Really? Truly? Deep down where only you can see, do you believe monogamy is innate to Homo sapiens?

Some animals mate for life also, not just humans.
And there are already way to many humans on earth so no need to run around and breed amuck.

Clarifying question. Do we mean “one at a time” monogamy or the “one for life” monogamy most people seem to expect now.

I think there’s definitely advantages to monogamy, does that make it innate? I don’t think so.

I think the deep down animal inside would be just fine having sex with whatever struck it’s fancy. That same animal would be ok with a lot of things that I don’t find acceptable. Like attacking people that make it angry and peeing all over everything. That animal definitely wants some more naps.

If you stripped away all of society and removed the judgement of everyone but myself, I still don’t think I’d choose to be that animal. So I think you have to consider more than just animal instincts.

I’d argue monogamy makes a lot of sense on a very basic level. You have a partner and two can do more than one. If relationships are totally fluid, you don’t really have a partner you can count on and plan with. You spend a lot of time and energy finding short term partners.

As far as “spreading our genes”, those offspring have to survive and having more adults in their corner definitely helps. Could that be done in another way? Absolutely, but remember the adults are making the decisions, so monogamy must provide something people choose.

Today, some choose monogamy because it feels safe, and gives them more benefits than it takes. We give up a little freedom (changing partners often) for a little bit of comfort (we don’t have to constantly worry about finding a partner, or our partner leaving before we’re ready). Keeping the good things that happen to us going as long as possible seems like a decent survival skill.

I think “one for life” monogamy makes less sense just because of the time frames involved. There’s no way to tell what’s going to happen in 60 years. I think it became the norm because families were the basic unit of communities and you essentially lived with them throughout your life. If you split with your spouse, someone lost access to their family and their support system.

This is getting too long, I’m going to go take a nap and pee all over everything.

If that were the case, there would not be so much cheating going on.
Besides, monogamy is only a recent development.

Innate I’m not sure. I tend to think it is. Probably a lot of men will say no.

Deleted

I don’t think it’s innate to Homo or Hetero sapiens. ;-p

The truth of the matter is that monogamy runs against the grain of Natural Selection which almost demands that man/animals mate with multiple partners in order to create multiple genes pools for the end result of one or more offspring has that magic gene combination that will stand a better chance of surviving long enough to then breed as well. A good example of this dynamic is when the White man came to North America, they bought with them many diseases the Native Americans were never before exposed to and wiped out a significant portion of the Native American populations.

It’s got advantages and disadvantages. It’s kind of important for social and emotional bonds. A stable group of individuals working together was surely important for survival. Spreading healthy genes around was also. Monogamy works for securing resources to raise children but not so much in actual breeding.

You could kind of see the evolutionary logic to the “Seven Year Itch.” Once the kid is around 5 or so, they’re pretty hardy, physically and can start to learn to help with hunting/gathering and hunting. So if the male sticks around to get the child to that point, and then wants to go spread the seed elsewhere, the mom with the child can probably make do, at least for a bit, without him.

It’s a choice we have made. One that’s right for some and not for others. Choosing to be monogamous is a sign of evolved behavior. It’s a journey two people embark on together that takes work and yields big rewards.

From my perspective, the motivation for monogamy looks pretty simple: I don’t want to cause pain to someone I love. That would be the inevitable result of having sex with someone else, so I don’t.

So that’s the interplay of two basic forces: compassion and jealousy. I think you could make the case that those are innate.

Of course its not.

Raging loli’s point in good. It is a new development.

Enlightened? People who say stuff like that are the one’s defining it. Not a cogent argument. That’s just like saying god told us so.

So ya’ll are saying that though it’s not innate it’s preferred? At least in our culture?

The only reason people get hurt when a partner cheats is because of the idea of monogamy. If it wasn’t looked down upon, why would a mate get hurt? If monogamy was more of a suggestion wouldn’t humans be able to nurture their sexual sides without fear or shame?

@tinyfaery “The only reason people get hurt when a partner cheats is because of the idea of monogamy. If it wasn’t looked down upon, why would a mate get hurt?”

I’m not sure about that. I’ve read statements by first wives in cultures that condone polygamy that sounded quite hurt when their husbands took second wives.

