Who decided monogamy was the best way forward?

Long Onion

Well .... ?

Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?)

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

Any thoughts?

Mr Benevolent

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

You've just answered your own question.

WindSock

Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs?

Also, lame answer: Love

stovelid

Long Onion wrote: »

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted, or what else am I going to say as she might be reading this.

fyp

Long Onion

Confab wrote: »

You've just answered your own question.

I get your point, I suppose I was geeting at the fact that society just expects that monogamy is the default option. Mutual decisions aside, what makes it the default?

WindSock wrote: »

Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs?

Don't quite see what you mean - do you mean that biology pre-programmed men to be monogamous so they would invest in their kids? I would not agree with this - fathers and mothers still have affairs without neglecting their kids.

WindSock wrote: »

Also, lame answer: Love

Not a lame answer, but, I suspect, a common one. Can you only love one person at a time? Or do you remain monogamous because you love the person and expect that this is what they want from the relationship - in which case we are back to the original question about the default option.

I suspect that the whole issue is rooted in insecurity at some level.

Min

Monogamy is the best way to stop the spread of sexual diseases, in Africa where some had more than one sexual partner it was found to be the number one reason for the spread of diseases like HIV.

wudangclan

copy-pasta'd thoughts on robert bakers book 'sperm wars'.

The title immediately drew my interest, but the book description clinched it. Baker explores some recently discovered facts about sex that completely debunk some age-old biological assumptions.


Hogamus, higamus
Men are polygamous
Higamus, hogamus
Women, monogamous


It turns out that this old bit of folk wisdom isn't quite so true or wise after all. What is true is thatten percent of children are not fathered by their legal "fathers"; less than one percent of a man’s sperm is capable of fertilization (the rest is there to fight off all other men’s sperm); vaginal mucus encourages some sperm but blocks others; and a woman is far more likely to conceive through a casual fling than through sex with her regular partner.

In other words, nature itself expects people to be nonmonogamous, at least biologically, and has adapted reproductive strategies to this fact. Society may take a dim view of infidelity, group sex, partner-swapping, and the like, but these practices nevertheless may enhance an individual's reproductive success compared with long-term monogamy.

stateofflux

Long Onion wrote: »

Well .... ?

Who's bright idea was it and why did they feel the need to complicate the lives of a huge percentage of the worlds population? Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans (OT I wonder if some swans have affairs?)

Personally, I am happily married and have never been tempted since I met my wife but prior to meeting her, the monogamy thing was the single most troublesome invention of the human mind since Jesus.

Any thoughts?

we are conditioned in western society to be monogamous by the church and by the government as it causes less hassle and keeps church and govt in power and wealth. in my opinion most people are possessive by nature and can't handle polygamy due to jealousy and/or insecurity ....basically no one wants to risk being alone.......

WindSock

Long Onion wrote: »

Don't quite see what you mean - do you mean that biology pre-programmed men to be monogamous so they would invest in their kids? I would not agree with this - fathers and mothers still have affairs without neglecting their kids.

No, so they know that the kid is theirs and not someone elses. Moreso on the womans side that they are to remain monogamous. This I suppose is more a social condition that arises out of biology.
In regards to childers being born, it would confuse the child on who their parents are and the whole inheritence thing would get complicated.

Not a lame answer, but, I suspect, a common one. Can you only love one person at a time? Or do you remain monogamous because you love the person and expect that this is what they want from the relationship - in which case we are back to the original question about the default option.

I suspect that the whole issue is rooted in insecurity at some level.

Lame as in an easy answer. If you truely love some one, they are your world and you don't want to be intimate with other people. Although some might.

Sea Sharp

I remember hearing that our cousins the chimpanzees are mostly bisexual and regularly partake in gang-rape. I'd say, whilst not being as bad the instinctive human it is not what we like to acknowledge.

It's safe to say that monogamy is the result of religious influence. And it probably made a constructive contribution towards the evolution of the modern human social structure

I'd imagine loose bronze age women were the cause of a lot of killings back in the day.

However now it's 2009, you should view a healthy sex life as being constructive in the same way as a healthy diet or regular exercise.

