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
pagancowgirl said:
Ok, snuggles for you then.

I still wholeheartedly disagree on the whole humans have no instincts premise though....


Uh oh...

I am cool with that, but it isn't my opinion.
It has been openly proven otherwise and is generally accepted in all related fields that humans have no instincts.
 
Ohhh.. Fishie? Here's my take on human instincts...

In studies of young babies, anger and fear have been observed time and time again, long before experience has given them the opportunity to “learn” these reactions from others. They are, therefore, unquestionably instinctual. It has been proposed that these are emotional processes, not instincts. I believe both contentions are partially true: anger and fear are instincts as much as they are also emotions.

With anger, the brows are wrinkled, the face gets red, the veins stand out, the nostrils are dilated, the lips are drawn back and the teeth clenched, the hands are clenched, the body is very tense, and the voice harsh. With extreme fear, the whole body is pallid and/or trembles, the heart spasms, goose-flesh appears, cold sweat pops out, hair stands up, mouth gets dry, one chokes on words and/or screams, and there’s a tendency to flee.

These reactions in us are called out in the same way they are in other animals - by the presence of the appropriate stimuli. There’s not a lot of conscious decision-making involved in these reactions; our bodies are going on instinct when we’re very angry or very scared.

Assuming you believe that humans do, indeed, act sometimes according to the dictates of instincts, many scientists find these to be among the generally recognized instincts in humans: fear, anger, shyness, curiosity, affection, sexual love, jealousy and envy, rivalry, sociability, sympathy, modesty, play, imitation, constructiveness, secretiveness, and acquisitiveness.

