Is it unnatural to be monogomous?

[Jeffro]

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?

[Afterburner]

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.

[Jeffro]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

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.

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.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

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.

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.

[masked_marsoe]

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)

[AlDaja]

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.

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

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.

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.

[Jeffro]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

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.

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.

[adelphospro]

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!

[Bs|Archaon]

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?