Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Honestly, if look at all of the other mammals out there on this Earth, seven percent of them do not practice monogamy. I know that homosapiens are the only to have the mental ability to remain monogamous, but it goes against the core of our instinct. Our instinct is to procreate and spread our seed to many hosts as possible. So that brings us to the initial question. Do you think it is unnatural to stay with the same partner faithfully when our instinct is to find others out in the wilderness?

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Actually as far as I know Homo Sapians practiced monogamy even before religion, right from the start, so it would seem it isn't unnatural at all. To say it might be unnatural just because many other mammals don't practice it is silly. Not many mammals have opposable thumbs, doesn't mean we shouldn't have 'em.

It is actually beneficial to the success of the human race in the sense that it allows an individual to learn from his father and mother about all the ways of life, which is certainly beneficial to individual survival. If a father had many sons and daughters spread across many mothers it would be much harder to pass on knowledge. Also, we have to remember that blind propagation is NOT the goal of any species, instead it is the thriving of the species that is the goal. This isn't always accomplished through numbers.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I highly doubt we practiced it right at the start considering we were Neanderthals and didn't have the mental strength to stick with one partner. Unless it is the natural human instinct to be monogamous and I highly doubt it is/was.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

As far as I am aware, though I could be mistaken, we were monogamous pretty much right from the start. IT was indeed instinct. Also, no, we weren't Neanderthals. That was a completely different developmental line. Humans are not descended from Neanderthals, and in fact our ancestors lived along side them.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

You both seem to have forgotten something - in many cultures monogamy was (and is) not practice. You could have as many wives as you could afford to keep. This may have evolved as a population-recovery method, but it survives to this day.

In some cultures*, you can have as many partners (male and female) as you wish to acquire, and the more you have, the higher your status is.

Remember that the normal human social unit is not a pair, or an individual, it is a clan or tribe, and the survival of that unit require(s/d) close relations between members. Extended family members and friends fulfilled just as much a parenting role as any parent would.


*(not modern Western hur hur)

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I don’t believe it to be unnatural…it can be an extreme hindrance or “taboo” depending on social/religious upbringing or maturity issues that can create uneasy paradoxes within the relationship(s), but to each their own. In some social circles shared partners (outside of marriage) are more acceptable, and those that choose to marry who have sexual partners other than each other tend to “swing” to satisfy the sexual libido and fantasy therein.

…Actually Afterburner, anthropology suggests that monogamy was not a practiced inherited trait. For survival and genetic diversity, tribes/groups of early hominids would have diversified, while sharing child rearing responsibilities within the group (that is, your child might be cared for by an uncle or anothers mate, than you or your current mate(s) more often) . Dominant males may have had choice of which women they took as mates to ensure their genes remained dominant within the group. Native American peoples rarely practiced monogamy often the men within the tribe would have two, three or more wives (including my mom’s people back in the day). For many reasons that we can conclude, using male mentality of today as example, it was easier to bond women with one male than one or two females with several males…this is even true in the animal kingdom, as rival males will clash to claim “breading” rights – the ‘ol cliché I adhere to: never have two roosters in the same hen house seems to apply here. Male egos are easily bruised.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

It's a natural instinct since the pairing of parents (two individuals raising offspring) gives the offspring a higher chance of surviving. It just so happens that this natural instinct (now no longer needed) has seeped into the mainstream and become the de jure common practice.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Seeped into the mainstream of western culture you mean. If you take a look at Middle Eastern, African, and Eastern culture, the chances of polygamy rise significantly.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

When the goal is to reproduce, polygamy helps. When the goal is personal fellowship with each other, monogamy is the best way. It's hard enough to maintain a steady and joyful relationship with one person in a marriage (because you have to be selfless), let alone several!
Also imagine what would happen if your best friend married your sister and your girlfriend, and perhaps your mother!

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I think that it changes with time, culture and technology. The emphasis (for males) used to be spreading your 'seed' as far as possible (either in terms of large families, or by having more than one partner/family) to ensure that at least some offspring survive adverse conditions. That's more of a primal urge, I think. Passing on your genetics and giving them the best chance of survival. Having multiple offspring by multiple partners increases the chance of survival through sheer numbers and it increases genetic diversity, so if there's something wrong with the other partner (a hereditary condition or whatever) it doesn't affect all your offspring.

Now, at least in western culture, having a big family is prohibitively expensive for most people, and yet at the same time quality of life and healthcare standards have improved vastly. That means that your best chance of continuing your bloodline is to have a relatively small, stable family and to take care of it well; rather than the old way of having loads of kids and hoping that a few of them actually survived to adulthood.

