Are humans meant to be monogamous creatures?

[charlest92]

Monogamy/Monogomist
Meant to? no
Capable of being? yes
Capable of remaining? Well shit who do you think I am? god? I can't answer that shit.

 

[player3141]

Biology says- no
Society says- YOU BETTER!

 

[TermOfEndearment]

Wtf? THATS why its shaped like that?
But... I would never stir another mans porridge to begin with... Thats gross.

Read this.
Looked at avatar. Read in Phillip Banks voice. oh god that was funny.

 

[Callate]

It has its advantages. Your young are more likely to survive if you hang around to take care of them, and you're more likely to survive to a ripe old age if your young know who their parents are and thus have a reason to take care of you in your infirmity.

Is there an absolute biological imperative toward monogamy? No, probably not, but no more is there a biological imperative toward polygamy. As the thinking monkey, we work these things out for ourselves.

 

[Fidelias]

Well, technically, we were meant to be sniveling idiots who don't shave and kill something that looks at us funny. Also, we were probably meant to die. We certainly weren't meant to develope a speakable language and learn how to eat healthy and create ships that can fly to the moon.

Our entire existance is unnatural, so it doesn't matter whether we were meant to be monogomous or not. We're freaking human, we'll do what we freaking want!

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

It is all individuality. I really have nothing more to add because it all comes down to your decision. You don't have to fuck everything in site, what would be the point if you were everyone else? Though what is the point of being married like everyone else? You do what you want because Evolution deems it the most accurate and most chaotic (which is a good thing), because by the end of the day you have served your purpose by living and choosing how to live (Monogamous or not) (and IMO it would be best if you helped your fellow man as well, because that is a big bonus with Evolution and me right there).

Chaos Definition in short: Change in either a Good or Bad way, but always a needed way.

 

[Wintermoot]

I heard that Men are designed to be with multiple wives (then again it was House so it could be wrong)

 

[Communist partisan]

We are a scourge to this world... and nothing else.

 

[Kilgengoor]

I don't think it's correct to apply the "are meant" term here. There is no specific purpose in nature, other than to stay alive and reproduce. Is it efficient? No, but neither is homosexuality, and BAM! Gay penguins. To be "meant" by nature doesn't mean it's "correct" on a superior moral level.

On the other hand, humans are expected to be monogamous. It's in our genes, we are possessive by nature, it's what has guided our evolution to the top of the foodchain. We are ambitious and possessive, pretty much like most of the animals. So a person usually fancies to be identified as the best and monogamy is a pretty fast way to do so.

I don't think polygamy is "better" than monogamy. More efficient for reproduction, worse according to our instinct, and something that directly clashes with the boundaries of the different societies in this planet.

What I do can say is that I'm monogamous. I can't think of sharing someone and I follow other principles (such as deciding it's more important to keep a friendship) well before considering the reproduction factor, so I prefer conceding exclusivities as opposed to more varied poontang.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

If you look at the behavior of the Chimpanzee and the perverted Bonobo monkeys (the two apes we more or less evolved from)Then no. it all so explains why we like War AND Sex so much. (Chimps=War, Bonobo's=Sex)

Well, not so much "evolved from."  They are, however, humanity's two closest relatives.

it's funny how polygamy is illegal but people just have a wife and sleep behind their back instead. how is that better?

It's not.

But I've actually heard someone arguing (apparently in all seriousness, no less) that having an open marriage is "disrespectful" because you're "rubbing your affairs in your spouse's face." (And no, I don't get the logic at all.)

I heard that Men are designed to be with multiple wives (then again it was House so it could be wrong)

If the argument was that this is only true of men, it's bullshit. "Higamus hogamus" has less to do with biology than with double standards in regards to promiscuity.

 

[GraveeKing]

We say we are because it makes us feel better that we're better than most animals and that our higher thinking mind makes us better than them. But in truth we're not all really made to commit to one person - sure some people actually are but quite a few of us sub-consciously probably want to get around a bit more. It's only natural instinct after all.

 

[FUAU]

*snip*

Wait, if that's true wouldn't any post-ejaculation trusts remove the giver's own semen, and thus reduce the chances of conception?

 

[Jessta]

Monogamy works for millions, and doesnt for millons.

What we should be more concerned with is "wrapping it up" so to speak , The world population is WAY to big. Having a child in an environment where starvation, poverty and oppression are the norm has to be curtailed and the promiscuous nature of mankind is making it worse every day .

