Monogamy

miec

Is monogamy as straight forward as we want it to be? I ask this question because we have access to meeting a huge number of people, is monogamy easy?

I think the vast majority believe in it, but is it as easy as it sounds? I don't know if it as easy to stay faithful to one partner for life as we want it to be. I am interest in hearing other viewpoints. As for me I don't think it is as black as white as I will stay faithful forever and that is it.

AARRRGH

I think it is something society has created. I don't think it is natural or comes easy for most people, although I do know a few militant monogamists.

Cadiz

I don't think not being monogamous is natural or comes easy to people either. Open relationships seem to make people very unhappy too, in my limited experience.

I don't know what works best. Maybe limited spells of monogamy, 5, 8, 10 years, instead of expecting to be bound to someone for 25, 50 years?

I've had two open relationships, and they worked out well, for the most part. No real issues beyond the normal.. Added advantage was that I wasn't cheated on, which did happen once before. Only rule was that I never met the guys they slept with, and vice versa.

But... I'm past that now. Never been a jealous person, but I want a single partner. Someone for me, and I for them. Simple. And the reason I know I want this, is because I've tried the other, and know the difference.

miec

've had two open relationships, and they worked out well, for the most part. No real issues beyond the normal.. Added advantage was that I wasn't cheated on, which did happen once before. Only rule was that I never met the guys they slept with, and vice versa.

But... I'm past that now. Never been a jealous person, but I want a single partner. Someone for me, and I for them. Simple. And the reason I know I want this, is because I've tried the other, and know the difference.

Would you have felt the same way had you not experienced the two open relationships?

For me I think monogomay is lovely, it is the ideal but it is very difficult to hold on to, there is temptation, etc and it doesn't always work out as we want it to, is it a question of finding the right person or what? I don't know. Is that the case for you, or was it, tried that, bored with it?

miec

miec wrote: »

Would you have felt the same way had you not experienced the two open relationships?

Not really. I was raised to be angry if my woman was with another man. Thats the way our society raises us to be. Our religions, our laws, etc all point to being with one other person. Not to be free with love.

However, I did enter those relationships with my eyes wide open, when i got the chance. Simply put, I met two amazing women, who i would have lost if I hadn't been open to the idea. And I went away with great memories, and am still good friends with both.

For me I think monogomay is lovely, it is the ideal but it is very difficult to hold on to, there is temptation, etc and it doesn't always work out as we want it to, is it a question of finding the right person or what? I don't know. Is that the case for you, or was it, tried that, bored with it?

Everyone has fantasies... For some its multiple partners. For others its that teacher student relationship. etc.

I'd been to strip clubs most of my life, and I always wanted a stripper as a girlfriend. However, the fantasy never matches the reality. I've had two stripper girlfriends, both being open relationships, and I'll never do that again. Either the stripper part or the open relationship part. Fantastic looking women, and great fun to be with, but not my sort of thing once I had experienced it.

Simply put, until someone has experienced the reality behind an idea, they don't really know what they're getting themselves into. I know of very few people that can maintain an open relationship, and even less that can continue doing so for 5, 10, 15 years.. For the most part, people aren't put together that way.. Some are, but they're a serious minority from the people I've met in my life.

asdasd

I think it is something society has created. I don't think it is natural or comes easy for most people, although I do know a few militant monogamists.

Its not just created by society. I never really like that phrase because it ignores the biological impules towards what society creates.

Humans have very hopeless kids.
Humans take a long time to mature.
Men are, historically, the stronger sex and can protect the young.
There is a biological link between helpless offspring and pair-bonding.

ergo, social monogamy is inbuilt.

Social monogamy - which we share with other species - is not the same as sexual monogamy. It is in the interest of both sexes to mix up the gentic pool; that is for a male to spread his seed and for a female to engage in cuckoldry. ( Note that the female still has an overwhelming interest in pair bonding, or social monogamy in this case but the male may not).