I don't think monogamy is unnatural in itself. We're still following our natural urges, it's just that we've adapted to fit the way that the (human) world is at the moment. I think what's unnatural is that we've shaped the (our?) world to the point where we are able to make that choice, rather than the choice we (for the most part, in the west) have actually made when given the chance.

Now, I wonder if that actually makes any sense to anyone else?

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Exactly. That's why humans have the urge to rape. Fortunately, most can fight it, but back in the Neanderthal days, it was the only way to ensure that your genes were passed on.

It's not hard if you're a selfless person.

Nowadays, I don't think polygamy should exist except in certain primitive cultures where it remains vital. I say primitive, but I don't really mean that. Their cultures are just as rich as ours are, but more flawed in some ways. Ours are flawed in other ways. But primitive is the best word.

However, this is going to lead me on a rant about the blatant and totally needless sexism in Muslim countries and that'll get me pissed off again.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I don't know if unnatural is the right word, but it is natural for a male to reproduce as much as possible. Since the invention of contraception, this has come to mean: have sex as much as possible.
The urge to have sex (formerly reproduce) does not disappear or diminish when a male is in a firm relationship. The only means to combat this is self control, which comes from the context of society.

In a society where it is not frowned upon for a male to procreate with many different partners, there certainly is no natural, psychological reason for a male not to.

Thankfully, most societies have taken to respecting women to some degree, for obviously the result of polygamy (if actual procreation is involved) means a lot more work for the woman.

:Puzzled:
I really don't think humans have the urge to rape. The urge to reproduce is one thing, but when violence is involved most people would feel disgusted, which may be a cultural thing but I assume it is natural.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Exactly. Reproduce by any means necessary. Think about it this way. In the animal kingdom, three-quarters of sex is rape. What are humans? Animals. Plus, read what I then wrote next.

So you're saying that men are only after one thing and that women are completely free of blame? *shrugs* Sprry if you don't mean that, but that's what it looks like to me.

One word: love.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Human and animal psychology still vary considerably. I still don't believe it's natural to desire sex even when violence would be necessary. Most people would shy away.

Who's talking about blame? I'm merely trying to say what the "natural", instinctive human view on sex is. And the thing is, males instinctively have a completely different approach. Yes, it is only males that have the urge to reproduce as much as possible. Male and female humans are pretty similar psychologically, but when it comes to reproduction there are big differences.
I'm not blaming men for anything, just saying how it is biologically.

What we understand as love today is influenced hugely by our history and culture. Although it seems conflicting to us, in a different cultural background it might well be considered particularly loving if a man holds many wives, and supports them (although it certainly isn't desirable in the face of modern gender equality).

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I'd like to point out that your comparison is somewhat weak because of the gross human rights violations back east. There is really no place to compare monogamy with polygamy when people can actually do it consentually-usually it's the result of coercion.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Agreed that human rights standards are incomparable to what us "westerners" are used to, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural any other way. Human instinct is not necessarily compatible with modern-day human rights.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I disagree completely. Human instinct dictates that we do what is necessary to survive (unless suffering from severe mental anguish). Dominance over another, although 'instinctive' for the predator in the sense of some sort of survival does not mean that the dominated person's instinct is out of play. It's all of nature's instinct to live life by your own means; it's not inherently instictive to not be able to do this.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Is it unnatural? Absolutely without a doubt.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

The line between nature and man is not something that can be drawn. We were and are natural beings born into a world dictated by nature. To claim that any behaviour is unnatural makes no sense when we cannot do anything but what we do, and that is always in accordance with the environment we find ourselves in, the experiences we have, and the biology we are subjected to.
In other words everything we have and do is a consequence of the natural order, both monogamy where it occurs and polygamy are as natural as each other.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I'm inclined to agree with Jeffro. To my knowledge, insititutional monogomy was unheard of in human society until Christianity.

Christianity is unnatural in many ways. As far as I know pacifism was also unheard of until Christianity (Except perhaps for the rare fringe cult.)

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Just because it wasn't institutionalized doesn't mean it wasn't natural. However, here is what more I have to say on the subject, after thinking about it.

We are part of nature. Therefor everything we do is natural. Some of the things we make are of themselves not natural, but nothing we ourselves do is unnatural, else we wouldn't do it.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

It depends on what you mean by natural. One could consider insanity and sociopathology natural if by natural you mean simply anything that happens in nature. But if by "natural" you mean healthy and normal, then clearly the definition changes considerably.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Exactly. Because of our big brains, it cannot be argued that everything we do is natural. Our brains as powerful as they are are subject to some very twisted and abusive stuff, which changes our behavior(s) greatly.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Then if we are going by natural meaning "normal" than almost everything we do is still natural... somewhere, which is the key word. polygamy is perfectly natural in many places, along with polyandry. It's all a matter of personal beliefs and social upbringing.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Saying something is "normal" is going to get us into a mess. It's far more flexible than "natural", and doesn't have any fixed position.

