Monogamy

Question: Monogamy??? In your ideal, or current relationship, do you perfer monogamy or an open relationship?

Answer: Monogamy there is nothing more true or exciting then truly sharing your deepest self with someone that you love. For me the intimacy is so much more intense and satisfying then with some stranger who could care the least about who I am, but cares more about how they are getting off.

Question: Infidelity, trust and monogamy - what is the connection and the essence of these words? We know that infidelity hurts other people. But why? Why is monogamy so important to us? What is it about infidelity that hurts so much? Is it the breach of trust, or something else? What is it about human relationships that we can share friends but not lovers? Suicidal for Life suggests that his friend Sean's reaction is rather ironic. It DOES make you think, because the reaction is a common one. Phil suggests that human beings are not meant to be monogamous. Is fidelity a state of selfishness?

Answer: Because when you are in a serious relationship with someone you promise to be loyal to them. Infedility breaks that promise and therefore the trust. Fidelity is not an instinct. Its a choice. When people CHOOSE to share the love they promised to someone exclusively witth somone else it hurts because it breaks the trusting relationship

Question: Why does monogamy and monotony sound like exactly the same thing? Not just phonetically, but in the descriptions. Monotony means doing the same thing over and over again. Where as monogamy means "doing" the same thing over and over again.

Answer: its actually great to be sharing life and love with one person who values you...the one who blames me for the failure of the first marriage doesnt know me or the previous husband...he was abusive, impotent etc...GOD DOES not want us to be miserable......judge not..

Question: When the beta male institution of monogamy finally collapses, will the natural order be restored to humanity? The concept of momogamy is dying out, and being replaced by "serial monogamy", which is femalespeak for "hypergamy" (opportunistically dumping the fading alpha and hooking a better catch). Will this return the human species on its proper course - with females mating with the best alpha male stock and the beta drones providing background support to the matriarchal hive?

Answer: Once upon a time, when physical strength due to a very short lifespan (did you know that the pyramid builders had a life span of 23 years? Thus, to marry at 13 meant they had a max of about nine years to raise a kid) - it may have been an advantage to mate with an 'alpha'. You didn't need much brains to go out and knock a few competitors on the head or intimidate them with your behaviour, and then sit back while the women served sandwiches and made themselves available. Nowadays, any such 'alpha' who tried to knock Bill Gates on the head would be jumped on by a number of similar 'alphas', all in the pay of Bill! Hence the modern total error of assuming that those who behave in an intimidating way or who thump other people are somehow 'alphas', as opposed to betas. I have said here many times that true Alphas in a civilised society are those who lead by example and by common decency. Throughout history the greatest and most revered leaders have not been the butchers, but the ones who have been humane, caring individuals, who put the genuine best interests of their people first. So - marriage a 'beta male' institution? I think not - it was a system organised by 'alphas' of both sexes in order to provide the best chance for all, and thus for the group, and thus for humanity as a whole (that's not 'hole', Igor!). All I can foresee in a reduction in society to the level of the beasts is more violence, principally against women in order to keep them in line. As previously - I watch my pet rooster very closely for his approach to government of the pen - he's an ego-maniac and a fool. Or we could have new 'alphas' killing offspring of these women when they oust the old 'alpha' (tickle, tickle - most common cause of infant murder is mother, and mother and new 'boyfriend'. A single drop of consciousness falls into the well of knowledge, and strikes the surface below, causing ever-widening ripples. Keep beating those wings, butterflies! We're getting somewhere). The whole thing is a nonsense in social terms - Faux Alphas are only fit for sleeping with the pigs, which is about all they really get!

Question: Are Christians who are teaching celibacy or monogamy in Africa as the only way to avoid AIDS helping? If you ask me, Id say distributing free condoms instead of spending the money on missionary churches would be real and sincere help. And that teaching celibacy or monogamy is actually just helping to spread the disease. True or false?

Answer: Aids has spread even more so thanks to the Vatican...they are THE panademic that is destroying Africa.

Question: Do you believe there can be true monogamy in a gay relationship? In all the gay relationships I've ever known, either they were both unfaithful and it was OK, or one was unfaithful and the other one just turned a blind eye... Can there be true monogamy with the gays?

