Poll: Your stance on monogamy?

[Brutal Peanut]

Whatever someone is happy with.

If two adults, or a group of ADULTS, can come to an agreement or arrangement,
personally and/or religiously, (of their own free will. I'm looking at you certain
Mormon sects) that makes everyone happy, I say have at it! =D

 

[dancinginfernal]

To be completely neutral on the issue, I will say this...

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other."

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

In my opinion, monogamy is not about having a single sex partner but rather having a single partner with which you build a life long emotional connection. Yes, sex ends up playing a roll regardless but the act of sex itself is mechanical in nature. It only means something if you attach meaning to it in much the same way that changing the oil in a car only means something if you choose to attach a meaning to it.

 

[Giest4life]

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.

 

[burningdragoon]

"it just feels right" is such a cop out answer, but that's what I voted.

I would say most of that is probably just from my upbringing which is in part from religion. But even though I was brought the way I was, I am enough of my own person that I can't 100% attribute why feel like monogamy is "right" to any one reason. I like the idea. It's that simple... I guess there's still some religion and society influence in there, but I won't be swayed if for some reason both of those started promoting polygamy.

If polygamy works for some people though, good for them.

 

[BrassButtons]

I think it's a false dichotomy, this either/or decision of monogamy or polyamory. I think everyone has a comfortable amount of people they would like to share their life with and be in love with - for some people that might be zero and they just want friends and fuck buddies, which is fine. For some people that's 1 - they just want one person to have as their partner and to love and that's fine too. For some the number is higher. Two or three or more, and that's fine too, as long as everybody involved is cool with it, because as adults, we have this amazing ability to look at things and make our own decisions about what's good or bad for us. I don't see how having none, one, two, or more partners could be intrinsically wrong - to me that's as sensible as saying the letter Y is inherently immoral.

This. For some people, one partner is all they ever need or want. For others that just doesn't work. As long as everyone involved is happy I don't think it matters what people do.

 

[crazypsyko666]

I'm monogamous because I'm a greedy jealous git. That's it. I only want to need to care about one person at a time, and because of that, I don't want to share.

I'm fine with other people being polyamorous, as long as they're not dating me at the same time.

 

[Death God]

I believe that if you marry, you have to love the person and, therefore, wouldn't need more than one wife. So, even if polygamy was accepted, I wouldn't practice it.

 

[ModReap]

*states that he, himself does not care whether people go one way or the other*

 

[6unn3r]

Humans arnt really a monogomous species by design. But i can see the value in it, i think you just need to find the right person.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

Everybody belongs to everybody else.

Promiscuity is a citizens duty.

...Need I say more?

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Does it really matter whether one is monogamous or polygamous?

 

[Prof.Wood]

Well I have a few stand points on this and they are thus:
I think (may be wrong) that there are more women than men so if every one paired up then there would be some people who would have to be alone (I know I am leaving out GLBT at the moment but stick with me k?)
Plus what if conjoined twins loved the same person is that ok?
also what if two people are in love but feel they have more love to give, why not get more people involved.
but seeing as I am alone my current position is that if people group up then less chance for me so boooo polygamy.

 

[Binerexis]

If monogamy isn't someone else's bag then that's fine with me. If I'm perfectly honest, I just don't like the idea of someone else nailing my girlfriend/wife and I'd find it weird if I had more than one girlfriend/wife. I think I'd end up putting myself in the horrible situation of 'which one do I like best' or 'I wonder which one of them likes me the most' or some other insane question which people ask themselves when they're in love.

Plus, if I was to look at it from a 'Oh dear god, my poor, poor wallet' perspective then I've got twice the amount of birthday, christmas and valentines day presents to get and twice the amount of severe ear rape when I forget birth dates and anniversaries. Let's not forget too that I'd need to buy a substantially bigger bed for us all to sleep in and it just gets a bit mad.

If I was crazy-rich and felt that I needed a lot more lovin'/had a lot more lovin' to give then if could be a possibility but otherwise, it just isn't for me.

 

[Giest4life]

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

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

 

[DanDeFool]

This is one of those relative value judgment things that everybody has to find their own peace with.

Monogamy is ingrained into the human mind; it's instinctive to want to seek out a single mate and stay with them. Then again, so is cheating; it's instinctive to want to sample a number of possible mates to be able to get the best genes to pass along to your offspring (particularly if your long-term partner is not as desirable as some of the other potential mates you have access to).

Polygamy seeks to resolve this issue by allowing one man to be long-term partners with several women.

That raises another interesting point: you never hear anybody lobbying for polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands) in western culture (probably because of sexism, but who really knows?). Polygamy, strictly speaking, allows for both polygyny (man with multiple wives) and polyandry, but you never hear anyone talking about polyandry.