Yeah, that. Do our laws need to match this? Provided the correct checks against abuse are in place, I don't see why not.

Theoretically of course, I don't see it gaining mainstream support.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

If it was acceptable for women to have many husbands and men to have many wives and the same time... part of me would be quite hesitant (I want a one-to-one relationship), but I suppose I'd accept it. The problem comes when people mis-micromanage their time in the relationships and someone gets jealous and causes trouble. Also, domestic abuse (on women and men) is far more common than most people know and if someone got a load of spouses, they'd be able to ruin the lives of a group of people at once. That's my other concern.

If, however, humans could be perfectly loyal and loving to every member of the relationship, I'd accept it without a second thought. But unless we reach a new evolutionary plateau where no-one will ever rape, murder or maim again, that's unlikely.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Chances are, if it was normal and you grew up in a society that viewed it as normal, you too would think it was normal without a second thought.

I'm not so sure. Domestic abuse continues because it is largely invisible to the outside eye, or the victim is unlikely to want to reveal their abuser. I think if there were several people in intimate relationships, then there would be several witnesses, several people willing or ready to report violence.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Who in their right mind would even want another wife? One would be bad enough!

Anyway, I read a theory once a while ago that said the emotion commonly known as 'love' is actually our primitive body's way of keeping us with a single partner. Several other species are monogamous, I often wonder if they experience the same sensation.

But I'm all in favour of the 'three in a bed' concept, myself. As I've said many times before, do whatever you want so long as no innocent bystanders get hurt. Or splashed.

Ugh.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

If I recall correctly, the main body that initiated the one man and one woman marriage principle was Christianity because of the Adam and Eve story. They felt it was going against the will of God to have more than one partner. I could be incorrect in this, I'm not entirely sure this is the case, but I do have a strong sense this was the main reason for it to be such a mainstay in western culture, since the majority of western culture is of the christian (or some variation of the general principles and doctrine) faith.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Well Adam and Eve didn't really have anything to do with it until WAY later, in fact many people in the Old Testament had more than one wife. However it is because of the "the two shall become one" thing I believe.
God meant for a man and a woman to stay together in unity, each living within the boundaries set up by God. That way they would work together in unity and peace. I don't remember when God commanded that you should have only one wife, if ever, Ill look it up.
At first though what they did was in response to the command by God to "be fruitful and multiply" and 'fill the whole earth' or something like that, but after a time that was no longer necessary.
Actually if you read the early parts of the Old Testament you can see that having more children meant that your "clan" was bigger. There are records in the Old Testament that record small (almost primitive) battles between families (like 40 against 30 and such)

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

I tend to agree with Afterburner, we are all natural beings and therefor everything we do must be natural in some way, phisical and mental anomalys are just as normal since nature isn't perfect in it's own ex: albinos.
The great thing about being human is that we are free in our descisions and are not limited to instict but have somewhat of a free will.
So monogamous or not I believe the choice is completely personal.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

Its all about social standing. The fact that women have for almost the entirety of human kinds development, occupied the lowest social branch (virtually NO opportunities or privileges, couldnt own land, jobs, or do much of anything) necessitated marriage as a way to keep the primary child bearers alive to raise offspring. Hence why monogamy was more prevalent. Now that women are not limited by societal belief, your finding a lot more instances of non-monogamous relationships.
Theres no longer any advantage to being in a marriage contract...except maybe economic. Thats also evidence by the fact that the more wealth you have, the more likely you are to NOT be married...at least to one individual.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

True, however Christianity didn't exist in the Old Testament, so using it as an ethical measurement that far back doesn't work.

Re: Is it unnatural to be monogomous?
 

It proves commitment. The religious side of it has almost completely died out now (although, given human nature, it'll likely pop up again some time in the future), but marriage shows that you want to stay with your partner for as long as you live. It doesn't always work, but the meaning is there at first. Marriage will last forever, not suddenly vanish like the governments are panicking about.

Technically, the OT is a load of crap. Noah lived for 950 years? Bite me. God created a perfect little garden and then randomly dumped a load of fossils in it? Screw that. Let's not forget the massive personality shift from totally psychotic to love and peace. *is smited* :lol: