Is monogamy unnatural?

Is monogamy natural?

  • Yes, it's genetically programmed in.

    Votes: 7 17.1%
  • No, it's a creation of the church/society.

    Votes: 18 43.9%
  • Yes (for reasons other than above, explain)

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • No (for reasons other than above, explain)

    Votes: 7 17.1%
  • Other (because everyone always complains if there isn't one)

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • Total voters
    41
Thumper bunny... wanna be gay again for a chef?

cymbidia said:

Or, maybe we're all just sluts?
Nah. Can't just be me...

Naaah Its just me.

I dont think we are naturally monogamous, but its a decision to rise past the animals per se.

But maybe that natural.
 
Re: Thumper bunny... wanna be gay again for a chef?

Svedish_Chef said:
I dont think we are naturally monogamous, but its a decision to rise past the animals per se.

Exactly! I kinda felt this way too..

Also, I know someone who wants desperately to steer away from the singles scene and start to commit down.. but she's afraid that once she does, after she invests all the time and feelings, someone else might come along and the whole 'what if' shit comes into play. 'What if he's nicer'. 'What if he's better in bed'. 'What if he can provide more'.

I've noticed it's difficult to be selective and be sure about it.
 
Re: From the hopelessly polygamous front.

Thumper said:
Or promiscuous if you will.

But first...there is a paradox (more than one dox) in the poll.

Is monagamy unnatural?

Yes it is genetically programmed.

Now...does answering yes mean it is unnatural or does it mean as the option states that it is natural? Assuming that genetically programmed equates with "natural"


Now....who here is for a little gene dispersing practice;)

There is only one dox!

The thread title is "Is Monogamy Unnatural"... but when I posted the actual Poll title, I screwed up and it says "Is monogamy natural"... and it wouldn't let me edit. So there ya go, paradox free.

Practice makes perfect :p
 
cymbidia said:
After all the words are boiled down and the excess wafted off, this is the heart of the matter.

Well I’m glad you’re honest with yourself, and you recognize that *smile*

cymbidia said:

Everyone who gets married with expectations of monogamy within that marriage eventually faces this choice somewhere along the way.


Oh? To me it’s not a choice. You made the ‘choice’ when you married. That’s what the marriage meant. Now, if you want to reconsider – there’s always the divorce. (Reminds me of last night episode of ‘Ed’ (great show!). Ed’s wife, who chose to screw the mailman, chastised him for expecting her to apologize – since she screwed the mailman due to his apparent lack of attention. That makes little sense to me. The first thing you do is communicate. If that doesn’t work – you divorce. And THEN you can screw the mailman. Very simple, no? Otherwise – it’s just selfish greed. IMO).

Ask yourself: What is it in this particular person you have your eyes on (if it IS a particular person)? And can your mate provide what that person has if you communicate it to them? It’s possible, you can fulfill your desires with the mate you already have, eh. If you simply want to stray for ‘strange’ sake. You made a mistake by marrying.


cymbidia said:

No one else can possibly tell you what's best and right for you in this. It's too personal a decision.

Bingo. You’ve got it straight. You'll figure it out, eh. (Sorry if I sound self-righteous).
 
XXplorher said:


You made a mistake by marrying.





You got that right.;)







Sorry lickerish....didn't mean to steal your thunder. Your friend sounds a whole lot like me. I am promiscuous(well....I try to be anyway) because it feeds my ego. The fact that "this woman" will have sex with me signals I am worthy...at least for however long it takes. That is precisely why I could never go the prostitution route....money is the motivator there. It does have it's benefits...since my ego is so tied into sex I do my best to be the best my partners have ever had I may not always be the best but they rarely are disappointed. To be labeled a bad lover would crush me. That said I do not need to be the be all and end all for a woman...interest in other males on her part, or females, does not make me feel threatened.

In short...monagamy rhymes with monotony and can be very boring after awhile...
 
Re: Thumper bunny... wanna be gay again for a chef?

Svedish_Chef said:


Naaah Its just me.

I dont think we are naturally monogamous, but its a decision to rise past the animals per se.

But maybe that natural.