A quick look at this list highlights the union of instinct and emotion. Some of the words in the list apply primarily to acts, and so can be understood by the common implication of the term instinct. Other words suggest the conscious feelings inherent in emotional experiences. Imitation, play, and constructiveness are examples of the first kind of term; fear, anger, and jealousy illustrate the second.

~~~~~
Fishie? There are well-known, well-respected scientists in many fields who do believe that we humans are possessed of instincts, same as any bit of life with even a modicum of a brain on this planet.


Warning: My take on monogamy is coming up next. Better run and hide so you won't be bored to death.
 
Last edited:
This is all about the misconception of what instincts really defined as.

I see here where we differ..

You are coming more from the Psychological studies side of this, and I am coming more from the Zoological and Biological side of it, and that I go by the hard set definition of what an instinct is.
I respect and am enlightened by all other sides, and appreciate the input Cym.

Please read the definitions of what instinct is. The second definition is that which the Biological Science community adheres to for the sake of educational consistency.

The key word is UNALTERABLE, specific behavior (sorry but that's the keyword) , not a concept that motivates behavior, as you say they are.

What I presume is that you are saying that a emotional motive (anger, fear) brought on by a stimuli is an instinct. If you go by what you are saying, sure, but the fact that what an instinct is by the definition I go by, is more importantly it's final outcome or result.
That is why it is that my statements are not false, but that they follow that school of thought within Biology, especially, but I've had in-depth exposure about these concepts in other areas as stated.

Just to clarify that I agree that fear and anger are strong enough to be confused in the mind as instinctual because they are survival driven, but the fact alone that not every individual in our species will respond the same is what determines that we don't have overall, specieal instincts. You may get flushed when angry, and I may have my heart rate increase, but it is not guaranteed that you will have exactly what I have happen. I could vomit. You could poopy your pants, and we could be in a nasty affair in all of that. :p.

Please acknowledge that there is a necessity to differentiate between that of what humans experience, and that of animals, because it is so clearly different, so that we designate the term DRIVES, to pertain to human emotion and intuition (instincts as so many call them) and instincts in animals, because animals of a given species will all respond the same way to a given stimuli. This is overly documented, and is needed to study the evolution of species and changes in special generation.


I posted the text book definition of what instincts are.
By that definition, humans do not have them.
Fear could stun me and make me freeze, and you could run for your life.

If you go by the definition, an instinct is a reaction to an unconscious impulse that ALL individuals within a species will react to IN THE SAME WAY. Please do not ignore this point. I've repeated it several times, but incase it was overlooked I wanted to add that I am quite concerned that it is the point that determines the result of the truth in the matter of what instinct is. If we don't agree on using the textbook definition, then the point of what I am saying will not be understood and I must step out of this topic.

This definition, if altered slightly, can change everything. If you take out the 'All individuals in the same way' part, then yep, we've got em, but really those reactions by babies are actually survival drives because one baby may just get shaky and not get red in the face and/(or not) have every other single symptom, or only specific ones. If every child exhibited the same exact symptoms, than that is instinctual, but I don't recall you say that every baby had the same result.

I understand if no one buys this theory, but I have evidence far exceeding that of viewing infants being scared, if you base it in what instinct is purely by definition.

Examples:
Every horse that you have in a barn will react the same way if you set that barn on fire. They will try to stay in the barn, and if you try to remove them and they get away from you, they'll return to the burning barn, even if it kills them.
This isn't the only example.

Not every human will respond the same way to a given stimuli, no matter what the drive is.

We all get hungry, but we don't all obtain, prepare, and ingest our food in the same way under the same diet. Animals that are omnivores do tend to exhibit some variations withing the species, but that I think is due to the factor of choice.

Intuition and response doesn't equate to instinct.
It has to be that every individual in the species will respond the same, so show me one thing about humans that you can say WILL happen behaviorally, every time, under the same circumstances, for every individual.

How a species respond it stimuli determines whether it is a drive which comes from posed environmental need, or an instinct (inherited trait) shared by the species.


Call it what you will... No two humans respond the same way to fear, hunger, or any stimuli for that matter, because we don't have set inherited instincts, and if we do, it goes out the window once the learning process takes hold so what difference does it make, because we are mostly shaped by our environment?

I am less afraid of attackers now because I am learning Kenjutsu, and self defense, so now I have no need to be afraid, and I can learn to control my fear.

Instincts don't allow for variation. Plain and simple. If variation occurs, then it always alters the heredity of the offspring, making them have that response too, thus resulting in a new species if the instinct is consistent within the species.


If this is all untrue, than I want my money back.

I am all for finding out more about it, but up until now, the proof doesn't favor that humans have instincts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Ohhh.. Fishie? Here's my take on human instincts...

cymbidia said:
With anger, the brows are wrinkled, the face gets red, the veins stand out, the nostrils are dilated, the lips are drawn back and the teeth clenched, the hands are clenched, the body is very tense, and the voice harsh.

...this sounds like one hell of an orgasm to me, Cym! ;)
 
OMG! That is awesome Blusing Rose.

Now I know I am not the only perve here... wait..

Did I just say that? I came here for the perves. What was I thinking.

*pant pant pant*