I agree that it could work for allot of people but it seems to be a generally unaccepted thing, probably mainly due to STDS... Side note, how is starvation poverty and oppression the 'norm' of present day? I mean seriously, out of the millions of people on this earth how much do you REALLY think are starving, impoverished or oppressed? I know that no one in America is, at least not compared to what people everywhere had to deal with a good hundred years or so ago as the norm, or what animals and other beasts have to deal with on a regular basis...

Personally I think they best system would be if we more or less formed "groups" so to speak so that if you were having sex with multiple people they would at least all know each other and infected people could be cut from the group, although sex with multiple people will generally ruin the whole romantic 'you and only you' fantasy thats so appealing. That and kids, if a girl is having sex with multiple guys I've noticed its pretty common for all the guys to try and pull out of the relationship pointing fingers at the others for getting her prego, I'm guessing this has to do with the responsibility involved with raising a child

 

[Kwaren]

*snip*

Wait, if that's true wouldn't any post-ejaculation trusts remove the giver's own semen, and thus reduce the chances of conception?

Yes, but the second guy has a better chance than the first guy to be the daddy.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

As I understand it, it is a man's genetic prerogative to get as many women pregnant as possible, while it is a woman's prerogative to stay with one man throughout their life. Take that as you will.

I don't think the aim is specifically to get AS MANY women as possible pregnant, just to have as many children as possible, and a stable, long term monogamous relationship is actually the best environment to produce lots of children and make sure as many of them as possible survive.

 

[GunboatDiplomat]

Well it seems to be the cultural fashion at the moment. Clearly its not biologically determined - everyone will have multiple partners during their life and during other relationships if they can overcome their social conditioning. Which most people do at some point although cultural contructs like religion often create guilt.

TOP TIP 1: Don't get into this conversation on a date - EVER!

TOP TIP 2: If your date brings it up follow their lead. Assume the default position of believng in "long term" relationships but don't be too empahatic about it in case shes not THAT into you and is just looking for a bit of fun.

TOP TIP 3: Plenty of time to argue about this when the six month to one year "being in love" period has worn off, your genes have figured out theres no kids on the way for some reason (haha, evil Dr. Gene, Meet Captain Contraception!) and are pushing you both to move one. Although you can't because of cultural pressures you both have completely unrealistic expectations of what being monogamous means for most people without kids to distract you - sexual boredom. (With kids you mostly won't have time for sex so problem solved - yay!)

 

[Saelune]

Dunno if we are or are not meant to. Though I think the primary reason relationships dont last...is natural. That is, too often they are built on physical attraction and when that fades, the shallowness is revealed. This is why I cant imagine myself with someone for the long run who isnt a gamer.

 

[loodmoney]

Ever since I heard word of my aunt and uncle getting divorced (two people who have been together since I can remember) I started wondering if human beings are really meant to stay with one other person till death.

As someone mentioned above "meant" does not have application here. It implies a moral imperative to do something, and a "biological imperative" can never function as this.

[...] It makes me wonder considering the physical goal of male humans is to spread the genetic seed as much as possible, does it do our species any good to just stay with one partner till death?

I thought the goal of this male human was to write interesting things and learn about the world. As for physical goals? I'm not sure this male human has any. Well I don't like being hungry, I enjoy sleeping, and sex is fun, but I've never really given much thought to my genetic seed, so I don't know if I'd count its spread as one of my physical goals.

And who cares about the species? I care about myself and other individuals, so I think my and their interests count for more than that of the species.

 

[b3nn3tt]

As I understand it, it is a man's genetic prerogative to get as many women pregnant as possible, while it is a woman's prerogative to stay with one man throughout their life. Take that as you will.

I don't think the aim is specifically to get AS MANY women as possible pregnant, just to have as many children as possible, and a stable, long term monogamous relationship is actually the best environment to produce lots of children and make sure as many of them as possible survive.

True. Also, evolutionary theory has argued that women actually chose a mate who could provide the best resources, but would allow another man, who had better genes, to impregnate them.

OT: I think that we are past the point where we are driven by a need for survival, so we aren't meant to do anything with regards to partners. Some people find a partner at seventenn and spend their life with them, others will have hundreds of partners in their life. Really, it all comes down to the individual, rather than humans as a species.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Biologically no... Culturally yes in Christian culture at least.
Base for biological claim is that monogamy is a bad thing. Monogamous species have been proven to be more prone to diseases and genetic errors. Human specie has survived this far and achieved great things, why? Because we ear, breed and kill our rivals. The fact that we would been programmed to be monogamous is odd also since in the history it has been a norm to man have many wifes - but when Christianity landed on Europe it got bad all the sudden?

Human is driven by need to breed.
And I am an genetic error on that regard.