Poll: Is commitment to one person unnatural?

[Svenparty]

Recently both in my relationship and thinking generally about the state of the majority of people's relationships it seems the "Norm" for them to stagnate and inevitably have children perhaps to compensate for the stagnation.

Why should it be this way? Surely then it is unnatural to be completely committed which typically leads to cheating and other problems?. Having multiple partners could lead to each person in the relationship feeling completely secure when the majority of relationships I see are a power struggle.

I will probably get a bit of schtick for this since it's not a widely held belief. Overall I am sorry if I have offended you. I'd just like to hear The Escapist's view on this matter.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Probably not. As a species we clearly pair-bond, and experience emotional states such as jealousy that only make sense given a norm of fidelity. That said, however, you'll find many societies practicing monogamy, polygamy, or some combination of the two, so it's most likely that we are capable of a spectrum of behaviors and adapt said behaviors to the situation at hand.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Who cares whether it's natural or not? Our nature is repulsive. That's why we've spent so many centuries trying to supress it. People should be allowed to have polygamous relationships if they want, and if all involved are consenting adults. However, saying that it is a better choice than a monogamous relationship, or that all monogomous relationships will inevitably stagnate while polygamous ones won't, is frankly stupid.

 

[Flutterguy]

They have done scientific research on the subject and yes. Although this is probably not good news to you, you can prolly find the data online. Really it makes alot of sense if you think about it, look at animals, not too many stay mates only 2 I can think of are not humanoid in any way.

 

[holy_secret]

In my personal opinion, it is something unnatural, yes. It's as unnatural as homosexuality, driving cars, drinking another species' milk or being a furry.

Everything is unnatural. This is why we're not cavemen anymore.

 

[Scipio1770]

is actually pretty natural. most mammals do it. although thats usually until the offspring can fend for themselves.

 

[MorsePacific]

That's actually a tough question. Personally, I'm fine with monogamy. I'm a very jealous person and polygamy would throw me into one hell of a rage. I feel since monogamy is the norm in most cultures that it is normal. Since our culture is an extension of our reaction to the world around us en masse, I think I can safely justify it as being natural, at least.

On the other hand, humans instinctively want to spread their DNA as much as possible, which is also very natural. So...I guess both.

 

[Kapol]

Eh, natural or not, it seems to be generally accepted. I think that it's fine if both want to be together, but I also feel that a lot of joy gets sucked out of the relationship over time. Of course, there are cases where people are generally happy together for their entire lives. Good for them, I say, but that's a fairly unusual case. An outliar (not sure I spell that right) on a graph if you will.

I honestly think that we've been goverened by religions for so many years that we think not being with one person is bad. It's gotten better recently, but it's still pretty frowned upon I think. Don't get me wrong, I think we kinda needed that part of religion to get to where we are, but I also think it's worn out it's use.

 

[Altanese]

Normal to stagnate? Lose the initial passion, perhaps, but that is normal for anything. When you get a new game that's really good you want to do nothing but play it and no other game. You might think this is an argument for polyamory, but it's just an argument against relationships 'stagnating'.

Anyway, it's certainly not uncommon for humans to bond for life. Other animals are known to do it, and some do it almost exclusively. On that note, males are more inclined to polyamorous relations than females, because it's also not uncommon for humans and other high apes to have males keep harems. The reason for this is the simple fact that a male can mate with four women and might produce four (or more) offspring, but if a female mates with four men she's only going to have one pregnancy.

Next time: We start discussing the advantages and disadvantages of sexual reproduction when compared to asexual reproduction.

 

[Odegauger]

Who cares whether it's natural or not? Our nature is repulsive. That's why we've spent so many centuries trying to supress it. People should be allowed to have polygamous relationships if they want, and if all involved are consenting adults. However, saying that it is a better choice than a monogamous relationship, or that all monogomous relationships will inevitably stagnate while polygamous ones won't, is frankly stupid.

I came into this thread wanting to say the exact same thing. Well said.

 

[Shymer]

It's slightly discomforting to suggest that having children is the inevitable result of stagnation in a relationship. Or that total commitment to one person should inevitably result in cheating or 'other problems'. That's not been my experience at all and I would challenge your assertion that this represents 'the majority' of relationships.

Perhaps your thinking reflects a stage of life you're in, your social group or a projection of your personal situation - more than a defined characteristic of the human condition?

