Poll: Your stance on monogamy?

[WayOutThere]

First of all, your poll needs to list some rational reasons to be for/against polygamy. Although I suppose eight slots is limiting so perhaps it is understandable.

I feel that monogamy is right simply because it just feels right. Having more than one spouse/mate (etc.) seems like it would just make you feel dirty.

It would only make you feel dirty because society has conditioned you that way. Once you realize that on an emotional level I bet the thought will no longer have that effect. Also, I hope what you mean to say is not that other people shouldn't be allowed to be in polygamous relationships just because of how they make you feel.

Secondary question: If polygamy was all of a sudden generally accepted in society (and legal) would you practice it?

Note that polygamy is having multiple spouses meaning one women having multiple husbands is a polygamous relationship. In light of the fact that both genders have the freedom to marry multiple partners I take no issue with it. Would I enter into such a relationship myself? I would if I saw that the practical benefits as far as raising children goes outweigh the negatives (which they very well may). Still, right now I'm not too keen on entering any relationship.

 

[DanDeFool]

Monogamy is the last vestiges of a dying human race--the race of the "last men," as Nietzsche called them. There is nothing good, noble, and praiseworthy about monogamy. Just as there is nothing special with polygamy.

If we were meant to be monogamous we wouldn't have any desire to cheat.

Simple as.

Penguins don't cheat, in-fact most of the time when one's partner dies. It will simply never mate again. Some die soon after, thoughts are from grief. Wanna know why? Because they were born to be monogamous.

Be careful with that, sir. When you say "we" how sure are you that you speak for 100% of the human populace, the dead, the living, and those that are not yet conceived? I'd be careful with generalizations like that....

It's human nature to be at the very least curious about having sex with other people. Even if someone doesn't cheat, there is a 100% chance that at some point during any relationship they've had. That they have looked at another prospective mate in sexual way. whether or not they act upon it is another matter.

What I am sure of is that monogamy, especially as far as males are concerned, is counter intuitive as far as survival of the species goes. Atleast in a primitive situation. Spreading your genes to as many mates as possible gives you a greater chance of special survival.

That's not so important now. But old habits are hard to kick. Especially ones that are ingrained on you at a genetic level.

I generalise because it's true.

Again, sir. Do you know if it's true for the 100% of those--even males--that have yet to be, those that are, and those that were? It's a disturbing trend that I've seen amongst humans: the trend to state their observations as the "truth."

you're not observant for pointing out the fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed. Is it also right to say that you don't know that every human is born with blood because you haven't tested every human to prove this? I think I choose to believe in hormones over inane philosophical prattle.

Just because you can't prove something to be statistically true doesn't mean it isn't.

If you must know, statistically, nothing is true, because nothing can really be tested to it's fullest. Name me a study in which the sample is the whole human population. A quick search of "statistics" on wikipedia should have yield you the results you need.

Only the ignorant call it "inane philosophical prattle." I guess, you need to fill in the hole in your, so called, "knowledge."

*woosh* right over your head.

That was kind of my point.

And biologically speaking.... yes... what I'm saying is true.

You don't stop being attracted to other people once you're in a relationship. There is no biological proof to suggest anything to that nature. In-fact oxytocin (the chemical linked with human bonding) begins to fade dramatically after only a few years. And rises once again when you find a new partner.

So yes. I'm going to continue calling what you're saying inane philosophical prattle. Because it doesn't mean anything. It's just a blatant fact that has no relevance to my point, dressed up as something poignant.

The fact that I'm not every human to have ever existed doesn't mean that what we know human biology is wrong. Again. Simply because I can't statistically prove something doesn't mean it's wrong... :/

Again, there is no single biological phenomenon that is universal. Every hormone secreted, every brain function, every twitch of the muscle, every beat of the heart is different in every single one of us. You know, the inconvenient word we use to describe everything that doesn't fit our narrative: mutation.

To prove my point, I heard it on npr, last week, this recorded mental patient who would reach orgasm at the sight of pins---yes, pins!

