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

[Stevil]

Marriage is a human-made concept. Most people before marriage have several sexual relationships.
I would say humans aren't naturally monogamous.

But for a woman bringing up a child for 18-20 alone is a tough thing to do. There is much survival benefit in the male supporting the family for 18-20 years.

Why does it all fall on a woman raising a child alone?

I was just hypothetically talking about a situation where people aren't monogomistic, hence possibly get together for a sexual experience and then move on. In this case the male may not ever know the female got pregnant and wouldn't know the child was his. The female can't avoid knowing that she is pregnant and that the child is hers. Presumably after birth the female will want to look after her baby.

[The Magic Pudding]

An obvious reason old time and modern men would have concerns for the their wives fidelity is they could end up unknowingly raising another's child.  I'd guestimate one in five males are apparently unknowingly raising a child resulting from a spouses wandering. 

[Ali]

Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

[Tank]

Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

Because those that didn't died out. Natural selection is brutal and effective. Genetically we are the sum of our evolutionary history, it's inescapable. The 'don't care if I don't pass my genes on' attitude was ruthlessly removed in our ancestors way earlier than our current 'meme based' existance.

[Sweetdeath]

I agree with you 100% Ali.
Raising any child is about nuturing, love , and passing down your wisdom. Ultimately a person grows up and does whatever they decide is best for themselves.
It has nothing to do with actual genetics.
Instead of reproducing, people should adopt more...
(maybe then we'd get the population in check.)



Well, Stevil, many forms of birthcontol exist today  to prevent unwanted pregnacies. X_x 
Women dont  have to depend on men or "what if..." Anymore. Thank goodness.

[Ali]

Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

Because those that didn't died out. Natural selection is brutal and effective. Genetically we are the sum of our evolutionary history, it's inescapable. The 'don't care if I don't pass my genes on' attitude was ruthlessly removed in our ancestors way earlier than our current 'meme based' existance.

But until fairly recently, men had no real way of knowing whether or not they actually had passed on their genes.  Hence monogamy, I suppose.   

[The Magic Pudding]

Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

It's not nice to be fooled.
I've known a man who loved the boy of the woman he sought for a wife.
They married, had two children, the fourth child belongs to a mysterious other.
I suppose he didn't know.

And then there's the guy with two daughters, had a vasectomy, his wife gives birth to a son seeded by a hated ex business partner.
I've no idea how they explain this to themselves, vasectomy failure, divine intervention, shut up and cuddle your brother 1/2 brother.

[Tank]

Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

Because those that didn't died out. Natural selection is brutal and effective. Genetically we are the sum of our evolutionary history, it's inescapable. The 'don't care if I don't pass my genes on' attitude was ruthlessly removed in our ancestors way earlier than our current 'meme based' existance.

But until fairly recently, men had no real way of knowing whether or not they actually had passed on their genes.  Hence monogamy, I suppose.   

Exactly. The males had to protect their wombs from other males. This situation has been codified in the majority of holy books ever since writing began, and culturally way before that.

[Ali]

Why do men care so much about raising a child that may not be biologically theirs? IMO, sharing genes is the very tiniest part of being a parent.  The people that stay up in the middle of the night when the child is sick, provide for the child, hold the child when s/he cries, cheer for the child when s/he succeeds, teach the child the difference between monkeys and apes (haha, I just had this convo with my son this morning) et cetera, those are the parents.  What I'm basically saying is, if you raise a child, the child is yours, regardless of biology.

It's not nice to be fooled.
I've known a man who loved the boy of the woman he sought for a wife.
They married, had two children, the fourth child belongs to a mysterious other.
I suppose he didn't know.

And then there's the guy with two daughters, had a vasectomy, his wife gives birth to a son seeded by a hated ex business partner.
I've no idea how they explain this to themselves, vasectomy failure, divine intervention, shut up and cuddle your brother 1/2 brother.

"Fooling" is only "necessary" when monogamy is expected.  If neither partner expects monogamy, then there is no need to pretend that man A is the father when you suspect it may really be man B.

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.

SweetD, the problem I see with telling your partner that they can have sex with someone else as long as they don't love anyone but you is that a lot of times sex and emotion get all mixed up, and I don't think there is anyway that your partner can actually guarantee that they won't love anyone else but you particularly if she is sleeping with other people.

As I said, I'm not really anti-monogamy because it's a fairly pragmatic way to try to keep family units together.  I also find the idea of carrying on relationships (even just sexual relationships) with multiple people exhausting.  LOL  But I'm not totally sold that monogamy is the only way to make things work, and I don't really care what others do as long as everyone is honest about it.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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.

We've both just said that, if the situation ever arises where either of us find ourselves in a position where we really want to have an encounter with a another person, we're allowed to. We just have to be honest about it and try our best not to let it emotionally impact our relationship. In our 6+ years together, there's only really been one "instance" (and it wasn't sex, it was kissing), but I feel better knowing that the reason we aren't having sex with other people is not because we're constantly under duress, it's because, generally, neither of us really want to. We like our sex life together very much and most other people can't compete with what we already have.  

So, instead of making everyone "forbidden fruit", 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.  

[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.

It is very 'animalistic' where the male simply sees a female as a 'womb on legs' but from the most basic male reproductive viewpoint that's it, end of story. Humans have elaborate relationships because we are sophisticated social creatures so we need to find effective partners that will provide mutual support and cooperate in the raising of their children. That's not as simple as snifffing your potential mates urine to see if they are receptive!

[Stevil]

Is monogomy an outcome of religion?

Here is a good article with regards to sexual behaviours in animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

Zoologists and biologists now have solid evidence that monogamous pairs of animals are not always sexually exclusive. Many animals that form pairs to mate and raise offspring regularly engage in sexual activities with extra-pair partners.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This includes previous examples such as swans. Sometimes these extra-pair sexual activities lead to offspring. Genetic tests frequently show that some of the offspring raised by a monogamous pair come from the female mating with an extra-pair male partner.[4][5][17][18] These discoveries have led biologists to adopt new ways of talking about monogamy:

[Sandra Craft]

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.

[Sandra Craft]

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.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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.