Answer: It is still faithful in mine after 20something years. Of course, we're in red neck heaven, too. It might be a different story if we were in a big city instead of freaking Hooterville.

Question: Is monogamy a social construct or is it human nature? From what I have read, monogamy goes against human nature. If we are naturally non-monogamous, why do we get upset if we find out that our partner has cheated on us? Is it because we have been socially conditioned to believe that infidelity is wrong? Are people who cheat bashed simply because those doing the bashing have been brainwashed to believe in monogamy? Personally, I could easily see myself spending the rest of my life with that one special man.

Answer: Monogamy is a social construct having more to do with economics than with human nature. There is no evidence of monogamy among human beings before about 10,000 years ago, which is when our species turned to agriculture and animal domestication. Before this time (and among today's pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers) there was no reason to place importance on paternity or to equate sex with pregnancy. Paternity was unimportant because children were raised by the group—as opposed to just two parents—and nomadic foragers have little property they care about passing down to their children. Yes, we've been brainwashed to believe monogamy is "normal" for our species, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, ranging from our sexual anatomy to studies of hunter-gatherers, to those primates closest to us. There is simply no solid scientific evidence that Homo sapiens is naturally a monogamous species.

Question: Psychology Experiment: How to test the phycological aspect of Monogamy or lack thereof? Hi, I'm college student and I'm looking to conduct an experiment in my evolutionary psychology class. The topic is monogamy and the psychological aspect of people who abides by it and people who don't. There are many theories out there. But here, what I need is an experiment to come up with my own theory (whether it support or refute any existing theories is secondary). Does anyone have any ideas as to what kind of experiment I can conduct to accomplish this?

Answer: You are confused about a major aspect of the scientific method. You need a theory FIRST, then you can conduct an experiment. Starting with a random experiment and explaining what happened Post-Hoc is considered an unacceptable practice. If you have a theory first, this will allow you come up with a hypothesis, then it will be easy to design an experiment testing this. Post your Theory first, then we can help you come up with an experiment.

Question: If truely committed to a lover, how important is monogamy? It would seem that monogamy would be a detriment to the relationship ... I have seen too many couples split up over stepping out of one or the other.

Answer: My feelings are that monogamy is a poor excuse to stay in a relationship, and an even poorer one to end a great relationship...what would I have lost if my lover had a tryst? I am certainly not afraid of losing him to someone else...it that could happen, I would want him to be happy if I could not make him so...so to me, there is no importance what so ever. In fact, I think it may be a serious drawback. Men are built to screw around...so let him and let him be happy with me also!

Question: How important do you think monogamy is to a relationship? How important do you think monogamy is to a relationship

Answer: It vary from person to person and depends on the people. The thing is that it's imperative that no one involved be lied to or be unaware of the full situation. Some people are not alright with anything other than total monogamy, and that's fine. Others can tolerate or prefer limited or sometimes even complete polyamory, and so long as no one involved is being deceived, that's their decision as well. It depends on the people involved, there's no one answer to that question that fits everyone.

Question: What is your favourite quote about Marriage, Matrimony, or Monogamy? Following are some I have come across: For in what age or stupid nation Was marriage ever out of fashion? Marriage is an attempt to change a night owl into a homing pigeon. Marriage is a fine institution. However, who wants to live in an institution? Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same!

Answer: Love is the thing that enables a woman to sing while she mops up the floor after her husband has walked across it in his barn boots. ~Author unknown You have to walk carefully in the beginning of love; the running across fields into your lover's arms can only come later when you're sure they won't laugh if you trip. ~Jonathan Carroll, "Outside the Dog Museum" The first one I can really understand. Why don't I get mad when my clamdigging boyfriend comes home in the evening and puts his muddy cooler on top of my clean stove? Because I know he is tired. And he's figuring I'll clean the stove after dinner anyways; but cleaning the floor would be an extra chore. The second one speaks volumes to me, it is not only the humor (but really, picture it - you'll be chuckling!) but it is so true. Love accpets all, the beautiful and the ugly, the graceful and the - ahem - clumsy, the ups and the downs. True love, when you are no longer walking carefully, but your love knows you better than anyone else ever has, or ever will. I am one that still believes in marrage, despite the thoughts of many women my age! (24)

Question: Why would natural selection ever develop monogamy among any zoological specie? "In species where the young are particularly vulnerable and may benefit from protection by both parents, monogamy may be an optimal strategy." Wikipedia Why would natural selection not shut down a species based on an unfavorable environment and choose a more favorable environment?