What I am talking about here is the ultimate cause of sex - procreation. Thats why it feels good, and why we are driven to it even before we know it feels good ( pleasure and drive). Humans can change the rules of the game with contrception, but not too much the biological rules. We still shack up, even if we dont marry.

There are these two conflicting emotions within us ( sexual promiscuity and social monogamy) - and presumably in most pair bonding animals. But more, in us.

There is plenty of evidence that we have evolved to pair bond and cheat - killer sperm, and higher sexual diomorphism than our pair bonding would suggest. ( Quote: "According to Daly and Wilson, "The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."[12]")


I think we are sexual polygamists, and social monogamists. By design.

asdasd, has your life backed up what you've just posted?

Its all very well and good to talk about things in abstract, but until someone has some actual experience, its just words..

asdasd

Its all very well and good to talk about things in abstract, but until someone has some actual experience, its just words..

that would be the exact opposite of the scientific method. You want anecdotes then the humanities forum may not be the best place to post.

If I were to judge from my own prefereces I would assume people were more or less monogamists, or serial monogamists. Like me. But I know they aren't. Some people are promiscuous.

asdasd

asdasd wrote: »

that would be the exact opposite of the scientific method. You want anecdotes then the humanities forum may not be the best place to post.

Exact opposite of the scientific method? So you think the scientific method would ascribe to pure conjecture without having a basis in reality?

The point is that until experience forms some backdrop for theory, then it remains pure theory. Nothing more.

asdasd

The point is that until experience forms some backdrop for theory, then it remains pure theory. Nothing more.

I quoted and linked to well sourced wikipedia articles. my own personal experiece of life is my own, as yours is your own. As it happens I once dated a stripper. But thats neither here nor there.

Now if you have anything scientific to say, to oppose the idea that humans pair bond socially, and yet tend to be more sexual diamorphic that other monogomous animals - and are thus conflicted please feel free to actually engage in that debate.

The point is that until experience forms some backdrop for theory, then it remains pure theory. Nothing more.

What in God's name are you talking about. The scientists who engsge in these studies measure run their experiments empirically. They get the "experience" from countless people not just from one guy posting pseudonomously on the internet.

Joey the lips

Monogamy - The thread has just started and it is alreadya interesting.

My own feeling on the subject of monogamy. Yes it might be natural to have many partners. Yes it might be natural to have 20+ kids but society does not do that. Now that raises the question do we raise our kids as society want or do we raise them as we seen then needing to be raised.

I have no problem with monogamy. I am in my current relationship 17 years and I am only married 6. I think its natural to look at other women and appreciate that other women are good looking. I hope I never stop this, aside from the bias that society has for a 70 year old man looking at at 20 year old girl. It makes my relationship that bit better being able to appreciate what i have.

But then the actualy act of staying with someone for life is this natural.... I imagine not. But after a while I think the animal aspect dies and the emotional side takes over. I dont sleep with multiple women because I would be afraid of hurting my other half. Thats what it really boils down to. But equally if my other have said she wanted to sleep with multiple men I would be hurt. So really in my case emotions have taken over the natural instinct. I imagine this is what has changed many.

So is the culpret "Emotion" Lets see. Imagine we did not feel love,desire,hate,pain. Then yes our animal instincts would take over. Think of a mentally disabled child. His natural instinct is to eat all the cakes in the packet because he likes them. The normal attitude being though is to share. Is the disabled child wrong! No! If i did it would I be wrong! Yes! Why? Because I have the ability to look at the facts. I think monogamy is the same. It might exist, it might be natural but society has forced us through emotions to think about it.

Kooli

Does anyone else think that where your beliefs lie on this subject will actually have a huge impact? In the sense of almost being a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I would imagine that if someone enters into a marriage believing that marriage is for life and you work hard to get there and you do your best to iron out every problem and you will die together blah blah blah you will have a very different marriage to someone who enters into a marriage believing that maybe monogamy isn't natural, and things fizzle out and humans are programmed to cheat and change partners and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Obviously I'm not talking about across the board, but I don't see how that difference in belief could not have a strong effect on the marriage or partnership.

asdasd

asdasd wrote: »

I quoted and linked to well sourced wikipedia articles. my own personal experiece of life is my own, as yours is your own. As it happens I once dated a stripper. But thats neither here nor there.

