Monogomy...the big Myth?

[Questingpoet]

Very few species of mammals are monogamous. Humans have developed this practice over many eons of our existance (with exceptions of course). Is this "natural" or was it bred into us for survival reasons? Do we really still need this trait? Is it a moral issue or a biological one? Are we truly met to be with one mate our whole life?

I'm interested in any thoughts here. I'll chime in with my own later on.

 

[Jack]

How about a little information to get things rolling?

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Well, if lobsters can mate for life, it can make sense for people too.

 

[Quinlan]

The big myth is that there is any one way we're all supposed to be.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The morality issue has to be based on the biological one - not the other way around. Furthermore, the "enjoyment" or "fun" aspect of sex cannot be the foundation for morals, otherwise arson would be morally permissible for people who get a kick out watching things burn. My two bobs worth is that the biological issues should have higher priority in discussions.

Polygamy seems to have a slight advantage over monogamy in situations in which the species might be in danger of extinction (ie. if the world wide human population ever falls below about 20 000) - otherwise monogamy seems streets ahead when it comes to stability/fairness/emotional support within a family structure.

 

[Questingpoet]

The big myth is that there is any one way we're all supposed to be.

I agree with this statement quite a bit. Why are we all supposed to be one way? What's good and right for some people is certainly not the same for ALL people. If we educated humans from birth that pologamy was the natural state for us, would we still have jealousy? Probably, but it wouldn't be the norm I think. Would family units benefit from multiple mothers or fathers? I suppose we could ask the mormons that one. I think they could as long as the parents were well adjusted (which is true in any family). I'm still not convinced that current day monogomy is any more effective than the alternative in humans. The way people perceive it makes a huge difference I think. I'm not saying I personally would want to be in one. Again, each person or group is going to be different. I think people are pretty adaptable when the need or the desire is there.

 

[Shai Gar]

The morality issue has to be based on the biological one - not the other way around.

Biologically, it makes more sense to be polyamorous.

 

[Billy]

Well, if lobsters can mate for life, it can make sense for people too.

How so? Lobsters essentially have no emotions, follow their simple programming, they're natures autonomic ocean vacuum cleaners.

What do they know about feeling trapped? even in a lobster cage they're happy until they hit the boiling water.

 

[the]

I think people are monogamous in so far that they can keep their mouths shut. If you go around telling people about your infidelities you are a real asshole.

 

[Billy]

I think people are monogamous in so far that they can keep their mouths shut. If you go around telling people about your infidelities you are a real asshole.

Or in so far as they can keep their crotch locked away from people who aren't in their relationship. Beleive it or not, its very possible, however, is it natural? I say no personally.

 

[acd]

I think people are monogamous in so far that they can keep their mouths shut. If you go around telling people about your infidelities you are a real asshole.

Nearly every post I read of yours sounds like a Jack Handey Deep Thought.

 

[the]

Nearly every post I read of yours sounds like a Jack Handey Deep Thought.

Monogamy is not a myth. There are people who are able to remain with one mate for the rest of their lives, and enjoy doing so.
It's a way of life that appeals to some while not all. If it doesn't appeal to you, it doesn't make its validity for others a myth.

Lets see some evidence. Who do you know who is still married (and/or only having sex with) to the first person they had sex with. I am only accepting people in that situation who have been so for the past 25 years or more as evidence.

 

[acd]

Almost nobody waits til marriage.
So cynical though, assuming people can't be committed without committing infidelities.

 

[Reon]

Lets see some evidence. Who do you know who is still married (and/or only having sex with) to the first person they had sex with. I am only accepting people in that situation who have been so for the past 25 years or more as evidence.

Several couples in my family, including my parents. It's miserable, but religious faith keeps em together mostly at this point.

Humans are praised as one of the few creatures capable of rational thought and yet this subject we try to reduce ourselves to mere animals with basic instincts we can't control at all. Monogamy IS found through out nature, albeit very sparsely, and even if it wasn't we are different variation of nature. I mean the venus flytrap is one of the few carnivorous plants that I know of, that captures animals in the way it does. It's very dissimilar to many plants, but does that mean it's not natural? No...it's just unique and a part of nature.

 

[Jack]

My philosophy professor and his wife, and they in fact have a very good relationship. Not only were they completely monogamous after they were married, but they were also virgins until they were married. So yeah complete exclusivity.

 

[Trifoilum]

You can find a lot of these in my country. Of couuuurse, they are generally virgins until marriage so..yeah... It's not necessarily a 'myth', which kinda assumes it to be 'false' and have to be 'awakened', it's just the different ways humanity rolls.

And IMO, jealousy will still exist, if not more, in a polyamourous relationships. What do you feel if they ran away to a far more potential partner instead of you?

If you go around telling people about your infidelities you are a real asshole.

.......word usage issues here, but....isn't that kinda obvious?

 

[Shai Gar]

Almost nobody waits til marriage.
So cynical though, assuming people can't be committed without committing infidelities.

Not cynical, realistic.

And it's not an infidelity if you're not honest and accepting of it with your partner. Sometimes you need some outside sex.

 

[Norton]

Very few species of mammals are monogamous. Humans have developed this practice over many eons of our existance (with exceptions of course). Is this "natural" or was it bred into us for survival reasons?...

If it's "bred into us," by definition, that would make it natural.

Although, anthropologically, there are cultures that don't have monogamy, as it is known in the west, most cultures do have it as the ideal. It seems that monogamy supports the stability of the nuclear family and thus may have provided an evolutionary survival benefit. That is, monogamy may provide the best economic and emotional/nurturing environment for raising children. The argument could also be made that, as opposed to polygamy where many children of different mothers have the same father and, thus, only his limited gene pool, monogamy is a more efficient way of maintaining a more diverse gene pool within a population.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

How so? Lobsters essentially have no emotions, follow their simple programming, they're natures autonomic ocean vacuum cleaners.

What do they know about feeling trapped? even in a lobster cage they're happy until they hit the boiling water.

Yeah, it's kind of romantic, isn't it?

What I was pointing out with that is that there are a variety of species that are, in fact, monogamous, and that it's really not so strange.

 

[acd]

Not cynical, realistic.

And it's not an infidelity if you're not honest and accepting of it with your partner. Sometimes you need some outside sex.

Alright then.
Monogamy is not for some people.
Maybe those with stronger physical impulses and a greater need for novelty.
Which is fine, as long as one is honest about it.
But personally for myself, I don't think monogamy is a bust... and outside sex or romantic relationships are not appealing whatsoever..
It has more to do with not having the physical or emotional energy for multiple partners than anything else.