Faithfulness and Human Nature

[Black_Bird]

Even in cultures where polygamy is accepted, it seems to be the exception and not the rule. Yet in the western culture, and America in particular, divorce and infidelity seems to be a major problem.

Do you truely think monogamy is human nature? Do you think that it is human nature to mate for life?

Wicca has tradition called "Handfasting". It's pretty much a marrage with a set time limit... it can be from a year up to life long. Do you think this model of marrage would be more affective?

 

[Moridin187]

I did a debate on almost this exact subject in High School Psych. I was assigned to debate the side that said that cheating on your spouse was instinctual... I won, but I don't believe in it.

I'm a complete monogamist personally, when/if I find a woman insane enough to actually want to marry me, I will be committed to her and her alone until the time of my death or until she files for divorce from me.

Now, I'm not trying to be down on those who've been divorced, or who have cheated. That's just not how I am.

 

[JennyOmanHill]

I personally feel that monogamy is a human quality. For me it has nothing to do with religion or morality, but it has been my experience that a closeness with someone develops with an exclusive relationship, and this feels more natural to me than anything else.

 

[Calamity Jane]

I started a thread (a poll actually) about this same topic a while back. Everyone assumed I was looking for justification for cheating on my SO, so I got very few real answers. *shrug*

Interested in seeing what people think.

For the record, I don't think it's possible for very many people at all to remain monogamous forever.

'Next time' I'll probably have a handfasting. Til death to us part just seems like a bit much.

**edited to say: I've never cheated on my current SO. I've been monogamous for 8+ years.**

 

[phrodeau]

It is like old Siamese rhyme:

A girl must be like a blossom
With honey for just one man.
A man must live like honey bee
And gather all he can.
To fly from blossom to blossom
The honey bee must be free.
But blossom must not ever fly
From bee to bee to bee.

---Oscar Hammerstein II, "The King and I"

 

[AusTess]

Marriages should be like licenses.
Renewable after 3.

That said,i think it's possible to be mentally faithful.
I'd never let anyone into my mind like i let my husband.

My body i cant say the same about.

I dont think i'm making sense.
Which would be normal.

 

[cymbidia]

I'm with pcg.

The following is said with a sincere hope that i don't offend those who subscribe to the hearts and flowers version of romance and fidelity.

Maybe it's my mood and/or my recent experiences but the whole "forever and ever" model of love and sexual monogamy isn't a thing i see happening too often in either today's society in general, the lives of those in my everyday life and, especially, in my own life.

In all of the animal kingdom, of which we are most certainly a part, monogamy is a very rare state of affairs. From the standpoint of population genetics, the probably instinctual drive to cast one's genetic heritage widely out into the stewpot to be mixed with that from someone else seems to almost be hardwired into us.

We've evolved elaborate social rituals over the millenia to provide for monogamy but we've never managed to make ourselves truely monogamous as a species. We're elaborately complex creatures and it's our astounding complexity that has given rise to our greatest triumps and joys, as well as that which we do to each other that makes us all miserable.

Infidelity is among the latter group, i think. It comes about for some of us, i think, due to the horrendous mixed pressures of conforming to social ideals while still heeding the ancient and primitive urgings to insure our reproductive viability by scattering our efforts to do that reproducing. (It matters little to our bodies that we're wearing a condom or have had our tubes tied. All our bodies know is that primal urge to mate.)

In my view, serial monogamy is not only possible, it's doable and desireable.

But lifelong monogamy? In a life that can span eight or nine decades and involved a wild myriad of changes in lifestyle and priorities and interests?

I don't think so.

 

[lisalove]

Hmm I've wondered this myself many times. I have been married 4 years, and I'm starting to think that there is no way in hell that I cannot be with another man (or possibly woman) "for the rest of my life"..

I thought I got all my ya ya's out prior to marriage, but clearly this is not the case. Another lover would be desirable. I'm not ready to act on that though...maybe I'm just going through a restless, yearning, aching stage and it will pass. Somehow I doubt it and I will ultimately succumb to this lickerish longing!

