Are we naturally monogamous?
Why or why not?
Are we naturally monogamous?
Posts
Total:
25
There are species more naturally monogamous.
We're intelligent, that means we have complicated reproduction modes. The dominant and by far the least disruptive to a community is monogamy.
Followed by promiscuous men.
Followed by promiscuous women.
Something many people confuse themselves with is focusing on the sex itself. It's about the kids.
Women don't have a mode of reproduction where they don't have to invest a lot of resources. They select the gene donors carefully, but what they want more than anything is a reliable supplier of resources.
A woman can easily have more kids than she or any one man can take care of. The limiting factor is resources and our instincts reflect that.
That's why women have been perfectly happy in harems, so long as the harem male is fabulously rich.
Men can father children without investing any resources. Men in this instinctual mode only care about the sex. They don't need to admire the woman because they don't care if the children have good genes. They don't care if the woman is wealthy or if she can take care of the kids.
Civilization tries to discourage this mode. Then contraceptives made it safe for men and women. The problem is that only men have an instinctual mode that finds this satisfying, and even then it turns into a hollow satisfaction as they realize they're alone and nobody had their kids.
Women want to cheat when they think other men are superior and their resources won't be threatened. It's a lot easier when you don't have to worry about giving birth to a kid who looks nothing like the father.
Men can share, but instinct/evolution says to only share with closely related males. Instinct can be overcome but it's more likely that if men share they think of the other male as a brother.
---------------
Calling something unnatural is almost always true in a specific context but not in another. We decided we're unnatural but that is just a convention for speaking about the cognizant vs non-cognizant range of possibilities.
Building a house is unnatural in the classic context of the word, but it isn't wrong.
Interspecies sex is natural in the classic context of the word, but - well I'm sure you know how people feel.
---------------
I think contraceptives are great. More tools the better. I think that people should be free, and irrational condemnation of victimless sexual behavior (or relationship) is wrong.
I also think that monogamous heterosexual marriage based on genuine love (emotion which connected to admiration of genes and being a reliable asset) with 2-5 kids is the happiest human beings are going to get on average and anyone who tells kids anything else is making the world worse.
Avoid the two errors:
Conflating the unnatural with the evil
Assuming that anything less than the best is the bad, it could and often is a lesser good
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Gotten away from the subject but since I saw this , I'll ask about it.
Do you think sexual abstinence is a superior form of birth control than any other contraception?
-->
@Mall
Gotten away from the subject but since I saw this , I'll ask about it.Do you think sexual abstinence is a superior form of birth control than any other contraception?
It's 100% effective, but that is the only way in which it is superior.
There is reason to suspect the side effects of hormone based birth control are more trouble than they are worth.
Condoms are not reliable enough to use alone, and they do slightly decrease pleasure.
I don't know a lot about the cervix-blocking stuff, they say it can go wrong and cause pain/bleeding; but really what can't?
Avoiding fertility windows is obviously quite prone to error, it should on paper be pretty effective and combined with condom and pill or condom and IUD thingy. The 'problem' is that it avoids the very fertility window where women are most sexual. So it's a bit of "now that you're not in the mood it's safe"
If natural sex is what people absolutely can't live without then they should use two contraceptive strategies at the same time.
Yet I often see people talking like it's contraception or abstinence, I wonder how sheltered people are when they say that. There are plenty of ways to interact sexually besides the one that ends in pregnancy.
The worst contraceptive strategy that is 99.99% effective is still way less money, pain, hassle than an abortion.
-->
@Mall
One would assume, that we were originally animals that lived in a family group, headed by a dominant breeding male.
Naturally, we developed varying ideological social systems, some which advocated monogamy and some which didn't.
I don't think that as a species we are instinctively programmed to pair bond.
Naturally, we also developed procreational drive into a recreational activity, wherein monogamy is also not a necessary requirement for everyone.
Nature is everything that occurs within a universe, therefore everything is natural.
-->
@zedvictor4
Why do we have sexual jealousy?
-->
@Mall
Are we naturally monogamous?
No
Why or why not?
Ask your mom
-->
@Mall
For sure.
Jealousy is a word we use to describe a particular behaviour.
Desire, is another relative word.
I would suggest that what we attempt to describe with such words, are sub-consciously motivated physiological responses to perceivably demanding situations.
We attempt to describe body chemistry, as it were.
I am, but I cant speak for anyone else. I am assuming monogamous means being married and not cheating on your wife. Boy friend girl friend doesn't count, there is no commitment.
-->
@ponikshiy
You telling me to ask someone else it must be because you believe that someone has more intelligence than you.
Duly noted.
-->
@sadolite
Why do you say boy friend and girlfriend, there's no commitment?
-->
@zedvictor4
I couldn't get a handle on what you said on why there is sexual jealousy.
In layman's terms, a man that is uneasy of his woman being touched by another man and vice versa a woman.
There is jealousy there even when one person sees another looking at another.
This apparently is a natural response. But if we're not naturally monogamous, why would there be some feeling of attachment, belonging, exclusiveness, etc.?
In layman's terms, a man that is uneasy of his woman being touched by another man and vice versa a woman.
There is jealousy there even when one person sees another looking at another.
This apparently is a natural response. But if we're not naturally monogamous, why would there be some feeling of attachment, belonging, exclusiveness, etc.?
-->
@Mall
Get married then and prove it.
-->
@sadolite
Oh so when people don't get married, they can't say they'll commit to the level of having a state recognize that commitment of belonging to each other .
That is a good point. You can't say a man and woman even belongs to each other. Can't get no more committed than that and the people that don't even take it to that level, it is a question of the depth of commitment there.
-->
@Mall
You telling me to ask someone else it must be because you believe that someone has more intelligence than you.
No, I am saying that because I fucked your mother while she was still with your father.
-->
@Mall
"A man"
"His woman"
His women.
The dominant breeding male will protect his harem.
Refer to it as jealousy if you wish.
So, we've moved on a tad since back in the day.
But the body chemistry stays the same.
-->
@Mall
Not so much the state but pledging commitment in front of their family, friends and peers. That means telling all others you are no longer available. Boyfriend girlfriend is just until something better comes along.
No. We're polygamus and patriarchal by nature. The natural way to live is that a man have a harem.
-->
@sadolite
Ok not so much the state just a little bit.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Not every man.
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think a woman wants one man for herself and for her children if she's got them?
-->
@ponikshiy
Why do you have to be dishonest?
If you were intelligent like the rest of us here, you'd be giving non trollish responses and edifying answers like the rest of us.
Now mature up and join the adult conversation with us or be booted out as a child .
-->
@Mall
Not every man.
Who? You?
-->
@IlDiavolo
I'm not being specific. People are exclusively married. Unless the stats are a lie and what we see is false.
-->
@Mall
Once she has children to consider, then maternal instinct should kick in.
Which includes the need for provision.
But of course nowadays, that rarely depends upon men going out to hunt for food.
And who except the woman, can say what a woman without children really wants these days.
It would certainly be arrogant of me to try and suggest what she should want.
There are no global rules or standards when it comes to relationships.
And I cannot read minds.
So, I don't know, is the answer to your latest question.