Now if you have anything scientific to say, to oppose the idea that humans pair bond socially, and yet tend to be more sexual diamorphic that other monogomous animals - and are thus conflicted please feel free to actually engage in that debate.


What in God's name are you talking about. The scientists who engsge in these studies measure run their experiments empirically. They get the "experience" from countless people not just from one guy posting pseudonomously on the internet.

Ok. Fair enough. So these aren't your opinions rather ones taken from some scientists. Grand.

I asked a question. I didn't object outright to your theory. You've answered. Sorted.

ChocolateSauce

Monogamy is really matter of personal taste in many respects. What defines it? To some people, being poly means forming emotional attachments to more than one person, to others, it means only that you can have physical relationships with people other than your partner, but the relationship is still emotionally monogamous.

It terms of law, polygamous marriages are very difficult as it can't easily make them equal, and most cultures that have them or had them had unequal ones, whereby the first wife had more entitlements than the subsequent ones.

Zombrex

miec wrote: »

Is monogamy as straight forward as we want it to be? I ask this question because we have access to meeting a huge number of people, is monogamy easy?

I think the vast majority believe in it, but is it as easy as it sounds? I don't know if it as easy to stay faithful to one partner for life as we want it to be. I am interest in hearing other viewpoints. As for me I don't think it is as black as white as I will stay faithful forever and that is it.

There is sort of two issues here. It is very easy to stay faithful to one partner for your entire life, since most people aren't forced to have sex with other people. A more relevant question is is it easy to want to stay faithful to one partner your entire life. For a lot of people it turns out that no actually it isn't. They then stay faithful not because they want to but because they either are scared of hurting the other person or feel societal pressure to.

asdasd

In order to move this thread away from personal stories and anecdotes, I am going to post some more links to facts about social monogamy

money quote:

"An impartial observer employing the criterion of numerical preponderance, consequently, would be compelled to characterize nearly every known human society as monogamous, despite the preference for and frequency of polygyny in the overwhelming majority.” (Murdock, 1949, pages 27-28) [36]

And since I mentioned the difference already between social and sexual monogamy ( we are biologically tuned to the former but not the latter) some studies on that.

I dont think this thread is going anywhere unless we aknowledge the difference between sexual and social monogamy.

Kooli

asdasd wrote: »

Humans have very hopeless kids.
QUOTE]

I presume this is a typo?!

asdasd wrote: »

I dont think this thread is going anywhere unless we aknowledge the difference between sexual and social monogamy.

It may not be going where you want it to go, but I don't think you can say it's not going anywhere

asdasd

I presume this is a typo?!

Yes, I meant helpless. Only 65% are hopeless.

Zombrex

asdasd wrote: »

I dont think this thread is going anywhere unless we aknowledge the difference between sexual and social monogamy.

I think we also need to acknowledge the difference between higher moral issues and natural instinct, which comes into the social and sexual aspects of monogamy.

The sexual desire people have to other partners than their main one is often used as some form of justification for acting on it, as if this means we are meant to do it, the way "nature intended". This ignores that the wife being very hurt by such action is also the way "nature intended".

miec

The sexual desire people have to other partners than their main one is often used as some form of justification for acting on it, as if this means we are meant to do it, the way "nature intended". This ignores that the wife being very hurt by such action is also the way "nature intended".

Very good point, and I don't buy into the 'nature intended' arguement re: sexual monogomy, nor do I see a split between the two either. Maybe according to evolutionary phsycology we are designed to procreate and get the best supply of genes, and one can rationalise that a man wants to spread his seed as much as possible but we are emotional people as well. We have a consciousness as well as a primal brain. Both co-exists and as such we have to acknowledge both aspects of our humanity.