WindSock

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I remember hearing that our cousins the chimpanzees are mostly bisexual and regularly partake in gang-rape.

Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day. Any agressive uprisings are quickly put down by orgies. They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.

Sea Sharp

They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.

Unlike the Celts, Romans and Greeks. Or pretty much the majority of ancient cultures.

There ye go, a positive contribution to society made by Christianity.

stateofflux

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I'd imagine loose bronze age women were the cause of a lot of killings back in the day.

lol...thats brilliant..:pac::pac:

scanlas

WindSock wrote: »

Up until recently, Biology did. How would any dude know whose kids they were investing in were theirs?

Also, lame answer: Love

There's a 5-15 percent chance the Father you think is yours is not your real Father. If the pill wasn't invented it would be higher. So a man doesn't really know if his kids are his own genetically.

Monongamy was a actually socially constructed, not biologically constructed. Monogamy was constructed in alliance with religion by men to ensure your average man could get a wife and for her to be faithful to him. But it doesn't work very well, it goes against natural biological instincts, that's why you get so many women cheating and having babies through other men. In this paradigm women are treated as property. Property was very important to men. The men who invented monogamy and religion wanted their own property(including women) and to know that their women's children were their own. They mainly wanted protection of their property (including women) which they worked hard for. So they made some rules for everyone to follow:



Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbour.

Sound familiar..............


To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake.
Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?

Poor Uncle Tom

Who decided monogamy was the best way forward?

I agree, it's over rated, Teak and Iroko have excellent qualities for hardwoods as well.

Capt'n Midnight

WindSock wrote: »

Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day. Any agressive uprisings are quickly put down by orgies. They don't have any regard for paedophillia or incest though.

Tis a pity we went down the aggressive route of the Chimps rather than those on the other bank of the Congo.

what a very different world it could have been, it's reckoned that up to 25% of our ancestors died violent deaths from each other

Capt'n Midnight

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Who decided monogamy was the best way forward?

I agree, it's over rated, Teak and Iroko have excellent qualities for hardwoods as well.

Still it's good for the old gas pipes.

johnathan woss

scanlas wrote: »

There's a 5-15 percent chance the Father you think is yours is not your real Father. If the pill wasn't invented it would be higher. So a man doesn't really know if his kids are his own genetically.

Monongamy was a actually socially constructed, not biologically constructed. Monogamy was constructed in alliance with religion by men to ensure your average man could get a wife and for her to be faithful to him. But it doesn't work very well, it goes against natural biological instincts, that's why you get so many women cheating and having babies through other men. In this paradigm women are treated as property. Property was very important to men. The men who invented monogamy and religion wanted their own property(including women) and to know that their women's children were their own. They mainly wanted protection of their property (including women) which they worked hard for. So they made some rules for everyone to follow:



Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbour.

Sound familiar..............


To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake.
Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?

I'm surprised you still post your misanthropic sh1te on boards after your posts on other forums were revealed.

Why do you hate other men so much ?

Poor Uncle Tom

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Still it's good for the old gas pipes.

Tut, tut, hardly the green option, Captain.....:D

Earthhorse

It was me OP. I decided it.

Sorry, I did try and cc you on the meeting request but my Outlook's been playing up recenlty.

****: did this even send. :mad:

scanlas

johnathan woss wrote: »

I'm surprised you still post your misanthropic sh1te on boards after your posts on other forums were revealed.

Why do you hate other men so much ?

Why do you hate men so much? I don't get it.

orourkeda

Eat, Bang and be merry

wudangclan

johnathan woss wrote: »

I'm surprised you still post your misanthropic sh1te on boards after your posts on other forums were revealed.

Why do you hate other men so much ?

this post stands alone as correct,in my opinion.
why attack him for posts in other forums?

Davidius

Monogamy is so much easier if anything. You only have to get one.

Besides, it's easier to keep track of your sperm.

scanlas

It works out better for the men who wouldn't normally be getting sex without it.

orourkeda

Davidius wrote: »

Monogamy is so much easier if anything. You only have to get one.