I love Chef, and you all know that, but why, if we were doing it to rise above the animals, do you find animals mating for life, and adhering to it, more than humans do?

I am not asking to cause more confusion, but if it isn't natural, but we are doing it for driven reasons to 'rise above' anything.... it's to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies.

Are most of you aware that in most cases of additional (outside wedlock) pregnancies that most men do not take the responsibility for it as their own problem?
I know that many do, but it is a major problem.

This is a historical phenomenon and it is, yes, partly why marriage is somewhat instilled in us as a needed institution for procreation.

The suicide rate of women, who were/are impregnated by men out of wedlock, has and always will be sky high.

I don't care what kind of high it gives you to get laid by every woman you want. It is reckless and risky and that is a good enough reason to have monogamy in society, or at least to teach some kind of self control over your sexlife whether it is natural or not.
 
It is not a "high"

That I get.

Monagamy is a concept that mitigates the complications from promiscuous behavior and allows us to at least try to be civilized. The major religions have just taken the concept way too far and in the extreme declared all sexual conduct sinful. At least Christianity and Islam have. Muslim extremists actually seem to have a hatred for anything female...blaming them for all their carnal urges. Hindus seem more level headed about it all but I am not too familiar with that religion...something I should remedy. Any religion that comes up with something like the Kama Sutra can't be all bad eh?

Unwanted pregnancies are a product of modern civilization. Infant mortality and harsh living conditions made large families and high birth rates necessary. A man taking several "wives" was commonplace in many parts of the world and still is in some cultures. We have negated the need for unbridled procreation by lowering the infant mortality rates and better standards of living.

Most animals are polygamous. There are very few that practice cradle to grave monagamy.

FYI...I have never fathered any children out of wedlock...birth control is a marvelous thing.
 
I am sorry Thumper. I hope I didn't offend you.
I should have specified that I realize that many men are responsible and use birthcontrol/std protection, and that I wasn't referring to you specifically when I spoke of suicide rates and such.

I would beg to differ that ego boosting isn't a form of obtaining a high, especially if the act has to be repeated.

If you have to do it over and over to feel good, than it's a drug.

The effect of sex (orgasm) are a drug in a form, not classified as one, but since not too many other people care about adhering to strict definitions around here, then I can lean too. :)

You are correct about animals, but I didn't say that most were. I said many are. I really agree with you about how religion has distorted the need for it. It is a shame what God has to put up with from fanatical people.

I will still aruge that Anthropological studies show conflicting evidence with the idea that monogamy was instilled in us by the Church. Primitive humans did base pair and often. Polygamy tended to arise only in civilized settings and by the aristocracy of the region.





This is interesting and I thought I'd share..

I hope that most of you read it. It is based on factual evidence of human relationship evolution from the beggining.

http://www.iserv.net/~merriman/pairbond.htm
 
XXplorher said:
Choose.

And hold yourself accountable.

That's the problem with this question...

I'm not knocking you, pagancowgirl, the truth is, its a great question. The thing is, most people here can agree with this point, but many people outside of here have no interest in taking responsibility for their own actions for one of a few reason (I'm not pretending to know them all):

1) (and most importantly) THey don't care. They do what they want, when they want, regardless of who it may or may not hurt. They're selfish. And while most of us here care greatly about these issues, selfishness can be a more powerful motivator, especially when they're used to giving in to it.

2) They don't think about it enough to come to a conclusion. We're mostly romantics here, I think--at least on the board--and we think things through to get to the heart of them. Most people do things their entire lives and NEVER question them. Sad, but true...

3) Many people truly believe that when THEY do something to someone else, it's different than someone else doing something to them. One's right and the other's wrong, and that's simply not the case.

Long story short, saying "hold yourself accountable" is easy, and so is actually doing it for some of us. Most of us do neither.

This debate is hard for us to answer because we tip-toe around what really gets in the way of our proper thinking. We either act without wanting to face the consequences, and therefore lean toward the notion that it is unnatural, or we think about people who will use this as an excuse to do whatever they like. I'm not implying that the people on this board are going to do that, or even would do that, but again, most people in the world aren't on this board. They don't think the way we do, they don't act the way we do. And we have to deal with these people one way or another.