Well since, technically, a male can have as many offspring as there are women around while. regardless of how many males there are, a female can only have one every year or so, it would seem we have conflicting success strategies when it comes to breeding.
In terms of passing on genetic material, the female is better off pairing up with a partner who can help raise the offspring and help ensure its survival.while the male has the option of a strategy that spreads his genetic material to as many women as possible with the idea that some will survive and thrive.

The only reason people get hurt when a partner cheats is because of the idea of monogamy.

@tinyfaery – our culture doesn’t look down on people having many friends.

But imagine your best friend suddenly deciding they didn’t want you around any more because they’ve found someone that’s a better fit right now. Does it still hurt?

I don’t think cheating only hurts because someone told us it should.

This is an old record & it appears to be stuck.

Well, it works out best for the women, for sure.

If a person promises to be faithful, then leaves you for someone else, it’s a blow to your self esteem and self confidence. That’s why it hurts.

I would be interested in knowing about self-esteem issues and self-confidence issues in cultures, such as the, Trobriand Islanders or the Ju/‘hoansi, which have a much less rigid attitude toward sexual contact.

Good question @rojo.

My ex cheated on me. Didn’t affect myself esteem or self confidence one bit. I knew I blew her away in looks, intelligence, everything. I figured it out on my own, but never said a word to anyone.
Then, at some point, I found myself on the phone with her. I didn’t say a word about the affair. After beating around the bush, she led up to it, and in a (fake) heartbroken voice she made a tearful confession.
I said, “Don’t worry. You two will get over it. Stuff happens.”
Her voice changed to one of incredulity. She said, “Don’t you feel threatened by me???!!”
I said, “Naw. Why would he stay with a Volkswagen he picked up in the street when he has a Cadillac in the garage!”

She was speechless. I guess she fed her self esteem by breaking up marriages.

It didn’t last long…..but then it happened again about a year later, with someone else, so I called it quits for that, and other reasons.

@Cruiser That doesn’t make sense to me. Men sleeping with multiple women causes a lot of half siblings walking around. In a small community that means people genetically similar are more likely to mate.

Plus, populations typically are very close to 50/50 male and female. If nature really intended men to be with several women wouldn’t there be many more girls born? I know boy babies tend to die more in infancy and they seem to be at more risk of dying in battle or while trying to kill a tiger, but in the end it still is around 50/50 by puberty as far as I know.

@JLeslie The gene spreading with different breeders will serve no purpose within a small village as you pointed out they all have similar if not identical genes. And that is where Natural Selection will play such an impactful role. When a novel virus is introduced into that small community the results can be catastrophic. In 1917 that very thing happened where entire communities were wiped out by the Spanish flu because none had conferred immunity to that strain. But I am pretty sure if our ancestors did not choose mates from other villages we would not have survived some of the scourges of the ancient past. Plus today you have to factor in an unprecedented ability to treat people that otherwise would die.

I don’t any more.

@Cruiser Choosing mates from other villages has nothing to do with being monogamous or not. I’m monogamous and my mate is from Mexico, with a gene pool from the Iberian peninsula, France, and the Middle East. My background is primarily Eastern Europe, with a mini bit of Western Europe.

Even way back in history a man could couple with a girl from another village and stay with her long term.

It’s probably the willingness to be with someone outside the village that is important, which points to attitudes about “outsiders” and people who are different, not so much whether they are monogamous or not. Unless you are saying cheaters are more likely to have sex with people not of their own kind so to speak? That still has to do with social boundaries though.

It’s bigger than the village. Native American tribes suffered big losses when the Europeans came, but probably if more of the Native Americans had crossed tribes it would not have made a huge impact. The impact would come from making babies with the Europeans. Plus, I am not even sure how much impact that would have because the Europeans died from those diseases also. One of the big killers was small pox. The point about the Europeans coming to America is not that the Indians didn’t have immunity to that, it is that the American continent seemed to be free of that horrible disease. Just like that idiot in Brazil who brought over African bees (on purpose) now we have bees that kill the majority of pekple and animals from just one sting. It would have been nice if they kept that on the other African continent. Europeans might have done slightly better living through smallpox and some other disease because of their farming practices and because for many years they were being killed off by the diseases and the people with the better immune systems survived. Still, a lot of people died in Europe.