Using the above example, the husband may be acting on instinct, but as Wicknight points out it has painful, emotional ramifications for the wife, so the two are interconnected whether we like it or not. If I choose to have sex with another man behind my partner's back, then it is both base and emotional reasons to be unfaithful and that is why it is so hurtful to the other.

But here is another question and I use "Ulysses" as my cue. In it Leopold Bloom's wife has an affair. He knows about it, during the day he goes through a plethora of emotions. He is both angry at her but rationalises that since they have not had penetrative sex for eleven years then he sees himself at fault. Then he asks is her act of unfaithfulness the worse thing that she could do in their marriage, is it worse than murder, theft, physical violence, and so forth. Is being unfaithful the worse thing a person can do in a marriage in the larger scheme of things, when we think of violence, bullying, etc.

asdasd

I think we also need to acknowledge the difference between higher moral issues and natural instinct, which comes into the social and sexual aspects of monogamy.

Sure. However, if every human being in all societies acted according to the Golden Rule then we would neither have infidelity nor war. What the evolutionary stuff I am linking to is trying to explain is human behaviour on average.

There is an argument to be made against free will.Taking both nature and nurture into account I dont see free will as existing at all. Nevertheless we have to assume that people so have free will when it comes to any moral system, or forms of law.

Kooli

asdasd wrote: »

Sure. However, if every human being in all societies acted according to the Golden Rule then we would neither have infidelity nor war. What the evolutionary stuff I am linking to is trying to explain is human behaviour on average.

There is an argument to be made against free will.Taking both nature and nurture into account I dont see free will as existing at all. Nevertheless we have to assume that people so have free will when it comes to any moral system, or forms of law.

Yes maybe it can explain human behaviour on average, but that's not particularly useful in furthering the discussion. Just like saying there is no such thing as free will - yes that may be an interesting argument, but if that is not your day to day experience, then it's purely academic.

We have all moved beyond our evolutionary urges for the most part, and do have to take responsibility for our actions. Our evolutionary history excuses nothing anymore. It helped us to understand certain things, but we are certainly not puppets at its mercy.

If we all lived according to the Golden rule, yes the world would be wonderful. If we all lived according to evolutionary theory, the world would be very different to how it is now. So obviously it's neither.

As I said before, I think that one's beliefs on the matter will definitely influence the outcome, in terms of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

asdasd

If we all lived according to the Golden rule, yes the world would be wonderful. If we all lived according to evolutionary theory, the world would be very different to how it is now. So obviously it's neither.

Actually, in terms of sexuality I think we are acting according to our evolutionary biases. We are social monogamous, and sexually promiscuous. That's my point.

A fully socially promiscuous society would do away with marriage wholesale. We would meet people, and shag them. We would have orgies at work, after the meeting but before the pub. We would have children but farm them out - not necessarily to badly run orphanages but ( like English aristocrats) - to wet nurses, and then public schools. That society could work.

However were we socially and sexual monogamous no-one would cheat.

We are neither.

And we were neither before contraception either. We tend towards sexual adventure - lust - and social monogamy - love. Neither is romantic; both are evolutionary strategies, and nor is it universally the case (many people are sexually and socially monogamous, some are all out promiscuous).

However far from evolutionary rules not describing our nature in, at least in the West, in the 21st century, I think that is exactly what is happening. Prior to contraception, and the decline in religion the desire to cheat or just to sleep around was just as strong but societal pressures against it more were intense.

Now, no-one really cares. And we have, though, not become fully socially promiscuous. We still shack up. We still pair bond.

In this case our evolution - the divergence between the need to pair bond because our children are born weak and helpless on one hand, and the larger sexual dimorphism associated with polygamous species on the other - does explain the modern world, and our contradictory nature.

Zombrex

asdasd wrote: »

Sure. However, if every human being in all societies acted according to the Golden Rule then we would neither have infidelity nor war. What the evolutionary stuff I am linking to is trying to explain is human behaviour on average.

I know, I just draw the line when people start using that as a justification for behaviour (which I'm not saying you are). It explains behaviour but it doesn't justify it. The wife/husband isn't any less betrayed or hurt because the husband/wife was simply following instinctive desire.

