I think monogamy is a secondary trait, we acquire it because it's too difficult to maintain 3+ people relationships without feeling jealously and insecurity so we just naturally avoid them.
Are humans meant to be monogamous creatures?
- Thread starter xxmyhero64xx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Since the proportion of males to females in the populaton is roughly 50/50, then monogamy makes the most sense. If there was a lot more of one than the other then polygamy would make more sense...
OptimisticPessimist said:
Absolutely agreed. The biological imperative is to survive and reproduce, whatever we do other than that is a product of a decision made by the individual. It doesn't really matter whether or not a human biological imperative is to be monogamous or not, since we can choose to go against our biology.Kipohippo said:
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 .
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 .
Basically, the biological evidence is completely out, largely because you can't read genetic tendancies from socialized behaviour (well, you can, it's just bad practice). Though there does seem to be good money in writing books arguing one way or the other.
The traditional argument has tended to be that men are naturally more inclined to roam, but that women have evolved to catch men in long term monogamous unions. It's been argued that this is why we don't have a clear fertility cycle with periods of 'heat' like many other mammals.
Recently though, this has been pretty widely critiqued, mostly by pointing out that the assumption of women being 'less sexual' can't really be separated from the fairly general cultural rule that women tend to suffer more negative consequences and/or prohibitions against being sexually agentive and promiscuous, and that the breakdown in traditional tabboos about female sexuality does lead to women having more sex.
Recently there's been a good bit of 'debunking' literature about the idea that humans are naturally monogamous. But really, noone knows anything. The best policy is probably to assume, that others have said, that that if there is an overarching genetic 'intention' in very complex and socialized human behaviours then it's impossible to read and best ignored.
Personally, I feel that the social expectation that you'll meet someone in your twenties and still feel the same way about them when you're 80 is a bit ridiculous, and that noone is honestly in a position to make that kind of commitment. But I don't think framing it around genetics is necessarily the right way to go. It's better to look at it in terms of social and personal happiness than any kind of overarching genetic determinism.
It is true though that an awful lot of people who would claim to be monogamous cheat on their partners. For me though that's primarily a question of what's wrong with monogamy as a social necessity rather than as a genetic predisposition or otherwise.
The traditional argument has tended to be that men are naturally more inclined to roam, but that women have evolved to catch men in long term monogamous unions. It's been argued that this is why we don't have a clear fertility cycle with periods of 'heat' like many other mammals.
Recently though, this has been pretty widely critiqued, mostly by pointing out that the assumption of women being 'less sexual' can't really be separated from the fairly general cultural rule that women tend to suffer more negative consequences and/or prohibitions against being sexually agentive and promiscuous, and that the breakdown in traditional tabboos about female sexuality does lead to women having more sex.
Recently there's been a good bit of 'debunking' literature about the idea that humans are naturally monogamous. But really, noone knows anything. The best policy is probably to assume, that others have said, that that if there is an overarching genetic 'intention' in very complex and socialized human behaviours then it's impossible to read and best ignored.
Personally, I feel that the social expectation that you'll meet someone in your twenties and still feel the same way about them when you're 80 is a bit ridiculous, and that noone is honestly in a position to make that kind of commitment. But I don't think framing it around genetics is necessarily the right way to go. It's better to look at it in terms of social and personal happiness than any kind of overarching genetic determinism.
It is true though that an awful lot of people who would claim to be monogamous cheat on their partners. For me though that's primarily a question of what's wrong with monogamy as a social necessity rather than as a genetic predisposition or otherwise.
Our reproductive strategy basically boils down to "put all your eggs in one basket and carefully raise the basket." We're different from other primates in terms of the resources it takes to raise a human vs. a chimp or a gorilla, so we have a different set of reproductive tactics. Generally we tend towards long-term stable relationships, with many notable exceptions. Monogamy is more common, but you will see polygamy relatively often as well. However, marriage has a strong social/political component, esp. in the case of rulers (who historically tend to swing more polygamous than the rest of society), so there's more going on in monogamous or polygamous relationships than reproduction.