Look at AIDS, very few people are immune, and I am not sure they have confirmed there is immunity. I know science has researched the gene that believe caused immunity for bubonic plague, I think the mutation is called Delta 32, as giving immunity to HIV. They believe people who were homozygous for the gene don’t get sick. I know someone who never got sick from HIV while his lover and friends all died off. He has been positive for 30 years. It might be argued that its good his parents stayed in the village and both had the gene. Although, I understand your point also that if there are exponentially more heterozygouse people eventually there is a tipping point where the population is more likely to have more homozygous people. But, take red heads. The best way to produce a red head is for both parents to be red headed, then it is guaranteed. Red heads who marry brunettes, run the risk of their grandchildren not having the red gene.

Anyway, we are much much more intermixed now and AIDS still wreaks havoc and so would small pox. For that matter, so does measles, and there are others. Vaccines are what helped us the most, also being exposed to the disease at the safest ages helps. An infant or elderly person gets whooping cough, higher chances of death. An older child, or otherwise healthy adult, more likely to live. Once you get it, you’re immune.

Same with Spanish flu, it simply was a very deadly virus for many many people in many many villages.

We are socially monogamous but sexually polygamous

@JLeslie I think you see the point I was trying to make. If man did not breed outside it’s village or community, you would see things similar to what you can see in Amish and Mennonite communities. They have diseases rarely seen in the general population and some the are very rare and even unique to them.

Another example is the Spanish Flu of1917/1918 where entire Eskimo Villages were wiped out by the virus because of their gene pool was so limited and little to no exposure to outside virus and disease and that flu virus was completely novel to them that they all died.

I suspect that our natural instinct is to have one dominate male and 5 or 6 females. Pretty sure that’s how other primate relationships work.

And, as an aside, I got confirmation that testicle size, rather than penis size, is more of an indicator of aggression and “manliness.

@Dutchess_III Proud of you! it takes balls to admit that.

Well, I came up with the thought after remembering my ex boyfriend, who was black (and yes, it’s true what they say) and my husband now, who is much more aggressive than my bf was. And that’s all I have to say about that.

yep, without monogamy society would collapse. Its because every man can have a women that we are able to work together. If only a few men got to have all the women then you would have a lot of very violent young men and that would lead to riots, war, violence.

We would not collapse without monogamy. Lots and lots of societies have operated under polygamy.

Some times a imbalance in the number of men and women might make polygamy possible, just look at the Mormons. It worked for a while, so why did they stop? They quit because enough men were around later on and they didn’t like it to much. Its kind of funny because if you ask most men they think that it would be a great idea to have a multiple wives, but in fact its men that created monogamy. Polygamy only works out for women. If more then one women can marry a rich man then several more women would marry up instead of settling for a poorer fellow. It is all really that simple.

@anonymous6059 Was there a shortage of men when Mormonism started?

Yes, when Joseph Smith set out with his small band of followers they ended up with more women then men before they re-settled. It was horse and wagon times and a ton of people died whenever you resettled it seems. Anyway, so Jospeh Smith has this divine insight by GOD that he should marry more women and it worked for a while. Eventually though as they settled back down and grew some of the average joes in the group I’m sure started to feel a bit left out. Eventually, they had to switch back to monogamy. Of course, I have heard that some of the “Orthodox” sects still practice this “tradition”. However, I think that its really only so they can get their hands on young girls.

I finally found a interesting article. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_undercover_economist/2006/02/i_do_i_do_i_do_i_do.html

What polygamy can do is populate a region, definitely. One man, multiple women pregnant at the same time.

@jca Exactly, and when you need to seriously need to jump start a religion. So, I guess that polygamy does work out in some situations, but not in the long haul. Eventually, things will even out to an equal number of men and women. Once this happens social unrest will occur until each man has the potential for obtaining a partner.

If 50 women could marry Chris Hemsworth then you would have 49 very unhappy men. If you let that continue with every hollywood star then you would easily see how many anger men could quickly start a revolt.

Count me as 51.