Answer: Monogomous animals don't have to put a lot of energy into courtship. For example, a male cardinal expends tons of energy singing, fighting off other males, trying to attract a female, THEN he has to go through the whole breeding, nest building, etc... while a goose (a monogomous species) spends little time in courtship, and gets right to the act of breeding and raising young. Monogomy cuts down a little on genetic diversity, but saves tons of time and energy for a species. Plus the added advantage of having both parents present to care for the young.

Question: Does sexual dimorphism in humans prove that monogamy is unnatural? It is something that I have often wondered. I am personally firmly tied to the importance of monogamy and 'love', and find the misogyny that seems to have accompanied historical instances of polygamy repellent. But I can't help wondering if a purer form, as demonstrated by Gorillas, for example, night not be more in keeping with our natures. Any thoughts?

Answer: Actually, in humans sexual dimorphism is very low (look at gorilla and chimpanzee sizes...the males are much larger than the females). It has been shown that in species with less sexual dimorphism, there is more of a trend of monogamy with both parents caring for the offspring (this is found in birds too, so it is not only limited to mammals). So even if 'love' and 'marriage' did not have a role in humans, I do believe that humans would still lean toward monogamy, with the ultimate goal of mutual care of offspring. That being said, we cannot discount the role that culture now plays in human societies. In the societies that practice polygyny (many wives), polyandry (many husbands), or polygamy (many spouses) (all of which occur in other non-human species too!), there are cultural reasons behind their practices. I believe in cultural relativity (that we should understand other cultures' practices from the viewpoint of their own culture, not ours), and if cultural relativity is used, there is nothing wrong with other cultures performing other forms of marriage and pairings. So I guess my main point is that if we did not factor in culture and society, then humans as animals would still lean toward monogamy due to many factors, degree of sexual dimorphism included (as evidenced by studies in other non-human species).

Question: what is the benefit or advantage of monogamy to the society? there was a guy from Saudi Arabia he says to me why to you people(anyone from the country has monogamy) do not adopt polygamy? you people cheat on each other anyway. we don't cheat. ] so i have been thinking, is it true that all of us, or most of us need more than one sex partner? and, what is the benefit or advantage of monogamy to the society?

Answer: There is no benefit to monogamy so long as it is a socially or politically enforced norm; it should be a matter of personal preference, and people’s preferences on lifestyles should be respected (even if you don’t agree with their choices). By making it a socially/politically enforced lifestyle, society imposes a form of oppression upon people. Monogamy was originally invented (as a form of social policy) by men thousands of years ago who wanted to be sure they could keep track of their offspring (so that they could pass privilege and wealth to their biological children – aka, patrilineal descent). They needed to control female sexuality in order to ensure that men knew who their children were. (This is why males who like lots of sex are known as Don Juans, etc., while females are stigmatized with words like slut, etc.) In modern society it serves essentially the same purpose, only now it has become so traditional that we don’t really think about it. We just assume monogamy is “natural” or unquestionably the only morally acceptable choice. In reality monogamy is NOT the only natural or morally acceptable choice, and some people are simply not well-suited to it. These people are oppressed in a society that pushes monogamy. And by the way, the alternative is not just to have harems of wives. The modern alternatives include polyamory, which is multiple lovers of either or both sexes. I want to add some responses to other answerers… Robert D: Monogamy is not the best lifestyle for raising children. Two parents are not enough in many cases, which is why we have day cares and babysitters. Prior to the nuclear family model, extended families were more common, so grandparents, and other family members were often in the same household to help with childcare. Polyamory draws on the same strength as the extended family – more adult caregivers to love and help raise the child can provide overall greater stability. Monogamy may work best for some people, but it is not automatically the best option for all people. Louise D: You seem to be assuming that everyone is just like you. Perhaps you cannot stand the thought of your wife with other men, but I have looked deep into my heart and I can honestly say that I don’t mind. We are deeply in love and we are planning to be together for the rest of our lives. I am not jealous – in fact I feel good knowing that she can enjoy life to the fullest. Once again, your preference for monogamy is not a universal law. It is simply your personal preference. deedee_sfla: Virtually everything we value comes with some risk. The spread of STDs is technically not due to non-monogamy itself, but rather, to unsafe practices (polyfidelity is a form of non-monogamy that would have no greater risk than monogamy). Overall, the social attempts to force monogamy on everyone is partially responsible for spreading disease. Since not everyone is naturally monogamous, the social stigmas against non-monogamy just serves to push non-monogamous lifestyles out to the fringes and into the closets. People tend to feel more sense of urgency and desperation when they feel trapped, and this leads to a higher frequency of irrational and risky behavior. If society encouraged people to find their own true path, and was respectful of people’s choices, then a more relaxed, healthy atmosphere could become the norm (less stress, less need for secrecy, less sense that one has to break the rules in order to live according to ones nature).