Is that instinctual? Yes I think it is. Many are able to repress the desire to stray, considering it morally reprehensible.
However I think if it were an accepted part of our culture few people would be monogomous.

lisa

 

[Guest]

Cym.........

What she said

 

[Black_Bird]

I truely feel that the "Handfasting" model is the way to go... I *wish* that our society was just a little bit more accepting of change... but instead half of us swing wildly in one direction, while the other half stick to their "solid morals." Only a very few of us actually seems to have found balance...

I think that we *are* a monogamous creature - but just don't mate for life. Sooner or later we all have to move on to someone new...

And just to clarify - this is coming from someone who is definitely a long term relationship kind of person. It's my ideal... but I know it's not always pratical.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I am not a monogamously-minded person. It sometimes chafes that I am monogamous. There are so many seriously attractive people out there that I'd like to enjoy.

However.

I love my man. I don't want to hurt him. I want him to trust me. So I keep myself trustworthy and faithful. If I feel the need to hide from him, then I don't do it. That means I am monogamous and that I behave with integrity and trustworthiness. He doesn't check up on me online, but if he did he would find his trust justified.

 

[Mae13]

I'd say I have to put my marks in for a less "legally binding" contract of love as well...I find it curious that so much legal/financial things have been tied into what began as a spiritual joining...but that's a whole 'nother thread there.

I think more often, people stay with eachother because it's what they're "supposed" to do. You know how it goes...if you're with someone for very long, soon it's "well, when are you two getting married?" and things of that nature. You just tie things in more and more, enmesh the relationship so much that it becomes paper only, instead of joy, and sharing, and bliss.

Sometimes that bliss will last forever. I think many people do find that One that they are truly happy with for the rest of this mortal life. I think many people find this person for a while. People change. I don't know many people who would say they are the same person now they were 5 years ago. People change in opposite ways. It happens. And without all the paperwork, those people would be allowed to part ways in a more peaceful manner.

I like the whole serial monogamy ideal. Can I love someone with all I have? Yes. Can I commit and be faithful? Yes. Can I give myself to them for the rest of my life? That part...I don't know. Haven't found out yet. I suppose if I met someone I matched well enough, I think it could happen. *If* we changed in compatible ways, *if* we didn't meet someone else that called to our souls more strongly, *if* we still felt that want, that love, that need. Staying together for the sake of comfort isn't always a good thing, a safety blanket is considered a hinderance in children, why not in relationships too? I want my relationship to be one of action and want, not complacency.

Hrm, haven't thought about this topic for a while.

Mae

 

[privy2u]

I am not against marriage. In fact I have been married faithfully to the same woman 29 1/2 years. It was a commitment we made willingly and we are both still very much in love.
She is an "old fashoned" girl with puritan view of marriage and would never share her hubby with anyone for any reason.
I am an 'old scooter bum' with very few of those same values and believe there is a difference between making love and fucking.
I don't cheat on her but that's because I made a commitment to her. It had nothing to do with marriage or ethics. It was simply because I knew I had found my best friend, my wife and my lover all in one person.

privy


p.s. - no she doesn't visit Lit so this wasn't written for her!

 

[VeryBadGirl]

absolutely disagree

I got married when I was 26 and my husband was 29 - we thought we were soul-mates. Do I still think we should have gotten married then? As wise as I felt then, having waited til such a ripe old age, I know now that we were definitely taking a huge blind step.

Over the past almost 13 years, we've had our ups and downs - how could we not, through having kids, changing careers, illness, our insane mothers, etc.

But I never stopped loving or respecting him. I didn't cheat, and while I haven't watched him every minute of every day, I honestly believe that he hasn't.

We are actually happier and closer now than we have EVER been, even at the magical beginning. We may have gotten here by luck, but my attitude now is that I have built a life with this man, I want to be with him when I'm old, and I will not be responsible for fucking it up.

I think that monogamy is a personal choice that overrides your "animal instincts." It has everything to do with how you feel about your partner. If you want to be with somebody exclusively, you stay true to them - because you WANT to.

If you don't really care about your partner, you fuck around.

And then there are those who may be unable to form that level of attachment - they may even think that they DO love and respect somebody, but "can't help" fucking around because after all, aren't we all just animals? excuses excuses.