If I'm following correct the OP's question was more about the ethical side of monogamy rather than the biological.

Kooli

asdasd wrote: »

Actually, in terms of sexuality I think we are acting according to our evolutionary biases. We are social monogamous, and sexually promiscuous. That's my point.

OK well I'm socially and sexually monogamous. So are lots and lots of people. So to me it doesn't really matter what 'humans' or 'the average' do.

I feel evolutionary psychology can often be misused in terms of justifying the status quo, such as men cheating more than women ("but it's their biology!!")

What you're saying of course makes sense, but I just think it is waaaay too simple. There are loads of ways of looking at this question. This is just one way.

So what makes people cheat?

asdasd

If I'm following correct the OP's question was more about the ethical side of monogamy rather than the biological.

Ok, fair enough. My biological stuff is done, in any case :-)

For the record, I clearly think chearing is immoral, it may however be inate.

EDIT:

except this:

So to me it doesn't really matter what 'humans' or 'the average' do.

But this thread is not titled Why is Kooli monogamous. I would have though that dealing with humans would be the thing.

Kooli

asdasd wrote: »

But this thread is not titled Why is Kooli monogamous. I would have though that dealing with humans would be the thing.

Yeah I know but in looking at the motivations of the individual to cheat or remain monogamous or have multiple partners, or an individual's beliefs about the subject (not necessarily mine!) then the evolutionary explanation just seems to simple and remote from our human experience to be useful.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Whilst it might not be natural to be monogamous, it is natural to not want your partner sleeping with others. So monogamy is the meeting halfway answer.

Prof.Badass

asdasd wrote: »

Its not just created by society. I never really like that phrase because it ignores the biological impules towards what society creates.

Humans have very hopeless kids.
Humans take a long time to mature.
Men are, historically, the stronger sex and can protect the young.
There is a biological link between helpless offspring and pair-bonding.

ergo, social monogamy is inbuilt.

Social monogamy - which we share with other species - is not the same as sexual monogamy. It is in the interest of both sexes to mix up the gentic pool; that is for a male to spread his seed and for a female to engage in cuckoldry. ( Note that the female still has an overwhelming interest in pair bonding, or social monogamy in this case but the male may not).

Of all the posters here I think you are the most correct, however i think you are over-estimating our sexually polygamous tendencies. Evolutionarily i would be inclined to think that both parties would be purely sexually monogamous at the start of the relationship (any cheating at this stage would completely destroy the quality of the relationship). Only after a few years when children enter the picture (as the feelings for each other weaken to allow the parents to devote more time/effort to their children (the #1 priority)) would sexual polygamy come into play (if no children are born after a period of time the natural desire would be to find a new partner).

I don't think many women would have been stupid enough to have sex with a man without any commitment and i don't think they would have been inclined to engaged in extra-pair mating either- If they were caught the punishment would be violent and they would probably find themselves socially shunned. In terms of taboo attempted cuckoldery was probably up there with incest.

I'd be inclined to think that the rape of females by males of a different group would probably have accounted for most non-pair matings.

There is plenty of evidence that we have evolved to pair bond and cheat - [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_competition"]killer[/URL] sperm[/URL], and higher [URL="[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Polygamy"]sexual[/URL] diomorphism[/URL] than our pair bonding would suggest. ( Quote: "According to Daly and Wilson, "The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."[12]")

I think we are sexual polygamists, and social monogamists. By design.

I don't think human sexual dimorphism is based on sexual polygamy at all.
As we evolved bigger heads women evolved bigger hips, an evolutionary trade-off to allow us to have bigger brains. I think this lies at the root of human sexual dimorphism (as this would have limited their abilities at certain activites). I think this resulted in a division of labour between men and women which lead to the evolution of further sexual dimorphism (as we were selected for our abilities at our jobs). I think the difference in size can be explained by two factors;

1. Limited food- food had to be shared between Women (who had the extra pressure of pregnancy and breastfeeding) and men (who's physical capabilities were needed for the survival of the group), ultimately selection prefered larger males.