Oh, and what I really think about this awesome thread, is that it's the Church's fault and since it is high time we use our free will to the ultimate purpose, we should hold the first annual Literotica Orgy this Spring, but we must all use Birth Control.

PCG, you know that's why you started this thread... admit it! ;)
 
My goodness people. Thank you for the lecture. Where do I send the tuition fees? And what textbooks do I need to continue? Here goes...
Oh and forgive me for I don't quote from books, or scientists. Can only give my viewpoint.

Coming from someone in a polygomous relationship maybe my answer is different. Maybe not. Shrugging shoulders. I think, believe, whatever you care to call it, that monogomy is not a natural or instinctual thing, emotion whatever. It was put upon us by our early religions to help control population and society.

My life aside, though it does color my views, I do not advocate free and wild sex with anyone you lust after. (Yes, merelan said that, check her tempeture someone). Polygamy is still a committment. A "marriage" of a sort. I am "married" to my men, and only them. Unless of course Starfishie wants to come lecture me. I know they wouldn't mind a bit.
 
pagancowgirl said:


BOTH WASN'T AN OPTION!!!! Why does there always have to be someone who wants to pick an option that wasn't there??? It's a yes or no question! I gave you 5 choices, and you still want more????:mad:

Wow! A little harsh, no? I think her post qualifies as other. ;)
 
Re: Is monogamy natural?

pagancowgirl said:
I had a conversation with someone earlier and we glossed over this topic. Neither of us feel it's a natural thing for humans to be monogamous (I'm talkin for a lifetime here, not a week ;) ).

What do y'all think?

I know of a couple of scientific studies that back up my position, but I'm not posting them now.
Yes, it is genetically programmed in, but it is not permanent. Those are really two different issues.

As I mentioned in my post on falling in/falling out of love, there are different parts of our brains that have different kinds of programming. While monogamy is part of our programming, staying monogamous with the same person forever is not - at least not in the older parts of our brains.

I believe a study of people who stayed together for lifetimes has shown that there is not necessarily any genetic or cultural indications that descendants will stay together for their lifetimes too.

So, my answer is, that we are programmed to be temporarily monogomous with one person, probably for 4-7 years.
 
pagancowgirl said:

...Would humans in their 'natural state' (ie; the state in which they rely on survival instincts) be monogamous?

We have "instincts" but also the power to override them---called will power. As a married woman of 13 years who just turned 37 a few months ago---well u can only imagine. Not only am i contending with the "itch" thing which really does rise up every 6 to 7 years but have also reached that "peak" thing. :eek:
I mean how do i begin?---Could fuck and suck just about any man on this planet--all at once I think at times :p. Husband now lovingly calls himself as "Bobo" the circus perfoming bear. To say that I am insatiable is an understatement-----but I choose to be monogomous---i don't have physical sex w/any one else (my definition of momogomy).
It's been really hard---but the rewards of mongomy are unparalelled---if it's getting boring change the recipe not the meat:D
 
Starfish said:

Oh, and what I really think about this awesome thread, is that it's the Church's fault and since it is high time we use our free will to the ultimate purpose, we should hold the first annual Literotica Orgy this Spring, but we must all use Birth Control.

PCG, you know that's why you started this thread... admit it! ;)

Yeah, it is. I have this list of lit members in my mind, and I want to play out my "Heather the Virgin Cheerleader gets Taken By The Football Team" fantasy. :p
 
No – it isn’t ‘natural’. It’s natural to procreate.

However, it’s a measure, an indication, and a necessity of loyalty and dedication you should grant your mate. To exhibit their worth to you. Period. Do unto others, eh.

(If there’s some non-monogamy agreement openly agreed upon between both parties, obviously my statement doesn’t hold).
 
I'm not talking about having affairs, necessarily. I'm thinking more along the lines of, having been married for 7 years, I'm goin crazy with wanting something new in my life. I've never thought monogamy was even possible for me, and I've been so for almost 8 years. But I can tell by the way my feelings about myself hasve changed that this is not a normal state for me, and I was wondering if others felt the same.
 
I don't think it's unnatural.
I also don't think it's natural for everyone.

Monogamy is kinda like chocolate ice cream.
Some people like it. Some people don't like it. Some like theirs to be a different flavor.

I happen to fall in the "totally monogamous no matter what for the rest of my life" category. That's just the way I feel. My opinion. I want one mate. Period.

Other people might feel differently. They might look forward to multiple partners.

Who am I to judge which way is right, or which is wrong?

To each his own.

It's your choice. YOU face the consequences of your actions. Be sure that you choose something that makes you happy. That is the most important thing of all.

My two cents. And then some.:)
 
XXplorher said:
Choose.

And hold yourself accountable.
After all the words are boiled down and the excess wafted off, this is the heart of the matter.

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

So, you must choose, according to the dictates of your life.

You also have to accept of the consequences of whatever choice you've made. There might be some hard times coming from the decision you make but such is life, hmmm?

You can always revamp that decision at a later date if you've chosen that which doesn't work for you.

No one else can possibly tell you what's best and right for you in this. It's too personal a decision.
 
I don't think I have ever had this much trouble communicating in my entire young life. :(

I posted a poll. I wanted to know what others thought. I'm not looking for advice about or justification for my actions or plans. I don't need to be reminded to take responsibility for myself and the consequences of my actions, I'm so into personal responsibility, it's almost pathological.

Answer the poll, let us know what you think, but please stop treating this like an "Oh, whatever shall I do" thread, because it isn't. If I were to choose to fuck someone else, it's not gonna be blamed on my instinct to procreate. Not that that's even an option right now, no one's offering.
 
pagancowgirl said:
Answer the poll, let us know what you think, but please stop treating this like an "Oh, whatever shall I do" thread, because it isn't.