Dumb animals fuck everything because they are not designed to form lifelong attachments (after all, how long are most of their lives?) for survival purposes. Remember that a few species DO mate for life - the ones that are designed to - so what's THEIR excuse?

VBG

 

[Calamity Jane]

Cym

You said what I would have said had I had more than 30 seconds to make my post. (It was time to read bedtime stories. )

VBG -- No one on this thread has said that humans 'can't help' cheating. Obviously, we can. The question was, is it 'natural' to remain monogamous throughout our lives. I don't believe that in a 'natural state' humans would form lifelong sexual relationships.

Moving from one monogamous relationship to another is not the same as cheating.

I also don't equate sex with love. Having both is nice, but one is not a requirement of the other. It's possible to love more than one person in our lives. It's possible to continue loving someone who we're no longer sexually compatible with. Growth and change is a requirement for our species, and too often, the idea of 'forever' leads to stagnation.

Obviously, 'forever' works for you. Though in the scheme of life, 13 years isn't all that long. It doesn't work for everyone, and it's no one's place to judge.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

***WARNING: Long essay ahead***

I think that monogamy is a personal choice that overrides your "animal instincts." It has everything to do with how you feel about your partner. If you want to be with somebody exclusively, you stay true to them - because you WANT to.

VBG, I like your comments and agree with you and with some other posters to a degree, but as usual, I want to elaborate.

First, to address the thread's question directly, it seems clear to me that human beings can be monogamous. The fact that's overlook is that even today when divorce is as socially acceptable as it's ever been, 50% of marriages don't end in divorce. This is remarkable to me and I can't help but think it's a significant statistic.

Just as significantly, if you look back in history, you can find many periods in history where people were remarkably monogamous. At the height of the Victorian period, divorce was an extremely rare exception to the rule - it was almost unheard of. Likewise, the anthropological record notes a number of other human societies with strict monogamy.

This then begs the question of "If some cultures are strictly monogamous and others not, is culture what accounts for these differences, and is it the only factor determining human sexual behavior?" The answers here are "yes" and "no", respectively, I think. Although human sexual practice is extremely varied, there are some definite proclivities that reveal themselves when you look at all cultures together.

I've read that of the 1000+ distinct human societies known to anthropologists, approximately 700 have been polygamous with the vast majority of these being polygynous. Obviously, human beings aren't strictly monogamous. If anything, this would indicate that we're inclined to be more like gorillas, which allow dominant males to keep harems of females that they have exclusive sexual access to.

Think about it this way: if we were inclined by our biology to be monogamous, why does the institution of marriage even exist? If "pair-bonding" occured for life in humans as it does is some species, why do we have the complex social ritual of a wedding with a formal contract and sworn oaths to be faithful in front of our families, friends, and society at large? To me, it seems as though these things exist to impel us to do something it's not completely in our nature to do.

Among primates, the degree of promiscuity for a particular species correlates well with testicular size relative to body weight. Pygmy chimps, the most primiscuous ape species, copulate indiscriminately and possess huge testicles (presumably evolved to deliver larger amounts of sperm necessary to impregnate females who have been mating with large numbers of other males). Gorillas, again in which a single dominant male has sole sexual access to a group of females has no such sexual competition in the genetic sweepstakes and thus he needs fewer sperm and smaller testes.

Where do human beings fall on this ball spectrum? As it turns out, we're pretty close to the middle in this "testis:body mass ratio". This would indicate that we're not "naturally inclined" to be as promiscuous as fuck-frenzied pygmy chimps, but we're not apt to be monogamous or even polygamous like gorillas either.

So if we're naturally moderately promiscuous, how can the wide variety of sexual bonding in people be explained? We're back to the question of culture. Human beings have a sexual "nature", but part of this nature seems to include a flexibility in which societal practices and expectations are able to "turn the knobs" of our nature and adjust our behavior accordingly. This is the only way I can think of to explain the variety of sexual behavior. What else could cause the Victorians to be so staid and the Trobriand Islanders to be hopping all over each other?