Though I regret I can't remember the exact name of the patient or the therapist who attended, and recorded that guy.

Ever heard the expression. 'The exceptions that prove the rule.' It is of course going to be true that there are anomalies, we're talking about biology here. Not factory crafted beings. For 99% of the population hormones are going to have the exact same effect. There may be slight differences in the process and length of time involved. But they all do the same thing.


There are bound to be those who are considered mentally retarded. And/or haven't reached sexual maturity. They won't have the desire for sex atall. I thought it was clear that I was talking about normal humans. Not the handicapped exceptions.

When someone is talking about the absolute in a discussion like this. They don't mean (including the anomalies.) If I rephrase 'Everyone' To 'Every healthy (mentally and physically) human.' Will you STFU?

I thought that would have been blatantly obvious and readily available to anyone reading. Clearly not.

You have superbly demonstrated the all-too-human folly: "they" are the exception, you are the rule. There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is. The human brain fears that which it cannot understand--and label--thus we label these as "exceptions" to the rule to prove a point. The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything. There will always be "exceptions."

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

I have one problem with what you are saying.

If biology works so differently for every person on the planet, why do most people bond, mate, and reproduce in roughly the same way?

If significant differences in biology and arousal were the rule, rather than the exception, it seems to me that mating just wouldn't work. There wouldn't be any reliable way for any one human to attract any other human as their mate.

Keep in mind, in terms of the evolutionary history of human beings, metal pins are a relatively recent invention. If that guy was only aroused by pins in 80,000 BC, would he have been able to find a mate and reproduce?

What dathwampeer is trying to say is not that everyone should be the same, or that everyone is the same. He's saying that human beings fit on a bell curve. Most people's anatomy works the same way, and most people respond predictably to biological impulses. Some people are not 'average' or 'normal', in that their biology works slightly differently.

In other words, pin guy may get aroused by unusual stimuli, but the actual feelings of arousal he experiences are probably not too different than anybody else's.

Try thinking about it this way. If everybody's biology was radically different, then how does modern medicine work? How can aspirin be succesfully marketed as an anti-inflammatory if it only works for a very small portion of the population, because only their biology is specifically tuned to allow aspirin to work? How can doctors routinely administer anesthesia, if the anesthetics they use only work for a small group of individuals?

Clearly, this is not the case. Most people's biology works about the same. There are variations (some men like tits, and some men prefer asses), ther are people who fall outside the mean (some people are allergic to aspirin; good luck with that headache), and some people who are outliers (like the guy who can only get it up if he gets stabbed with a sharp object, or whatever).

As for man becoming the "ubermensch", doesn't that involve the creation of a superior race by ELIMINATING all of the outliers, and bringing mankind into a state of consistent perfection? How does that philosophy jive with accepting the outliers as normal? Maybe you can explain that to me.

 

[ActivatorX]

As long as I am not in a relationship, noone has the right to tell me how many "partners" I can have.

However, if I were to marry, I would concentrate on only one - because of love and respect.

 

[The Lunatic]

If all parties are consenting I don't see any issue with it.

 

[MagicMouse]

Animals that are very smart, and have complex social behaviors tend to be monogamous. For example: Cranes, wolves

I think that a human relationship is complex enough that it really demands ones full attention to one person to satisfy both people's needs.

 

[Gudrests]

I cant handle more than 1 woman at a time..just sayin...and ya know how people complain when there wife bitches...imagine if 2 of them *****...JUST SAYIN

 

[good_omen]

Other:
People should be able to be with as few or as many people as they want and I have no issue with that. There are a lot of bi-sexuals out there who may love someone but want something from the other sex so they have multiple partners. Some people may just love two people at the same time, or want the option to be sexually free. It doesn't make them bad people it just means they want something different than what society wants for them.
I don't see any harm in it as long as everyone in the relationship is aware and happy with it.

If it were me, no at this point in time but I don't think you should close yourself off to new experiences before you try them.