Question: Is monogamy a realistic idea for humans? Is monogamy and staying faithful to one partner for many years even a realistic idea of humans?

Answer: Sure. I've been with my wife for 12 years and I never even look at another woman. I know that sounds corny but it's completely true.

Question: Poll: What is your stance on serial monogamy? Do you think serial monogamy should be legal? Answerers from different countries in the world are welcome to answer this. If you can tell me what country you're from, I'll highly appreciate that.

Answer: i am for it whatever it is

Question: Do you think monogamy is an intrinsic part of our human instinct? Or are we monogamous because of cultural and societal influences, therefore making monogamy "normal"? What are your thoughts? Can't choose guys...vote it out!

Answer: There is nothing "natural" or "unnatural" about monogamy or polygamy. Cultural practices are very much a part of our human nature--a very important aspect of our survival as a species; therefore, being a sociocultural practice does not make that practice any less "natural". Many cultures do practice various forms of polygamy, which may, under particular conditions, provide a more stable environment for child rearing, as well as for the resource acquisition and distribution of the community as a whole. You could in fact make the argument that "monogamy" as practiced in the U.S. often results in fragile, isolated nuclear families more vulnerable to unpredictable circumstances, leading to an increasingly less stable family environment--you could argue that the monogamous and nuclear family as practiced in much of the U.S. represents a maladaptive, and nearly "unnatural", cultural practice. For example, under these common conditions, a father hurt in a car accident would have a much greater negative impact on the raising of children than the same event would have on a more extended family, on a family with many more caregivers who rely less on the contributions of a single individual. In addition, many cultures in which the practice of polygamy is more common also practice more community-oriented raising of children. By strict definition, the U.S. is predominantly polygamous, practicing and accepting of serial polygamy, though we prefer to define ourselves as "monogamous".

Question: Is monogamy against the natural order of things? Are religions which prescribe monogamy against natural order? Does monogamy help the genes of weak people survive? Are weak genes surviving in our gene pool due to every woman wanting a nice man who puts up with all their demands? Weak men are managing to find mates due to appeasement, when strong males who don't put up with bull would have produced healthier, strong offspring through more females in a natural environment!

Answer: Monogamous behavior varies greatly throughout the animal kingdom... it usually is intertwined with both physiological features and social behavior. It has been found that human beings have exceptionally quick and resilient sperm when compared to other primates. This indicates that humans are not naturally monogamous. Why that is the natural conclusion is because we have found that you can compare similar animals' sperm, and those with faster sperm are more promiscuous. This makes sense because if one woman copulates with multiple partners in a short span of time, the one with the quick and resilient sperm will win over the males with inferior sperm. The correlation has been observed in animals, and despite our current societal pressures to be monogamous, our sperm indicates that we're naturally promiscuous. So to answer your question - yes, monogamy is against the natural order ~ of humans. Not necessarily all animals. Also, its against the natural order of our physiology, not our current society. This sheds a lot of light on why many men have a hard time suppressing their natural desire to be promiscuous.

Question: Do you think monogamy is natural or cultural? Do you think humans were designed for monogamy, or is it more of a cultural thing?

Answer: Personal. Some are cut out for monogamy, some are naturally more polygamous.

Question: COULD WE DEAL WITH POLYGAMY IN THIS CENTURY WITH ALL OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS? OR IS MONOGAMY BETTER? What are some pros and cons about polygamy and monogamy? Which is better for your lifestyle?

Answer: Hopefully all the gay marriage backers will let me have several wives when they get what they want.