Besides, it's easier to keep track of your sperm.

CONDOMS

4zn76tysfajdxp

WindSock wrote: »

Read up on our equally close cousins, the Bonobos.They have sex and masturbate all day.

Like me, without the sex part. Rest of it is spot on though.

minidazzler

Personally I don't agree with Monogamy. I would be exclusive with a girl, but only have sex with one girl for the rest of my life???

Whoever I settle with better be into Key-parties.

orestes

Long Onion wrote: »

Surely if we were meant to be monogamous we just would be - like swans

The whole swans mating for life thing is a myth. Was heartbroken the day I found that out, damned romanticism

Dragan

scanlas wrote: »

There's a 5-15 percent chance the Father you think is yours is not your real Father. If the pill wasn't invented it would be higher. So a man doesn't really know if his kids are his own genetically.

Monongamy was a actually socially constructed, not biologically constructed. Monogamy was constructed in alliance with religion by men to ensure your average man could get a wife and for her to be faithful to him. But it doesn't work very well, it goes against natural biological instincts, that's why you get so many women cheating and having babies through other men. In this paradigm women are treated as property. Property was very important to men. The men who invented monogamy and religion wanted their own property(including women) and to know that their women's children were their own. They mainly wanted protection of their property (including women) which they worked hard for. So they made some rules for everyone to follow:



Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbour.

Sound familiar..............


To this day men have trouble with women having pleasure from sex or desiring sex just for the pleasure.It threatens their beliefs in monogomy. Read any forums where women describe how much they like a big c*** or how much they get turned on by a certain type of man and you will consistently find replies from men calling her a slut or shallow or something else ridiculous. The "shallow" accusation cracks me up. They don't call a woman shallow for enjoying eating a cake.
Is it shallow to enjoy pleasure?

I would think your line of argument is slightly skewed. Beyond the need to pump out babies, in most points in history men had very little need for women beyond a bit of sexual release and looking after the house. Men had the jobs and controlled the economic flow, as you so aptly pointed out.

However, the logic that this would somehow make them require a singular lover is very much misplaced.

Be you noble, or serf, your wife was below you.

As such, it would be FAR more beneficial to a woman to be married to a man, and supported by a system that promotes loyalty and fidelity to your partner, as a woman with no support would die in the street, so, she could gut fish, or sell fish...if you get me.

Now, all broad generalities i admit, but applicable to the argument nonetheless.

scanlas

Dragan wrote: »

I would think your line of argument is slightly skewed. Beyond the need to pump out babies, in most points in history men had very little need for women beyond a bit of sexual release and looking after the house. Men had the jobs and controlled the economic flow, as you so aptly pointed out.

However, the logic that this would somehow make them require a singular lover is very much misplaced.

Be you noble, or serf, your wife was below you.

As such, it would be FAR more beneficial to a woman to be married to a man, and supported by a system that promotes loyalty and fidelity to your partner, as a woman with no support would die in the street, so, she could gut fish, or sell fish...if you get me.

Now, all broad generalities i admit, but applicable to the argument nonetheless.

It wasn't easy for those men to get that sexual release though.

Most men were generally low status with little power, marriage allowed a man to lock in a woman and know that her children were his ( or so he thought). Women did benefit greatly from marriage, they got a lifetime of support in exchange for exclusive access to their sexuality ( so it says in the contract anyway). But the rules of marriage run counter to a woman's natural instincts. She was designed to mate with alpha types and diversify her offspring. Marriage and it's connotations combined with a woman's contradictory natural instincts is the cause of that whole madonna/whore complex, or whatever you call it. The reason women are still afraid to express their sexual desires even today is that it makes it harder for her to get a high quality husband and lowering her status. You often hear men say about hot openly sexual women, I'd shag her, but not a chance I'd go out with her or marry her. They fear she'll go around shagging other men. They are in the mistaken belief that the seemingly nice ones don't have the sexual apetite of the openly sexual ones.

So marriage has benefits and drawbacks for both sexes. It's certainly out of alignment for a man and woman's natural instincts.