 

[internetzealot1]

Well if you can find the right person...

 

[Tanis]

It's not 'right' or 'wrong'.

IT'S NEW...when compared to the historical.

 

[astrav1]

We shouldn't focus on our animal instincts anymore because of the overpopulation the has been cursing the world lately.

 

[Callate]

I tend to feel that polygamy often leads to unhappy people. That we _can_ satisfy multiple people sexually is not to say that we should, nor that our ability to do so is indicative of an ability to support those other people emotionally or, in some cases, financially. It complicates the web of human relationships terribly, even before the issue of offspring comes into the picture.

There are rare- in my experience, very rare- people who can pull off polyamorous relationships in which everyone genuinely feels they're getting everything they need from each other. There are also a lot of people who try, sometimes on the basis of some ill-considered and often self-centered philosophy, and end up leaving a lot of hurt feelings (at best) behind them. In many situations, one has to ask: exactly what makes you so @#$%ing special that your awesomeness must be spread around and can't possibly be contained by one person?

Jealousy is also a base animal instinct. And we didn't get to be car-driving city dwellers with mass agriculture on the basis of "base animal instincts"; get over it!

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

I'm a one girl kind of guy. I've never understood why some people feel the need to have more than one. I mean, spicing things up a bit sure, but I think you should get the OK from your significant other. XD

I wouldn't feel like I was putting my share into the relationship if I had more than one gf/wife/lover/ etc. so I stick to the one I have.

 

[kickyourass]

Well this is one of those interesting questions, while I'd probably remain monogamous, I see no reason why someone shouldn't practice polygamy. As long as all involved are concenting adults who are aware of the other partners I really don't see any problem with Polygamy. But my guess is that even if polygamy WAS an option most people probably would take it, since most people can barely handle ONE partner.

 

[Tdc2182]

If everyone in the group was fine with it, I don't see why not.

 

[JediMB]

I believe that trust is more important than monogamy.

Not to say that I don't think the idea of monogamy is a good one.

 

[Macgyvercas]

First off swans and goats are monogamous as far as I remember I know swans definitely are. If people don't want to practise monogamy that is up to them but it is a bit of a piss poor excuse saying it goes against human instincts given that loads have done it successfully for years.

Doves and seahorses, too.

OT: I would prefer one person. Partly because of my upbringing, partly because it's the social norm, but mostly because I would rather devote my energy to making one person as happy as I can rather than having to keep several partners in mind at any given time.

In short, I think I'd only be capable of being with one person.

 

[siddif]

Its right because it feels right, call me old fashioned but a relationship has to be built on love and trust - how can you truly trust someone with that many partners even if its an open relationship sooner or later jealousy or inadequacy will set in. Love thats spread too thin cant last either.

That is my personal opinion though others are entitled to their own and people can live happily in a non secretive polygamous relationship but i know i couldn't be in one.

 

[Scars Unseen]

There are no "anomalies," it is only your ignorance that fails to see what really is.

First of all, you're not enlightened, okay? Second, anomalies certainly do exist. This is observably true in all facets of existence, but especially in biology.

The fact is, you and nor any science cannot "prove" anything.

Wow, he got something almost right. Science doesn't prove, it theorizes. It happens to be very good at that. Gravity hasn't been proven, but people still fall when they step off of buildings. Medical science hasn't been proven, but there are still observable biological anomalies.

It is your definition of healthy and all such words: capable, mature, reasonable, these are all perceptions.

Very perceptive of you. It's meaningless blather, but at least it's perceptive, meaningless blather.

Perceptions which have and will continue to vary across an infinite spectrum of human thought; every age, place, culture, and person varies these invariably. Don't give me that BS.

Okay, now you're just stringing words together randomly. "Varies invariably?" Really? As far as that last sentence goes... right back at you pal.

You, your mentality rather, is the reason man is not yet the "ubermensch."

The existence and observation of basic biology has nothing to do with 19th Century philosophy. Nice way to sound pretentious and self-important though.