Are humans meant to be monogamous creatures?
- Thread starter xxmyhero64xx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah I think that if polygamy was challenged in the supreme court of canada by three people who wanted to marry each other they could win. Though most polgyamist in Canada are a fringe sect of mormanism in southern British Columbia, its actually a bit of a problem as US couples go their to get married. (the morman church members at least.)cystemic said:
Meh, life is all about perpetuating life, which is why so many organisms on this planet do whatever they can to pass their genes on to the next generation. The only think that makes Humans think differently is society and culture, although there could be other factors.
In short, I'd defer to what OptimisticPessimist said.
In short, I'd defer to what OptimisticPessimist said.
Monogamy/Monogomist
Meant to? no
Capable of being? yes
Capable of remaining? Well shit who do you think I am? god? I can't answer that shit.
Meant to? no
Capable of being? yes
Capable of remaining? Well shit who do you think I am? god? I can't answer that shit.
Read this.Hobo Steve said:
Looked at avatar. Read in Phillip Banks voice. oh god that was funny.
It has its advantages. Your young are more likely to survive if you hang around to take care of them, and you're more likely to survive to a ripe old age if your young know who their parents are and thus have a reason to take care of you in your infirmity.
Is there an absolute biological imperative toward monogamy? No, probably not, but no more is there a biological imperative toward polygamy. As the thinking monkey, we work these things out for ourselves.
Is there an absolute biological imperative toward monogamy? No, probably not, but no more is there a biological imperative toward polygamy. As the thinking monkey, we work these things out for ourselves.
Well, technically, we were meant to be sniveling idiots who don't shave and kill something that looks at us funny. Also, we were probably meant to die. We certainly weren't meant to develope a speakable language and learn how to eat healthy and create ships that can fly to the moon.
Our entire existance is unnatural, so it doesn't matter whether we were meant to be monogomous or not. We're freaking human, we'll do what we freaking want!
Our entire existance is unnatural, so it doesn't matter whether we were meant to be monogomous or not. We're freaking human, we'll do what we freaking want!
It is all individuality. I really have nothing more to add because it all comes down to your decision. You don't have to fuck everything in site, what would be the point if you were everyone else? Though what is the point of being married like everyone else? You do what you want because Evolution deems it the most accurate and most chaotic (which is a good thing), because by the end of the day you have served your purpose by living and choosing how to live (Monogamous or not) (and IMO it would be best if you helped your fellow man as well, because that is a big bonus with Evolution and me right there).
Chaos Definition in short: Change in either a Good or Bad way, but always a needed way.
Chaos Definition in short: Change in either a Good or Bad way, but always a needed way.
I heard that Men are designed to be with multiple wives (then again it was House so it could be wrong)
I don't think it's correct to apply the "are meant" term here. There is no specific purpose in nature, other than to stay alive and reproduce. Is it efficient? No, but neither is homosexuality, and BAM! Gay penguins. To be "meant" by nature doesn't mean it's "correct" on a superior moral level.
On the other hand, humans are expected to be monogamous. It's in our genes, we are possessive by nature, it's what has guided our evolution to the top of the foodchain. We are ambitious and possessive, pretty much like most of the animals. So a person usually fancies to be identified as the best and monogamy is a pretty fast way to do so.
I don't think polygamy is "better" than monogamy. More efficient for reproduction, worse according to our instinct, and something that directly clashes with the boundaries of the different societies in this planet.
What I do can say is that I'm monogamous. I can't think of sharing someone and I follow other principles (such as deciding it's more important to keep a friendship) well before considering the reproduction factor, so I prefer conceding exclusivities as opposed to more varied poontang.
On the other hand, humans are expected to be monogamous. It's in our genes, we are possessive by nature, it's what has guided our evolution to the top of the foodchain. We are ambitious and possessive, pretty much like most of the animals. So a person usually fancies to be identified as the best and monogamy is a pretty fast way to do so.
I don't think polygamy is "better" than monogamy. More efficient for reproduction, worse according to our instinct, and something that directly clashes with the boundaries of the different societies in this planet.
What I do can say is that I'm monogamous. I can't think of sharing someone and I follow other principles (such as deciding it's more important to keep a friendship) well before considering the reproduction factor, so I prefer conceding exclusivities as opposed to more varied poontang.
Well, not so much "evolved from." They are, however, humanity's two closest relatives.Joker7 said:
It's not.cystemic said:
But I've actually heard someone arguing (apparently in all seriousness, no less) that having an open marriage is "disrespectful" because you're "rubbing your affairs in your spouse's face." (And no, I don't get the logic at all.)
If the argument was that this is only true of men, it's bullshit. "Higamus hogamus" has less to do with biology than with double standards in regards to promiscuity.henritje said:
We say we are because it makes us feel better that we're better than most animals and that our higher thinking mind makes us better than them. But in truth we're not all really made to commit to one person - sure some people actually are but quite a few of us sub-consciously probably want to get around a bit more. It's only natural instinct after all.
I agree that it could work for allot of people but it seems to be a generally unaccepted thing, probably mainly due to STDS... Side note, how is starvation poverty and oppression the 'norm' of present day? I mean seriously, out of the millions of people on this earth how much do you REALLY think are starving, impoverished or oppressed? I know that no one in America is, at least not compared to what people everywhere had to deal with a good hundred years or so ago as the norm, or what animals and other beasts have to deal with on a regular basis...Vapus said:
Personally I think they best system would be if we more or less formed "groups" so to speak so that if you were having sex with multiple people they would at least all know each other and infected people could be cut from the group, although sex with multiple people will generally ruin the whole romantic 'you and only you' fantasy thats so appealing. That and kids, if a girl is having sex with multiple guys I've noticed its pretty common for all the guys to try and pull out of the relationship pointing fingers at the others for getting her prego, I'm guessing this has to do with the responsibility involved with raising a child