And if you think that a two person relationship involve power politics - a multi-party set of inter-twining relationships is going to immediately be considerably more complex, and rife with power struggles - much more complex and, perhaps as a result, less stable? Are you presupposing that these multiple partners would not interact with each other? Would more partners lead to people feeling more secure? I can't see that at all.

I'm slightly less interested in the concept of whether this is 'natural'. Humans are clearly distinct from other animals in terms of behaviour and are able to chose to flow with their animal nature, or rise above it.

 

[Astoria]

The thing about humans is we are all different. For some people being with one person works and for other being with a couple of people works. Soemwhere in our history though we decided that being with one person was what was best so I'm gonna say that's what's natural but we humans are also very picky creatures. The whole relationship becoming stagnant thing usually happens if the people involved are no longer interested which probably means you aren't suited for each other.

 

[Superior Mind]

If monogomy isn't against mankind it is at least agaisnt man.

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

A month early, but I'd say it's not. We all pair up in some way or another, creating productive, well adjusted kids. Most of us, anyways.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Yes.
You shouldn't be commited to one person for more than one breeding season.
After that, it's time to decide again.

Of course, for humans one breeding season just takes way too long (Seriously, it takes like 16 years before the young can be somewhat autonomous, with human society slowing it down even more.) so I would recommend changing human society to be more polygamous.

 

[Svenparty]

It's slightly discomforting to suggest that having children is the inevitable result of stagnation in a relationship. Or that total commitment to one person should inevitably result in cheating or 'other problems'. That's not been my experience at all and I would challenge your assertion that this represents 'the majority' of relationships.

Perhaps your thinking reflects a stage of life you're in, your social group or a projection of your personal situation - more than a defined characteristic of the human condition?

And if you think that a two person relationship involve power politics - a multi-party set of inter-twining relationships is going to immediately be considerably more complex, and rife with power struggles - much more complex and, perhaps as a result, less stable? Are you presupposing that these multiple partners would not interact with each other? Would more partners lead to people feeling more secure? I can't see that at all.

I'm slightly less interested in the concept of whether this is 'natural'. Humans are clearly distinct from other animals in terms of behaviour and are able to chose to flow with their animal nature, or rise above it.

Good points raised across the thread: Perhaps a factor in this is my personal life and situations arising but I never want children and see the majority of people falling into the situation by accident and believe far too many people have children recklessly.

Power Politics is an interesting argument: Though there are some good examples of couples with multiple partners that have alternative systems to suit their lifestyles.


I think "natural" may have been the wrong word to use: I feel these beliefs in monogamy originate from religious philosophies personally but I can see how others feel it is to "Carry on the gene" which also takes away all the passion and feeling in my eyes.

 

[Flutterguy]

Who cares whether it's natural or not? Our nature is repulsive. That's why we've spent so many centuries trying to supress it. People should be allowed to have polygamous relationships if they want, and if all involved are consenting adults. However, saying that it is a better choice than a monogamous relationship, or that all monogomous relationships will inevitably stagnate while polygamous ones won't, is frankly stupid.

I came into this thread wanting to say the exact same thing. Well said.

I simply don't see how are nature is repulsive, it is geared towards survival of the species, just like every other animal. Given it is a far cry from what we are doing today and I would in no way wish to be part of that time, but if we had of civil from the get-go we prolly would not be here today.

 

[EonEire]

Don't swans have only 1 partner?

 

[Rascarin]

I don't believe it is unnatural at all. Looking at the evolutionary history, I would guess that our ancestral state was similar to that of gorillas, with one male holding several females. With the change towards slow-growing(/higher dependence) children, it probably became more profitable (from an evolutionary standpoint) to invest in one female and her offspring than several.

My partner is pressing me to have our relationship be "open". Whether this means they want more than one relationship, or just sex on the side, I don't know. I'm deeply opposed to the idea. I tried experimenting with the open relationship (for one drunken night), and found it really isn't for me.

I think if we weren't meant to have monogamous relationships, we wouldn't have such strong jealous responses. Though, everyone is different, and some people can have polyamorous relationships. On the whole - I think monogamy is the natural state.

 

[LuckyClover95]

No, many elderly couples have loved each other for a lot of their lives and still do. It's sweet, and seems natural. I think only being attracted to one person seems a little unnatural - if I was in a long term relationship I wouldn't expect them to lose their attraction to everybody else, but I just wouldn't want them to try and act on it.