2. Sexual preference- The whole male/female bond is based on the man being the dominant parnter (he does the protecting, providing and whatnot), a man would not feel dominant enough over a tall woman so he would be more inclined to favour a slightly shorter female. Sexual selection is still acting against tall women to this day. For most men* it just wouldn't feel right (and this feeling isn't a concious decision) if his woman wasn't slightly smaller than him. I'm guessing for women it could be vice versa. This last point alone is proof enough for me that human seuxal dimorphism is mostly unrelated to polygamy.

The obvious exception would be a small man who forgos this desire (possibly even subconciously) in order to have more average sized children.

T "real deal" J

Monogamy is not natural for men and interferes with an evolutionary process. I believe it was invented as a means of ownership over women (in pre-historic man the tribe leader had sex with all the women in the group, if another man tried it on he got killed).

However in my life i believe that monogamy is beneficial to society and is a nice thing in itself. Once you're with so many women it's nice to think that you'll meet one that ticks all the boxes.

However, I'm not married yet, and i can see potential problems down the line (ie. i'll want to **** younger hotter women). This is a purely evolutionary drive inside me i can't help it. It is designed to pass the strongest male's genes onto the next generation (weak men don't have sex with many women).

We should get Scanlas in on this topic. He's an expert.

T real deal J

T real deal J wrote: »

Monogamy is not natural for men and interferes with an evolutionary process. I believe it was invented as a means of ownership over women (in pre-historic man the tribe leader had sex with all the women in the group, if another man tried it on he got killed).

Considering the stage of evolution of man, its unlikely any man would have the physical prowess to force all other men in the tribe to submit that much to their will, especially when basic weapons i.e. sticks, rocks, etc were only available. In most cases, its likely that a tribal set up where women were shared amongst everyone, without any definite couples. Although it may have happened, I rather doubt set couples were the norm at that stage. Life was too dangerous, and chaotic for that kind of thing. Life was cheap, and our current social norms were are meaningless in comparison.

However in my life i believe that monogamy is beneficial to society and is a nice thing in itself. Once you're with so many women it's nice to think that you'll meet one that ticks all the boxes.

However, I'm not married yet, and i can see potential problems down the line (ie. i'll want to **** younger hotter women). This is a purely evolutionary drive inside me i can't help it. It is designed to pass the strongest male's genes onto the next generation (weak men don't have sex with many women).

Rubbish. Its a social construct. A get out of jail clause. A cop out. A load of crap. Otherwise, it would be the social norm for men to be shagging random women in the street right now, and nothing wrong with it. Women have the same desires as men, except that society has conditioned women to be more constrained (and sometimes guilty) about it.

I'm not saying that men in serious relationships aren't attracted to other women (and vice versa)... but there's a rather large difference between attraction and wanting to screw them on that level.

And as for your claim that weak men don't have sex with many women, its complete and utter crap. I'm physically weaker than most people I meet, and I've had no problem meeting women for sex.

T "real deal" J

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish. Its a social construct.

Relax, I just said I like the idea of monogamy. The facts you stated are facts I already know and agree with.

Deleted User wrote: »

And as for your claim that weak men don't have sex with many women, its complete and utter crap. I'm physically weaker than most people I meet, and I've had no problem meeting women for sex.

Obviously I didn't mean physically. We're living in 2010, strength in the modern age is a more complex concept. I meant weak as in unattractive to women...I don't disagree with what you're saying because they're just facts.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering the stage of evolution of man, its unlikely any man would have the physical prowess to force all other men in the tribe to submit that much to their will, especially when basic weapons i.e. sticks, rocks, etc were only available. In most cases, its likely that a tribal set up where women were shared amongst everyone, without any definite couples. Although it may have happened, I rather doubt set couples were the norm at that stage. Life was too dangerous, and chaotic for that kind of thing. Life was cheap, and our current social norms were are meaningless in comparison.

