FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?





jsk02a
Truly, I often wonder if human beings are meant to be monogamous. We are animals, after all, meant to spread our genes as often as we are capable, no? I have ready studies that women are atracted to smart and strong men because it is an animalistic nature - the need to bound one's DNA with strong and capable genes that will carry to the offspring. If we take to these primal instincts, then why not others? I would like to know what you all think on this matter...

Are humans meant to be monoamous or not?
LukeakaDanish
jsk02a wrote:
Truly, I often wonder if human beings are meant to be monogamous. We are animals, after all, meant to spread our genes as often as we are capable, no? I have ready studies that women are atracted to smart and strong men because it is an animalistic nature - the need to bound one's DNA with strong and capable genes that will carry to the offspring. If we take to these primal instincts, then why not others? I would like to know what you all think on this matter...

Are humans meant to be monoamous or not?


By their nature, women are strongly monogamous, men are strongly bigamous. Explanation:

Men spread genes. Thats their biggest purpose in life. And the more women we can spread our genes to (by having sex) the better! There are no downsides - but thats where the women come in to play:

Traditionally women tend for kids - also women risk their life and good health by bearing the child for 8 months. So for those 8 months - and all the years they have to watch the baby, getting food is difficult - so they need a man to do it for them. Therefore they need to find a man who is very dedicated to them - if you want "who loves them". - if the man is running around with another woman he obviously isnt dedicated.

Because women are much more powerful than men, in most cases relationships are monogamous - buuuut then again a very large percentage of men cheat on their partner at some point in their life. - so there's a bit of both in the human nature.
zellfaze
My personal opinion.

Humans should have multiple partners if they want.
flowerpower
I strongly believe so. as I can see, the world population is increasing at an exponential rate and as such there are great possibilities that we humans may suffer from scarcity of resources in not a long time from now, if not already (in the case of food, for example), not to forget the fact that the majority of couples are monogamous. biologically, humans are together for reproduction purposes but it's much more than that in real life, guys. ethically and from a moral point of view, being monogamous is important for a sane couple.
tidruG
jsk02a wrote:
I have ready studies that women are atracted to smart and strong men because it is an animalistic nature - the need to bound one's DNA with strong and capable genes that will carry to the offspring.
That's only a part of the theory. That only relates to animal instinct.

However, humans have certain capabilities that other animals do not. We have the capacity to think, to feel. One of the most important emotions is love. And love doesn't work on animal instinct. We are inherently attracted to people who complement our personalities. That again, to some extent is animal instinct. Each person has a priority list of characteristic traits that they think are important. They have the inherent capacity to recognize which of these traits they have and which ones they're laking, and then they have the tendency to look for the traits they're missing in potential partners.

Apart from this, man has created society and rules, and it is socially advantageous to live in small groups or families, and to live in monogamy.
ForceRun
I think most information points out most people are only happy in a traditional life style and relationship for the long term. Here is an informative site I found when doing a quick search: http://www.frc.org/marriage-family
prithvi
(Sorry for this long reply) Laughing

The offspring of animals develop very fast compared to humans.
Almost all of them are able to walk within a couple of hours after getting delivered.

Offspring of animals don't have to spend 10 yrs at school and 5 yrs at college.
Within a year, they become self-reliant and don't depend on their parents.

This gives their parents a 'green signal' to go forth and enrol for future mating season memberships. Wink

WHEREAS

We humans are very different from other animals in our social behaviour.
Bringing up children alone requires a good parentage in the first place, apart from spending a good number of years in grooming, schooling, feeding them, footing the medical bills, insurance, taxes etc.
This calls for a dedicated relationship at a time to see all this through.
In turn, you would expect a reciprocal bonding from the children who would become responsible people and carry your family name into the future.


Yeah, we humans have become too advanced and too complicated.
(sigh) Watch Animal Planet and see those animals having a gr8 time everyday.
We have come far ahead, man.................now it's too late to revert to animalistic behaviour

So just fill up the beer mug and watch those animals with envy
Coen
Who knows whether or not we are "meant to be". It is not nice to cheat on someone you trust and love so I do think we are meant to be monogamous. We have sort of obliged ourselves by having relations and such.
omnicomputerservices
As many have said above, human beings differ considerably from other animals (even our own fellow mammals). We have created our own society, are capable of thinking on a higher level than our fellow creatures, and express a more diverse range of emotions and feelings. Why this forum in itself is a symbol of our complexity: An organized meeting ground were people can discuss anything from computers to romantic philosophy, now that's evolved. Here's a fun fact: Did you now that humans and dolphins are the only known (last I heard) animals to have sex for fun and not necessarily for reproductive purposes.