Basically, what people earlier in this thread said - we're adapted to be able to utilize a wide variety of possible strategies, including monogamy. It's a mistake to assume that we have some sort of single "natural" behavior, because right now we are by definition behaving the way that humans naturally behave. Monogamy's certainly something we *can* do, and something that works well in a modern society.
Basically, what people earlier in this thread said - we're adapted to be able to utilize a wide variety of possible strategies, including monogamy. It's a mistake to assume that we have some sort of single "natural" behavior, because right now we are by definition behaving the way that humans naturally behave. Monogamy's certainly something we *can* do, and something that works well in a modern society.
Essentially, this. There might be biological impetus one way or the other, but ultimately it's for us to decide. Humans are well beyond the stage where we can make our own decisions.OptimisticPessimist said:
But anyway, monagamy works for some, less so for others. It really comes down to the indivdual.
Humans aren't "meant" to be monogamous, nor are they "meant" to be polygamous. Humans are "meant" to form societies that dictate what they believe and how they act. Humans that live in polygamous societies will most likely engage in a form of polygamy. So on and so forth.xxmyhero64xx said:
Some of us can, some of us can't. There are way too many of us and we're all (mostly) way too different for a generalization to really be made.
I don't think we're monogamous so much as we are possessive. A large chunk of us are totally okay with spreading the love so long as no one else is having a piece of any of our sandwiches. Okay, that was a terrible mixed metaphor, but we are a terribly contradictory species in general.
For me, I don't really know. I know I'm certainly capable of feeling attracted (both emotionally and physically) to multiple people at any given time, but there's a certain sense of wrongness that comes from pursuing more than one avenue. Then again, that could just be societal pressures. Who knows?
Short answer: I doubt it.
For me, I don't really know. I know I'm certainly capable of feeling attracted (both emotionally and physically) to multiple people at any given time, but there's a certain sense of wrongness that comes from pursuing more than one avenue. Then again, that could just be societal pressures. Who knows?
Short answer: I doubt it.
Damn it! I've been focusing on the wrong part of my junk all this time now!Bara_no_Hime said:
OT: Well we aren't built to be totally monogamous and I see nothing wrong with us beginning to be a bit less exclusive when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships, so yeah. I'm not a huge fan of monogamy. Nothing wrong with it. It's an excellent way of showing someone you really care for them. Just I don't really see any reason why human beings can't, ya know, swing a bit more. Sure it could increase the spread of STDs but with proper caution and knowledge, I think we'd do much better at keeping them from getting everywhere.
Monogamy is born out of the natural desire to ensure your genetic code is passed on as opposed to anothers. It isn't some random nonsensical societal or religious crap. EVERYTHING in human society is based on some sort of biological need or reaction whether we admit it or not.
In short, the answer is yes AND no. We're made to want to spread our seed far and wide, but make sure others aren't plowing our fields... if you catch my drift. Placing legal claim on someone or societal stigmas/relgious rules is just facilitating that. We're apes, plain and simple.
In short, the answer is yes AND no. We're made to want to spread our seed far and wide, but make sure others aren't plowing our fields... if you catch my drift. Placing legal claim on someone or societal stigmas/relgious rules is just facilitating that. We're apes, plain and simple.
Here's how I think of it: monogamy decreases the rate at which the gene pool if homogenized. Less sexual partners equals more genetically dissimilar offspring, which encourages genetic drift, and aids in the process of evolution.
Whether or not humans were meant to be monogamous is immaterial. It's simply more pragmatic for them to be.
Whether or not humans were meant to be monogamous is immaterial. It's simply more pragmatic for them to be.
Well... what do you mean by meant?
I mean, there's no real universal law for having sex outside of cultural ones...
I mean, there's no real universal law for having sex outside of cultural ones...
Probably not natural wise. But biologically speaking we also probably weren't supposed to live and work in towering constructs of glass, stone and metal or drive a car or play computer games or indeed use a computer whatsoever so yeah, fuck natural.