You're making the assumption that men always decided what women went with what men and women had no say.

aidan24326

T real deal J wrote: »

Monogamy is not natural for men and interferes with an evolutionary process. I believe it was invented as a means of ownership over women (in pre-historic man the tribe leader had sex with all the women in the group, if another man tried it on he got killed).

However in my life i believe that monogamy is beneficial to society and is a nice thing in itself. Once you're with so many women it's nice to think that you'll meet one that ticks all the boxes.

However, I'm not married yet, and i can see potential problems down the line (ie. i'll want to **** younger hotter women). This is a purely evolutionary drive inside me i can't help it. It is designed to pass the strongest male's genes onto the next generation (weak men don't have sex with many women).

We should get Scanlas in on this topic. He's an expert.

Monogamy hasn't always been the default mode for humans, human societies in the past have had polygamy and polyandry as standard at various times. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, and in a way the modern obsession with polygamy to the exclusion of all other alternatives probably isn't entirely natural, but for some reason it seems to work for the most part. On a lighter note, can you inagine having 4 wives? Wouldn't you go insane?

sesna

The greatest triumph of the female sex is monogamy in society

T real deal J

T real deal J wrote: »

Obviously I didn't mean physically. We're living in 2010, strength in the modern age is a more complex concept. I meant weak as in unattractive to women...I don't disagree with what you're saying because they're just facts.

Humans being humans its rather difficult to determine what is actually unattractive to all types of people. I know in the last 20 odd years of actually being sexually active I have been attracted to a wide variety of women over the years; Many my friends found unattractive, and I have felt the same about their encounters.

When it comes to attraction there are very few actual facts unless you're talking about an individuals perception. My tastes are likely vastly different to yours.

taconnol wrote: »

You're making the assumption that men always decided what women went with what men and women had no say.

Always? Nope. Just back in the pre-historic period when strength ruled for the most part. Once communities with more safety and semi-prosperity occurred, i figure women gained more status and power within communities.

Personally, I think women themselves placed themselves into the category of being "helpless" and needful of a protector. Which is where Monogamy comes into it.

Scanlas The 2nd

Monogomy was imo constructed by men so it could be possible for men to work hard and get a wife. The majority of men would be men who would struggle to attract women, which is still the case today, I presume these men over the years created monogomy so it was possible for them all to get a woman if they were willing to word, afterall the majority of men would have power to make rules. This all stemmed from the time when man began farming around 10 thousand years ago and the notion of property emerged. Women were treated as property which you earned.

I reckon the majority of women in relationships aren't attracted to their boyfriends/husbands, which iswhy sex can be so infrequent in relationships, which is evidence that in the past it would have been difficult for men to get sex without the concept of monogomy and religion which helps enforce it.

seahorse

After 7+ years I still find it effortlessly easy, but I believe that's because I'm powerfully attracted to my partner. Wouldn't want anyone else; what's the point fooling around when you're out and about when the person you really want is at home?

seahorse

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I reckon the majority of women in relationships aren't attracted to their boyfriends/husbands

I seriously doubt this. In this day and age when unattracted or othewise unhappy with our partners we women are apt to pack our bags and move on!

metrovelvet

Yeah but alot dont. Inertia is a powerful force.

Scanlas The 2nd

seahorse wrote: »

I seriously doubt this. In this day and age when unattracted or othewise unhappy with our partners we women are apt to pack our bags and move on!

Don't confuse love and/or attachment with attraction.

Emme

Deleted User wrote: »

And as for your claim that weak men don't have sex with many women, its complete and utter crap. I'm physically weaker than most people I meet, and I've had no problem meeting women for sex.

I second that. One of the best lovers I had was quite small and slight, smaller than me (I'm 5'5 and a size 10 so not exactly elephantine) and even though he looked "weak", he had no problem meeting women.

