogamy, not marriage.  An adulterer cannot, by definition, be monogamous 

[elspeth]

Women, since they are able/designed to have children are not likely to be so promiscuous (unless they live in the north of England, of course  )

Oy, what are you implying? lol!

I don't think it goes that just because the girl has the kids means she won't be promiscuous though - it pays for a man find one girl who'll let him breed with her and stick with her and make sure his (possibly relatively few) progeny thrive rather than having lots with any girl who'll have him and hoping one or two of the many make good. Whereas the girl is out for the best possible mate to produce said progeny, both in terms of physical characteristics and financial security, so will look around and test the waters until she finds such a mate - and, in strictly biological terms, will have no problem throwing him over for someone better if he doesn't cut the mustard in some way.

Myself, I'm looking for monogamy because, whether or not children are involved (I don't particularly want any kids but if at some point I find I'm pregnant I suppose I'll just have to get on with it), I'm not given to letting too many people get too close to me and I just don't have time or energy for polygamy. I think being in proper healthy relationships with more than one person - as opposed to one night stands or passing fancies - would just be too complicated and too much work.

[prometheus]

Monogamy has to do with reproduction tactics. Also, sperm production is an issue. The more sperm the males of a certain species can produce the more beneficial it is to be polygamous.


The problem is that the reproduction tactic and the nuture tactics contradict each other. Humans can be polygamous when it comes to getting a female pregnant. But once there is a baby it needs to be nurtured and a partner bond forms.

[pianistimo]

i think it's a construct of God.  otherwise - adam wouldn't have had to put up with eve being 'bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh.'  he was probably hurting after that one.  and, so - now - down thru all time - men suffer because of women. 

cosmo magazine says differently.  that men should be excited by a new woman every few months because the old one starts nagging.  i don't know why they gives all these hopes to women and then dash them like that?!

but, then again - probably the people that read cosmo aren't married - or aren't likely to stay married.  monogamy is a mind-set.  i think that it means that you value the other person as yourself - and whatever you wouldn't want done to you - you don't do to the other person.  it's almost like valuing yourself.  you see yourself in the other person completely.  their pain is your pain.  their happiness your happiness.

even though i was joking about the beginning sentences - i'm serious about sufferring for love.  i think when you are willing to suffer - you are beginning to experience what deepest love is.  that not everything is perfect about every person - but that when you find the majority of what you are seeking - don't X out the 1% that you find difficult.  just bear with it and accept it and don't ridicule or minimize it.  make it something that you actually become loving about.  tolerant of.  at the end of one's life- you're not going to care about this 1% anyways.  i think the 1% is useful for arguments at times - but if you overdo it - you can harm your spouse.  trust is important.  just let it go. 

[imbetter]

It's definite that people can be sexually attracted to more then one person (needless to say is a reproductive instinct). This would lead to an unrealistic social idea. Once a man and a women reproduce, as somebody said earlier, the child needs to be nurtured, which in most cases requires a man and a women. So I think most humans are naturally polygamist's to make it easier to find a partner to continue the cycle of reproduction with; But I think after finding a partner and having a child your making a commitment. But after you have a child, polygamy is still a human instinct-though I think after having a child monogamy should be more of a humanitarian thing than a social idea.

Even if it is an "unrealistic social idea" I think it's important that a person finds somebody that they're happy with and can have a child and spend the rest of their life with. So despite human instinct, I think it's in our monogamy is in our best interest.
 

[prometheus]

Polygamy isn't per definition social impossible or bad for the child. Neither is it unnatural.


But you have polygamy practitioners that just have sex with more people while having one  partner and polygamy practitioners that don't have one partner but more than one.

[imbetter]

meaning sluts? 

[mcgillcomposer]

Just venture into the gay world for a day...you'll find that it's definitely NOT human nature.

Oh, and for anyone who was thinking of saying, "ya, well neither is being gay." I beat you to it...oh and one more thing... **** you