Are humans meant to be monogamous creatures?
- Thread starter xxmyhero64xx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Meant to be by forces of.... nature? God? The Universe?
Either way I think the answer is at least a supported yes. While there have been numerous polygamous cultures over the course of history the vast majority of human development has been generated from societies that at the least support the idea of monogamy.
Does that mean that's how its meant to be? Dunno, but it seems to me that the evidence indicates that's how it works best.
Either way I think the answer is at least a supported yes. While there have been numerous polygamous cultures over the course of history the vast majority of human development has been generated from societies that at the least support the idea of monogamy.
Does that mean that's how its meant to be? Dunno, but it seems to me that the evidence indicates that's how it works best.
Err..... no you cant.Dulcinea said:
In this instance life is not defined at the individual level, any species will instinctively try and control its population depending on the availability of resources, if every human being born had children our population would grow so rapidly that the earth's resources would be exhausted at a rate much faster than they currently are.
This is the reasoning behind incidences of diseases like post partum depression, it has been linked to mothers who exist in a low resource environment- it acts to counter the natural maternal instinct.
aka macroevolution 101.
EDIT= and no Im not mistaking anything- this is information gleamed from countless years of biological research by people your infinite intellectual superior, Im not making it up for arguements sake but relaying the information that Ive spent the last 3 years having to learn.
Couldn't just leave this sitting there. But there is very little incest in chimp communities because most chimps have an inherent sexual aversion towards known kin. What with natural selection not favoring the possible (and probable) faux pas of performing incest and having a baby with some crippling or fatal recessive gene.monstersquad said:
More on topic: I like the evidence the testicle guy brought up earlier.
Monogomy is simply a sexual strategy which may or may not provide for the best chances at reproductive success. In general, modern Homo sapien sexual social norms are the constructs of hundreds of thousands of years of selective pressures on long-term high-investment sexual strategies. Humans are incredibly complex and require a great deal more development time (in this case, time until sexual maturation) than most other organisms. As such, both males and females are more likely to successfully raise a child to adulthood if they invest their time and resources on raising that one child rather than go off and try to make as many babies as possible.
Obviously this is a simplistic and stylized view of sexual strategies and the issue is not this clearly black and white. But as for shades of gray, humans are far more monogamous than polygamous (at least we usually have one partner at a time, not neccessarily for our entire lives).
But who is to say what is "wrong" and what is "right"? Just because something was a successful sexual strategy for our ancestors doesn't mean we have to look at the issue with such detachment. As the average human lifespan increases more and more, perhaps the idea of feeling perennial love for only one significant other will fade with time.
I for one, feel that love is fundamentally rooted in trust and interdependency. In a polygamist society, the lack of a single person who completely knows and understands your very core being, who is your link to understanding youself, a firm tether tying you to reality and your responsibilities, your one and only, would make everything so meaningless. With multiple emotional bonds (or perhaps none) the entire experience of love is dulled. After all, what can one person mean to you when there are so many others?
Note: on a technical standpoint, monogamous just means one partner at a time, not one your whole life or 'till death do you part.
Coming personally, I get confused about this. While I try to think that i'll be exclusive with my girlfriend, i can't help but envisage about having relationships with other women. That seems to be the way that i'm wired, but i'm trying to fight against that.
Do you have any evidence for that?liquidangry said:
And does that mean we're a different species from, say, people in Papua New Guinea whose cultural practices are very different?
I see this argument far too often nowadays, and it's incredibly lazy. How would you possibly know that? Are you a unique cultureless human being capable of utterly disentangling yourself from social pressures in order to experience your underlying biological urges? If so, how did you learn English and where did you get a computer?
The fact is that we have no idea of the extent to which human behaviours are influenced by biological need. There is no hard evidence. Anyone telling you there is is either using incredibly bad science or outright making it up.
I think the OP means what we are biologically meant to do, in which case I think we are not monogomous craetures.Impswitch said:
On the other hand, we have evolved to a point where biological drives come (mostly) second to logic and/or societal pressures. This allows us, from what I can tell, to maintain a monogamus relationship for a time, sometimes untill death, but the biological "pressure" is what pushes so many people to cheat on thier partners. I guess it's much like some kind of internal peer pressure.
Nope. We are far too intelligent to be expected to put up with another human being for the rest of our lives. Unlike, say.. Penguins or swans.
I believe we are. My grandparents met when they were 16 and would still be together today if my poppa didn't die. Not everyone is suited for it of course. I reckon the reason divorce rates are so high is that marriage has lost a lot of its meaning now so people don't take it as seriously as they used to.
in terms of biological design humans seem made for exactly the oppsite effect. Humans are really odd in the fact we dont have peroids of fertility to the extent of other animals who are fertile only a tiny percent of the time the typical human female is. i cant really fully explain it all without a wall of text and easly more than 10 minutes of my time so i will say this.
the only Reason for that mindset is the fact it is a mindset. humans are extreme social creatures which biologically support a non life partner style. but we have developed culture that quite frankly seems afraid of what we are and attempts to be more than the rest of the creatures of the world. most of us want more meaning beyond making babies in a relationship so we focus on the "life partner" to try to create more meaning.
I for one find alot of it weird but i was also raised in such a way i still want to be a part of the norm.
the only Reason for that mindset is the fact it is a mindset. humans are extreme social creatures which biologically support a non life partner style. but we have developed culture that quite frankly seems afraid of what we are and attempts to be more than the rest of the creatures of the world. most of us want more meaning beyond making babies in a relationship so we focus on the "life partner" to try to create more meaning.
I for one find alot of it weird but i was also raised in such a way i still want to be a part of the norm.
Not to bring out the gender differences card (I'm sure it's already been played) but women are wired more towards monogamy than men are. This is a matter of creating a stable environment for children to be brought up in. Men, on the other hand, are wired a bit more like the alpha male of a lion pack, they're all about 'spreading their seed'. But that's biologically. Emotionally I think humans are inclined towards monogamy.
Even when someone gets devorced after years they are likely to move from one monogamous relationship to another. True pologamy is rare from what I can tell (in western culture at least), which is different from just 'playing the field' in my opinion.
If you want any more proof that monogamy is good for your health, it's been scientifically proven that married men live longer (and I don't think that's just because they're less likely to get food poisoning cos someone else is cooking for them!).
Even when someone gets devorced after years they are likely to move from one monogamous relationship to another. True pologamy is rare from what I can tell (in western culture at least), which is different from just 'playing the field' in my opinion.
If you want any more proof that monogamy is good for your health, it's been scientifically proven that married men live longer (and I don't think that's just because they're less likely to get food poisoning cos someone else is cooking for them!).
There is a very odd double standard present in our basic psychology. We all wish to have multiple attractive partners, yet we all want our partners to remain loyal to us. Sexually I doubt it highly. Emotionally I don't know, I find both ideas equally likely.
Video evidence of the chimp thing... Spoiler'd cos it's gross.Bara_no_Hime said:
Edit: make what you will of my avatar...