There shouldn't be one set standard of monogamy/polygamy for society. Different societies and strata of societies have different needs. In the past a society where men were killed off by sabre toothed tigers and woolly mammoths wouldn't have got itself to the next generation without the remaining men (probably the weak ones who stayed at home ) having lots of female partners. However monogamy would have suited smaller peaceful agrarian communities better. It benefitted a smallholder (usually male) to have a wife to bear children and work alongside him.

I don't think humans are naturally monogamous but we adapt our level of monogamy to our circumstances. In cities where there is a relatively large choice of partners, people may be less monogamous.

Zombrex

T real deal J wrote: »

Monogamy is not natural for men and interferes with an evolutionary process.

That is some what counter intuitive. If human monogamy interfered with evolution it wouldn't survive. That is what evolution is.

Emme

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what counter intuitive. If human monogamy interfered with evolution it wouldn't survive. That is what evolution is.

So has monogamy survived, in the strict sense? I stated above that monogamy suits agrarian/farming societies better and might not fare so well in warrior societies where men get killed off in battle or in cities where there is a large population. One only has to look at current divorce rates to see that monogamy is difficult in city based societies.

Zombrex

Emme wrote: »

So has monogamy survived, in the strict sense? I stated above that monogamy suits agrarian/farming societies better and might not fare so well in warrior societies where men get killed off in battle or in cities where there is a large population. One only has to look at current divorce rates to see that monogamy is difficult in city based societies.

It is still, as far as I know, the norm to have your children with one person though in most "monogamous" societies.

That is monogamy from the point of view of evolution.

This is probably changing, as people get married have kids get divorced and have more kids, but I would imagine this is still the minority case

Instances where someone gets married has kids divorces and gets married again but have no kids would not register from the point of view of evolution.

Emme

Wicknight wrote: »

Instances where someone gets married has kids divorces and gets married again but have no kids would not register from the point of view of evolution.

From an evolutionary point of view it's monogamy as the person has kids with only one person, assuming that the father hasn't sown his wild oats and has kids elsewhere he doesn't know about, and the mother has been faithful and the kids are definitely the progeny of the official father.

Swans mate for life - they have only one partner, that is a monogamous relationship.

Zombrex

Emme wrote: »

From an evolutionary point of view it's monogamy as the person has kids with only one person, assuming that the father hasn't sown his wild oats and has kids elsewhere he doesn't know about, and the mother has been faithful and the kids are definitely the progeny of the official father.

Swans mate for life - they have only one partner, that is a monogamous relationship.

Yeah, that is my point. Evolution doesn't care if you say cheat on your husband 50 times with 50 different men so long as you don't have children with them.

Actually that isn't quite true. it would care if the genes that produced this behavior also increase the likelihood that you have child, even if it is just with one person. Then your children will be philanderer as well.

This is the problem with trying to second guess evolution, it is a very complicated interwoven process.

Miranda7

Here's a dillemma regarding monogomy and fidelity. I think that serial monogamy is probably the best thing but that is for another day. During Tiger's recent shinanigans and also that footballer who was sending sexy texts to other women I discovered that my mate of 30 years was at the same thing. He meets women in chat rooms and has relationships of varying lengths with them - all ciber relationships at present. I didn't know whether to be shocked or laugh. It appears as if there are legions of lonely people out there who want to talk sexy to strangers - probably including my guy!!!! When he switches on his phone in the mornings it usually beeps several times. This guy is a loner and even though I have been with him 30 years I don't think he has any real friends. The packing your bags bit is looking good at present. What do you think?

My own experience is that I am living together with 2 girls in a relationship. Everyone within the relationship is happy, we would not have it any other way.

Clearly this does not work for everyone, and clearer again is that we often get way laid by some very militant monogamists, but for the most part it goes smoothly and our life does not affect anyone else nor does theirs affect ours.

Often we get asked questions like "But which one do you prefer" and the like. I think this misses the point of human love. You can not compare human love. Most parents do not love one kid "more" than another. I do not love my partners "More" than my family.

We love each person in our life differently and the love I have for the girls is like no one else, even each other. It appears to me that the capacity for love in humans is one of the few (maybe the only) infinite resources we have available to us.