Yikes! :eek:

Okay. Ahem.

IMO, lifelong monogamy is contrary to our needs as humans and animals. I think we're a serially monogamous species with deep dips into extra-relationship affairs if we can get away with it.

Or, maybe we're all just sluts?
Nah. Can't just be me...
 
cymbidia said:
Yikes! :eek:

Okay. Ahem.

IMO, lifelong monogamy is contrary to our needs as humans and animals. I think we're a serially monogamous species with deep dips into extra-relationship affairs if we can get away with it.

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

I apologize if my previous post seemed bitchy. I just can't believe a poll thread was taken as an advice thread. *shakin my head*

Anyway, thanks for posting an opinion! It doesn't hurt that you pretty much mirrored my own opinion. ;)

Maybe you're right though, maybe we ARE all sluts, but I've heard the world needs more of us. Where has PC been lately anyway?
 
From the hopelessly polygamous front.

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...monagamy is not natural. If it was we would cease to ever be attracted to others after marrying.

Polyamory aids in genetic diversity which is fundamental to a species survival. Males seek to spread their genes as widely as possible thereby insuring the continuation of that genetic line. Stronger males have greater opportunities for mating hence the genetic traits making that male superior get passed down more often. This is true even today...Successful businessmen and accomplished athletes have no trouble getting "laid" they are subconsciously seen as "good providers" and the best choice genetically for the survival of their offspring. The drive for genetic diversity is present in females also. Since care of the young takes time and resources the female will be a bit less open about it. If a stronger male enters the picture she will be drawn to him but will attempt to "fool" her mate into continuing the support. Making him a "cuckold" The females of some species can even reject the sperm of one male and accept the sperm of another if both mate with her.

On a side note...it is my opinion that society to a certain degree has negated the "survival of the fittest" concept in regards to humans. Just checkout the express line at Wal Mart sometime. Nowadays everybody survives.

None of this lends itself to a civilized society and as our intelligence emerged (and our higher emotions) we saw the logic in maintaining family units and weaving them into a civilization. Society needs the concepts of morality and monagamy in particular to keep these drives/instincts in check and to progress beyond the constant fighting for mates and resources.

As men and women we react differently to infidelity on the part of our spouses.

A woman will react much more strongly to her mate forming an emotional bond with another than she would to his one night stand with a hooker( I have first hand experience with this only not with a hooker). Conversely a man will become enraged if he suspects his mate is physically involved with another man, but her gay friend is OK because it's just an emotional thing.
These are gross oversimplifications but if you look deep enough the traits can be seen. OJ Simpson is a prime example.

I am an anomaly...or an abnormality....I do not and have never felt jealous. Some have said it was a good thing and others have said it was because I didn't care. I don't know....is it? Good or bad?

Now....who here is for a little gene dispersing practice;)
 
If I just want to fuck you all, but I know that I don't have that kind of gas money, then I guess I remain monogamous.

Shit.
 
Damn...

Financially enforced monagamy!

I am poor therefore I am celibate.

I miss the old days when all ya needed was a cave and a club.;)
 
Thumper..beautifully worded.


I think most humans opt for some type of serial monogamy.

3 days
3 months
3 years


A succession of people spanning across time..only nominally overlapping over each other.

The thing is..humans do feel attracted to other humans in various degrees.

Would your attraction towards another person stop...simply because someone tells you that they will be very upset if you don't?

And could you control your actions based upon another being telling you to?


I feel that nobody replaces another in my heart..for it is very wide and very deep.
 
Thumper... yeh.
Beautifully worded.

Screw the successful businessmen and accomplished athletes.
Give me an intelligent, verbally accomplished man any day.
 
Re: From the hopelessly polygamous front.

Thumper said:
The females of some species can even reject the sperm of one male and accept the sperm of another if both mate with her.

Durn it Thumper.. I was going to come back from work today to discuss this point and ya beat me to it ;) :p lol

I have this, how shall I say, friend.. who in all actuality has a sexual addiction.. literally addicted to sex. It's something that has been deemed 'wrong' via society and so he sees a head doctor to work it out. What his problem is.. is that he feels insecure and unworthy unless he sleeps with many women.. & if he doesn't, he feels worthless and his self-confidence is nil. (This is bogus, he is truly an awesome person.. but I can see where he is coming from.)

This councelor he's seeing had him do research on sexuality and human biology, and in this research he found a study from scientists where they took a couple hundred women, had them sleep with their mates, then had them sleep with someone they are very attracted to (be it sexually, or as Thumper said.. maybe the other man they felt would provide $$/security better).. and then they discovered that in more cases than not.. there was a higher percentage 'back-flow' rate with their husbands, than with their other lovers... ie, the women were rejecting the sperm of their own husbands & the women were more likely to get impregnated by their lover.

Whew.. gawd I hope that made sense.

I, on the other hand am the complete opposite from my friend up there. When I am with someone, I have to feel as though I am the *only* one my parter is satisfied with, otherwise I feel total worthless. Kind of an "If I'm not enough to satisfy them, then what the hell good am I?" idea. Fuck up, yes... but it's a direct result of someone I loved very much and felt very secure with fucking around on me for 4 years. (Don't ask, I was an idiot.)... (why do I think everyone is going to ignore my post.. :rolleyes: )

So, I guess I'm kind of if-y on the whole thing.. in me & my friends' case, I think it was more of a learned behaviour due to bad experiences in the past.. but the whole scientific research thing above kinda has me thinking that the human body is capable of more than what we think we are.
 
Back
Top