Case in point: I dated a girl a while ago who did everything she possibly could do to dick me over...she fucked guys I work with and the whole bit, lied about it, and used every possible excuse why it wasn't her fault but mine, including lying to saying she did very few of the things she actually did. I thought of her when i came on here, mostly because I'm defensive about these type excuses now. So I see a post where someone says something that sounds like an excuse, and I read it differently than its intended because of my own bad experience. I guess the best way to answer this is simple. Our own inhibitions are going to get in the way of our thoughts and answers. Our own bad experiences and insecurities are going to get in the way. Our own mistakes that we wish to rationalize will get in the way.

I guess what I'm trying to say is (since I rambled on for so long) that we'll probably never answer this question as individuals or as a group. We've pretty much already agreed on what's important. We should be honest and fair with ourselves and our loved ones--I'd say strangers, too--and face up to what we do (a.k.a. act like the adults we are and not selfish little kids). The rest is just constant babbling--like what I've just done here...LOL
 
I'm new here so I do not remember who said "both", but I agree. I think some incline towards monogamy and some do not. Perhaps there are even varying degrees.

As humans we are more varied than any other living thing on this planet. We each have different inclinations, different hopes, different desires. We are each individuals and as such we react differently to different things. I think that this also applies to monogamy. Some of us may need that variety, while some of us do not.

My mom married her first and only love. They are still together and I doubt anything will change that. I would like to say they are completely happy, but I know better. They are however completely devoted to one another and would not ever think of going to another. They have been married for 28 years and were together for several years before that. After saying that though....I do not know what my parents sexual desires are, nor do I want to think of that ;)

Now for my real reason for believing this......

When I am in a relationship I never find myself attracted to anyone other than the person I am with. I can look at a man and think he is good looking, but there is never attraction. It is no different for me than looking at a woman and thinking she is good looking, or looking at a puppy and thinking it is cute. On the other hand I have a friend that is trying so hard to force herself to be monogamous and it never really works for her.

Anyhow from all that i have decided "in my infinite wisdom" that it is according to each individual person. I guess we all just need to find a person who meshes with us or can at least accept us for who we are :)
 
Re: Yes, I do!

Mensa said:


Monogamy is natural for a woman, but unnatural for a man.

That's why we have the Battle of the Sexes!:D


Sorry, I can't agree with this...I believe we are all geneticly programs to breed for a "survival of the species" type system. Genetic studies of women in the 1950's should that a fairly high proportion of women with multiple children had a child frequintly arround the 7th year of marriage that just geneticly could not be the child of their husband. Thus the seven year itch, it was speculated that in order to diversify the species and keep it strong that these women were geneticly program to seek out an additional partner at that stage in their life.

I believe we all have some inert programing that causes us to at least look for other sex partners. Some are more successful in suppressing this need than others. The reach of maximum sexual drive for men arround 17-21 and women 32-38 may have a lot to do with this.

However. you can also speculate about can you put 10lbs of shit in a 5lbs bag.

Mac
 
"Monogomy" is another name for contract

The issue of monogomy is about a "contract" between two people-----simple. Is it natural---hell no----can we do it Heaven yes! Called will power and Literotica:D

And where's Lukkkynight when we need him------I love his "deep thoughts"---sigh.
 
Re: Re: Thumper bunny... wanna be gay again for a chef?

Starfish said:
Are most of you aware that in most cases of additional (outside wedlock) pregnancies that most men do not take the responsibility for it as their own problem?
I know that many do, but it is a major problem.

How many men involved in monogamous relationships, married or otherwise, take the same amount of responsibility for their children as the female partner? Very very few. Parenting isn't an issue of physical fatherhood.
 
Thumper said:


You got that right.;)

Eddie's a fuck crazy bastard! *g* And he ain;t wearin no ring...


You obviously had educated things to say. Nice job!
 
Good subject.

Thank you pagancowgirl.

XX...was wondering if anybody recognized the AV...UP THE IRONS!
Thanks...

Starfishie...you didn't offend me in the least...I welcome debate;)
 
Back
Top