This leads me to wonder several more things: "If different cultures create different sets of values and expectations to influence sexual behavior, are they all equally 'good' for individual human happiness and the good of society as a whole? If not and some are better than others, which is better and why?" And then on to ask this question:

"If human sexual behavior is flexible and culturally-influenced with some sets of values governing relationships better than others, why not actively establish those values as those people ought to live by?"

To me, this is a much more interesting question than "are humans naturally faithful?". It seems obvious to me that we're not, but at the same time it seems that we can be made to be given the proper societal pressures. People in the Victorian era weren't any more "faithful" than people today - they simply had more to lose socially by getting divorced, hence they stayed together.

This Victorian imposed monogamy obviously carried with it a large number of negative consequences - the subjugation of women being the most egregious. Still, as terrible as this was, our current set of social mores seems to create social problems nearly as bad - removing censure for divorce has set up serial monogamy as our culture's prefered relationship and while this solves some problems created by imposed lifelong monogamy, it creates others, including single-parent families and all the psychological problems that growing up in a broken home entails.

As powerful men tend to marry several times in their lifetime today and usually marry women of reproductive age, they take marriagable women from lower class men. Sociology teaches us that marriage is an institution that is correlated with work, productivity, and decrease in crime. Then too, there's the problem of sexually transmitted diseases. I don't think it's a coincidence that AIDS has become the greatest infectious epidemic since the plague at a time when promiscuity has been encouraged.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating a return to Victorian values, but we certainly need some changes. First to go, I think, should be the widely held idea that "falling in love" with another person is sufficient to maintain a lifetime relationship. Falling in love and idealizing another partner is an evolutionary device intended to keep men around long enough to help women raise children (which takes an extremely long time in human beings). The feeling inevitably fades and without a social disincentive for people to move on sexually, they'll do just that.

I think we need a new set of taboos, and some really strong ones, especially in regard to divorce among parents with young children. That'll do for starters.

 

[juicylips]

Only a very few of us actually seems to have found balance...

I think that we *are* a monogamous creature - but just don't mate for life. Sooner or later we all have to move on to someone new...

And just to clarify - this is coming from someone who is definitely a long term relationship kind of person. It's my ideal... but I know it's not always pratical.

Will you please make up your mind??? You want a long term relationship, but you also think you must "move on" eventually???


Well....duh?? Which is it???


Cassidy

 

[Calamity Jane]

Oliver...

I agree with a lot of what you said, and I'm glad you brought up the testicular size info. I knew it was out there, and was too lazy to look it up.

However, you seem to be equating the lack of divorce in the Victorain era to monogamy. Obviously, sexual fidelity is not determined by whether or not two people stay married.

I also have serious problems with the term 'broken family'. My parents are divorced, I'm looking pretty hard at ending up that way too. My parent's divorce did not 'break' our family. It strengthened it. My father was still a major part of our life, and was a better father post divorce than he ever was while they were married.

 

[pipercatt]

Hope it's ok to poke my nose in...

I think it's possible for people to be mono if they want to be. I also think there are many decent reasons for people to choose not to be.

My wish, if I were to have one, would be for society to be more accepting of polyamorous relationships. It is possible to be married to one, and be involved with another or even multiple people, and have your marriage remain healthy, or grow even stronger.

I've seen couples get hand-fasted to a third person, and it's a beautiful sight. I'd like to witness it more often.

Anyway, sorry if I got off topic. It's late, and I am prolly not making sense anyway.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

you seem to be equating the lack of divorce in the Victorian era to monogamy. Obviously, sexual fidelity is not determined by whether or not two people stay married.

I also have serious problems with the term 'broken family'. My parents are divorced, I'm looking pretty hard at ending up that way too. My parent's divorce did not 'break' our family. It strengthened it. My father was still a major part of our life, and was a better father post divorce than he ever was while they were married.

PCG, thanks for responding. I didn't think anyone would actually make it through my whole post.

Your point about fidelity not equating to staying married is an excellent one, and I left out my consideration of that point for the sake of brevity (stifle your laughter! ). You're right that affairs definitely did occur, what with human nature being what I've said it is. Still, I don't think it can be argued that they were as unfaithful as couples are today and even if they had been, I think there's some benefit to the social taboo against divorce for the sake of children.

