Are human beings meant for monogamy or is it society trying to reform us?

[Anne D.]

To me, that monogamy may not be "natural" isn't an argument either for or against it. There are plenty of "natural" human behaviors that societies, through laws or social pressures/expectations, discourage individuals from. Sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad, depending on one's personal take on the behavior.

[Sandra Craft]

To me, that monogamy may not be "natural" isn't an argument either for or against it. There are plenty of "natural" human behaviors that societies, through laws or social pressures/expectations, discourage individuals from. Sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad, depending on one's personal take on the behavior.

True, we humans have pretty much made it our life's work to defy nature.  I'm just far from sure we chose correctly when some of our cultures decided on monogamy.

[Sweetdeath]

My husband and I have a bit of an "understanding", but I don't like the term "Open-marriage" because it implies that we have a free-for-all arrangement or that we're both constantly trolling for sex outside of our marriage. We aren't.

This is what Dan Savage calls "monogamish".  Sounds like a very sensible compromise between nature and culture.

I have always liked Dan Savage's take on (non)monogamy. I read his book "Commitment" a couple of years ago and it had some very good points.

Sounds cool .

Marriage always seemed benefical for the male. I never agreed the "taking his last name b.s"
It's like saying "sure, I will completely erase myself as a human being and become your posession."
bleh...

[Stevil]

My wife kept her last name.

It does seem strange to me that they are expected to take on the last name of the husband.

Marriage ceremonies are very sexist, Father giving away of the bride, the groom and best man expected to give speech but not the wife and bride's maid.
The groom expected to say something nice about the bridesmaids and the best man expected to accept that compliment on the bride's maid's behalf.

The girls trying to desperately grab the bouquet.

Not sure what that has to do with monogamy, but hey.

[Tank]

Tank, it kind of grosses me out that the purpose of monogamy is to ensure that a man's children are genetically related to him.  Like my womb and my child are literally possessions that are owned by my husband.  I'm not even anti-monogamy, but the idea that that is why is disturbing.

Until very recently, possessions were exactly what women and children were in most cultures, and still are in many.  And even in the West in modern times I think women and children being possessions of men is still a very common mind-set -- after all, both still usually take the man's name and what other point is there to putting your name on something other than to claim ownership? 

Me, I would have gone for a non-possession oriented culture but then I'm female and, as noted in another thread, without superior muscles and size we weren't the winning team in olden times when it was being established who's interests called the shots.  What baffles me is the change over from polygyny to monogamy.  Polygyny seems more practical for everyone and while I wouldn't care to see it mandated, as monogamy is in the West, I don't see why it or polygamy shouldn't be an option.

Polygyny would be the victim of jelousy and paranoia. The exception being the Mongolian(?) tribe where the woman will often marry brothers thus making the fathers uncles with closer genetic ties. Polyamourous relationships often fail due to changing relationship dynamics where one partner feels their position is being emotionally degraded relative to their expectations

[Sandra Craft]

Polygyny would be the victim of jelousy and paranoia. The exception being the Mongolian(?) tribe where the woman will often marry brothers thus making the fathers uncles with closer genetic ties. Polyamourous relationships often fail due to changing relationship dynamics where one partner feels their position is being emotionally degraded relative to their expectations

I don't know that these problems are particular to multiple partners or are just human problems.  Plenty of monogamous couples are jealous and paranoid, and changing dynamics and disappointment has put an end to their share of couple relationships.

[Tank]

Polygyny would be the victim of jelousy and paranoia. The exception being the Mongolian(?) tribe where the woman will often marry brothers thus making the fathers uncles with closer genetic ties. Polyamourous relationships often fail due to changing relationship dynamics where one partner feels their position is being emotionally degraded relative to their expectations

I don't know that these problems are particular to multiple partners or are just human problems.  Plenty of monogamous couples are jealous and paranoid, and changing dynamics and disappointment has put an end to their share of couple relationships.

I agree, with the caviat that in a polyamourous relationship the dynamic of multiple partners living with each other appears to amplify problems. But I'm no expert in these areas.

[Xiilent]

In my opinion, I believe it is a mixture between society and human nature. Society views polygamy as a negative thing, and seems to throughout history. Of course society is largely dominated by religion, so the Adam and Eve concept I would assume greatly contributed to the succession of monogamy in populations where christianity is the majority. However as an atheist, I find it more easy to commit and maintain a monogamous relationship than it would be to maintain polygamy because like stated before, jealousy. A relationship built on monogamy can be destroyed by infidelity. But I also believe all of our standpoints are diluted by modern society because we ultimately have to reform. So basically, are we built for monogamy, in the long run, i don't think so. But to remain monogamous seems to be much easier than anything else.