Whatever. The point is polygamy doesn't always work, probably because it's hard enough to keep one person satisfied in a marital relationship, let alone several. You also need commitment not only between the husband/wife and their spouses, but between the spouses themselves, and that's both hard to get and hard to maintain.

Homosexual relationships within the polygamist group would probably make things easier; not as hard to be committed to someone you like having sex with. Or maybe that would just open a whole different can of worms. Whatever, I digress.

The bottom line is that human beings will always have a love/hate relationship with monogamy. The general individualism of western culture (individual families tend to live separately instead of communally or as clans/tribes/etc.) makes it so that it's a lot harder to raise children outside of a stable, monogamous relationship. The fact that monogamy is hard (for some people) to do, and that the divorce rate (in America) is about 50%, doesn't mean that monogamy is bad.

Overall, I think most of the marital problems people have are because people don't take marriage seriously enough (it's a really big commitment) and because we underestimate the power of sex. I blame Christianity for the latter; people tend to downplay the importance of finding a mate who's sexually compatible with you (i.e., someone you might actually want to have sex with for as long as you want to have sex) and of being sexually aware themselves because sex is widely believed to be inherently sinful and you really shouldn't be doing it anyway other than to have children.

Biologically speaking, sex plays an important role in bonding and maintaining an emotional connection between adults, and if that aspect of the relationship isn't good for one of the involved parties, it's going to create problems elsewhere in the relationship, and will probably lead to cheating as well.

In summary: Monogamy is not the problem. People not understanding how to be successful mates, how to find quality mates, and how human mating works in general, is the problem.

 

[Kagim]

I prefer monogamy. I like the security and bond me and my wife have. Like any human (male or female) i am still attracted to other potentials, i just don't give a shit to pursue them.

Now, if by polygamy you mean marrying many other women(or men) then i would have to disagree. Those relationships, even if all agree before hand, tend to end with abuse both mentally and physically. Not always how you think. Please note i am talking about people entering serious relationships with multiple partners at once, not one person cheating on multiple partners behind there backs, not one person going through flings, I am not talking about old fashioned courting of multiple women(archie style). I am talking about straight up serious long term relationships with a group of people.

If one man has three wive or one woman has three husbands the odds of emotional or physical abuse rise amongst the three perpetuated by each other, and not the one.

This is because of jealousy, and if you think it's something created by religion i would like to direct you to the animal kingdom. Where males or females(depending on the group dynamic) beat the hell, or kill, one another for the mate. It is a similar situation with long term polygamy. The three try to get the most attention, the one only has so much time, the one that gets the least will become emotional hurt and may begin to sabotage or hurt the other two to get more attention. The more mates in the pot the more emotional, and possible physical, abuse could be perpetuated against the other members of the relationship.

The reason why we don't see this in swingers, in fact we might see the opposite with the two becoming more emotionally attached, is because in those cases the swing partners are not becoming emotionally attached. Its sex and all participants are aware of it.

That is not to say swinging is the fix all to a troubled marriage, as people vary and it could destroy said marriage if there isn't a strong emotional foundation.

Ultimately what one person chooses is up to them, and i don't really have a right to tell anyone if they are wrong or right. I have my preference, you have yours.

However from what i have learned, mostly about human psychological behavior, polygamous relationships don;t seem to have a strong emotional dynamic. If you, or someone else, is in one that works and everyone is happy by god power to you.

To me though it is just not worth it.

Edit:

If the word marriage offends you in anyway please feel free to interchange it with Union, Long term relationships or any other fancy word you'd like to use to label "People promising loyalty for long periods of time".

 

[Zechnophobe]

Monogamy-the practice of having only one spouse/mate (etc.)

I've heard people before (mostly promiscuous people) give the excuse that monogamy goes against our base instincts as human beings/animals. They give the example that most animals just whore around with every other one so why shouldn't humans? (Although I believe some animals do practice monogamy not sure which ones though) They think our sole goal in life is to spread our seed around as much as possible. Truth? Or a convenient excuse for their promiscuity (generally whoreing around in case you don't know)?

Not to mention those crazy Mormons LOL.

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. But I've never experienced a polygamous relationship so I can't say for sure.

How do you feel about monogamy?

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

Something like 50% of marraiges end in Divorce (In the USA), or at least, that is the factoid I have heard often. Is it Monogamy if you get a divorce first? Technically, no.

The actual way that it looks like humans are wired, is to want 'short' but exclusive relationships. Where 'short' means something like 6 months to 10 years. The problem is that while that works 'ok' for many people in the high end of that range, it doesn't work so well on the low end.

That is, getting a divorce after a 10 year monogamous marraige is common enough, and is the least of expectations. But if your partner is expecting that (instinctually) but you apparently are more of a 6 month kind of person... well, it doesn't work out so great.