Which brings me to your other point. I understand that there are plenty of families that functioned better after divorce than before it. There's no such thing as a universal truth when we start talking about people and how they behave. I was generalizing and from what I've read and experience, in general two-parent families have less problems in terms of raising kids.

 

[Calamity Jane]

PCG, thanks for responding. I didn't think anyone would actually make it through my whole post.

Your point about fidelity not equating to staying married is an excellent one, and I left out my consideration of that point for the sake of brevity (stifle your laughter! ). You're right that affairs definitely did occur, what with human nature being what I've said it is. Still, I don't think it can be argued that they were as unfaithful as couples are today and even if they had been, I think there's some benefit to the social taboo against divorce for the sake of children.

Which brings me to your other point. I understand that there are plenty of families that functioned better after divorce than before it. There's no such thing as a universal truth when we start talking about people and how they behave. I was generalizing and in general from what I've read and experience, in general two-parent families have less problems in terms of raising kids.

Oliver, I knew that you were making generalizations (for the sake of brevity, I'm sure ) but that 'broken home' thing just gets my hackles up.

I also think that people should consider their children's happiness, health and well being before divorcing. That doesn't happen often enough.

 

[VeryBadGirl]

monogamy vs. fidelity

I think that monogamy is a personal choice that overrides your "animal instincts."

Sorry, PCG, I should have said "fidelity" instead of "monogamy" - oops! And I'm not sure what you mean by "natural state" - no society? no intelligence? And maybe I interpreted wrong, but Cym was talking about "heeding the ancient and primitive urgings" - took that as "can't help cheating."

you know, maybe when "true love" or fidelity have not happened for somebody, it doesn't seem possible. I've never seen or experienced many things that some people swear by - so to me, they are just crazy or lying or in denial.

I agree that 13 years is NOT that long - maybe it seems long to me? - I knew somebody would jump on that! - but it's long enough to have weathered bad times and changed significantly. I'm not sure what the future holds, but we both have that "forever" feeling at this point. That should get us at least to 15.

Btw, my dad has cheated forever (they are still together) and our home-life was a living hell - midnight screaming fights, him being gone for days, everything taken out on us kids by a woman driven insane. I still hate them both.

And my marriage is actually the first monogamous relationship I've ever been in. In the Cosmo sex questionnaire, I fall into the "over 50" category for number of sexual partners. My second longest relationship (5 years) was filled with cheating on both sides. SO, just because I've hit some nerve, please don't think I'm judging you. While I maintain IN GENERAL that people do what they really want to do, that doesn't account for the many variables in all of our lives.

 

[Black_Bird]

Will you please make up your mind??? You want a long term relationship, but you also think you must "move on" eventually???


Well....duh?? Which is it???

Personal Preference isn't universal reality. What I want and like isn't what most people want and like. I'm stating what I think it true about humans as a whole, and then stating my own preference.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I agree wit hsome of what has been said so far, but I don't think what I am going to say has really been brought out. My understanding is that the human brain/mind (yes I know they are two different things, but they are closely related) can be thought of as three separate brain/minds; the reptile brain, the lower mammalian brain, and the human mind.

The reptile brain is our istinctual brain where we do things by reflex - such as notice motion, flinch when someone makes a sudden movement, etc. - it is also where much of our sexual drives are. As in much of the animal world this part of our brain is always driving us to have sexual encounters.

The lower mammalian brain is where we conciously look for sexual encounters and for love.

The human brain is where we try to rational make decisions about staying with someone we love, etc.

There are all kinds of forces in each of these parts of our brain, from raw sexual desire, to genetic forces that drive males to spread their genes among a wide variety of women, and drive women to seek a new mate once their children reach the age of 4 or 5 (for genetic variety so more children will survive), to cultural and genetic forces that push us to monogomy for all its advantages.

Depending on the maturity and inclination of the individual, different forces will win out at different times in our lives. Yes monogomy is natural, both genetically and socially, but so is the inclination to not be faithful to our mates; for men to seek to spread our genes, and for women to seek different genes.