[Sweetdeath]

I'm no where near a bible reader/expert...but didn't Adam supposedly mess around with Lilith?

[Sandra Craft]

In my opinion, I believe it is a mixture between society and human nature. Society views polygamy as a negative thing, and seems to throughout history.

Even during all those centuries when it was the norm, just about everywhere on the planet?  Granted most of them practiced polygyny, but there were a few polyandrists around so polygamy still applies.

[Reprobate]

I'm no where near a bible reader/expert...but didn't Adam supposedly mess around with Lilith?

I am no expert either, but I believe that Lilith was his first wife, and had left him before Eve was created. She is not mentioned by name in Genesis, and I believe the story of Lilith arose to explain the descrepency between the two verses that describe the creation of man and woman. Sorry, I can't tell you which particular verses. I am also not sure of whether the story of Lilith comes from one of the Hebrew texts or an Apocryphal book, but the Jews believed in Lilith before christianity came about.

I have also read somewhere that the Lilith story was created to demonize an older deity. Religion does that well.

[Crow]

My stance on monogamy vs polygamy is do whatever works best for all people involved. If that happens to be polygamy then hey so what it isn't bothering me.

[pytheas]

I allow myself to flirt a little with a guy or girl if they seem interesting and most of the time I lose interest anyway. Maybe I'm the minority, but I really do still find my husband way more physically/intellectually/emotionally attractive than pretty much anyone else. I think the fact that I'm allowed to "look" only re-enforces this most of the time.  

+1, Finally!!!


love is to be proved daily
when it exists there is no bullshit, one-to-one, exclusivity and trust. All consuming they arrive to be, contacts, as they progress from the one/first night to the first week-third month term to the 6 month-3 year term and possible they decline or rupture on the way

It should hold, it ought to hold the test, especially if you invest emotionally in a ridiculous declaration on paper such as "marriage". if it doesnt, it wasnt supposed to, and its not worth it. OUR HISTORY is a bullshit argument if you cannot find elements of it in the present. Children need devotion to them directly and not from us in an anguish being with the History you currently do not love.

the butterflies of love/insipration/lust and resignation onto the others' soul have a profile of flight time:
it is generated, it can last or it can break, it can heal up from an accident and it can die and be extinguished. forgiving after consuming/involving/loving affairs? rubbish! lamenting at the ruins of broken trust, and pretending its a fiesta
if the affair was not a totalgive then Why the robot fuckin? other psychological mix up, something off-balance.

when unsure about love, or indeed no love, then experimenting, then robot just sex. orgies, switches, anything...
yet sex creates (should create)emotion- attachment. so something a miss, no?

open marriage ( in a young age)= lamenting at the ruins of broken trust, and pretending its a fiesta

So my take, for all its worth: serial monogamy, as in  searching, until maximum compatibility meets my luck.

I believe we have a periodic engagement capacity. wrong or imperfect match choices reveal a period eg. every relation lasts no more than 3 or 5 or 7 years. maybe one lasted 3 months and another 5 years and so on variable lengths? the best compatibility, closest match, complimentary alignment, opens the range span

that is lucky, and you do get to find the right one, the shining fucking prince on the horse, and the (happily)ever-after tale, or rather the easy-die off-with-trusted-company ending

romance can perish i suppose after decades? I dont know and hope to find out this time round. i guess if love and respect do exist, helping substitutes and perks to spice things to motion will be normally employed.

Fuck society, follow your hearts, or seek help if you cannot

[Sweetdeath]

Do what works for you is my motto, but I find it tough to find like minded people irl. :<
A lot tend to conform to society's standards.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I think people just find it scary/intimidating to have to invent their own rules. Monogamy is easy because it's black and white: hold a sexual/romantic interest in one person. Period. It might not be how our brains and human nature actually works, but it sure looks easy on paper. That makes it an easier ideal to hang on to, defend, and expect from your partner. Everyone knows what it means.

But anything that is non-monogamous, well, it's complicated. When it comes to relationships, "complications" can enrich them or completely destroy them. (I'm sure there are some marriages that have been destroyed by non-monogamy, but I'm also sure that there have been some marriages that have been destroyed by having children). I wouldn't argue that the most-fulfilled life or relationship is one that completely avoids any extra work or challenges, but I can see why people might want to avoid some issues and monogamy offers a socially-sanctioned way of doing that.