Anyway, to the topic at hand, I believe that ultimately it is the decision of the individual as influenced by his/her own beliefs and environment; there is no right way or wrong way. Why are a majority of people in this country monogamous or prefer to be? Well they were either raised to be that way or through their experiences in life come to prefer that lifestyle. Being monogamous tends to result in a peaceful, predictable, and stable lifestyle which many people desire. Things change slowly, you have an idea what's coming up later down the road, and there's a group of people who you know will be there to love, care, and comfort you for an indefinite period of time. A permanent fixture in a world that is constantly changing and in conflict somewhere, somehow, someway.
jsk02a
prithvi wrote:


Yeah, we humans have become too advanced and too complicated.
(sigh) Watch Animal Planet and see those animals having a gr8 time everyday.
We have come far ahead, man.................now it's too late to revert to animalistic behaviour

So just fill up the beer mug and watch those animals with envy


I think I'll take you up on that suggestion. Smile I agree, though, the human race has become much too complicated.


But, thank you everyone for your replies. You all pointed out things I had not thought to take into account. Most importantly is that the Mother is more likely to be monogmous than the Father due to reasons of survival. The Mother hopes to have the Father around for a better chance for her baby. The Father just wants to go 'spread his seed'.

But, now I'd like to specify my question a bit more. Society aside - what do you think is meant for the true nature of the human being when it comes to relationships, not what we have been conditioned to think is appropriate.

Also, I liked the comment about the dolphins. Though, it does segway to another topic. Dolphins do indeed indulge in sex for fun, like humans. Did you know that Dolphins also do not care with which sex they are interacting while enjoying this 'fun'? What does this say when we compare ourselves to Dolphins and then make reference to the freedom in Bi/Homo-sexuality? Does that make such intercourse natural?
scbrazil
No concrete answer to this one. Humans are made biologically, socially and psychologically.
On the biological front, apparently Neanderthal man was monogamous but Sapiens-sapiens not.
Which takes me on to the social aspect. There was a period in which sapiens and neanderthal lived together, thus mixing the demands of DNA with visible social behaviour.
Psychologically speaking I suppose it all depends on how each individual deals with guilt, fear of loss if caught etc.
Now you have to put all three in the blender and mix them up. A tablespoon of biological drive, a cup of social norms and a heap of psychological perception.
And then of course you have to take into account of the manufacturer of the actual blender to know what the result is going to be. How is 'monogamous' defined?
Apparently swans and some other species mate for life. Being the animal kingdom I suppose this means Mr Swan, after finding Mrs Swan never again even looks at Miss Hottie Swan gliding over the pond and thinks 'jeez she's good'. Otherwise (being the animal kingdom) he would act on his desire.
This way, I suppose you could say Humans aren't biologically monogamous. All of us, men and women alike, look and admire and feel attraction to others. We don't (or do) act on that desire because of social norms and psychological judgements.
How many men, if seduced by a gorgeous sexy woman, knowing they could never be found out by their spouse, would act? - Most but not all. Those that didn't wouldn't, not because they didn't want or desire to but because they know they couldn't handle the guilt after or because they felt it would diminish the quality of their standing relationship.
Nevertheless, the desire would be there.
Satori
jsk02a wrote:
Truly, I often wonder if human beings are meant to be monogamous. We are animals, after all, meant to spread our genes as often as we are capable, no? I have ready studies that women are atracted to smart and strong men because it is an animalistic nature - the need to bound one's DNA with strong and capable genes that will carry to the offspring. If we take to these primal instincts, then why not others? I would like to know what you all think on this matter...

Are humans meant to be monoamous or not?


I'm not sure if humans are "meant" to be one way or the other. I think that we as individuals are able to choose one or the other and that we will choose whatever suits us best. I think that monogamy is more popular the polygamy, but that doesn't mean that polygamy is necessarily wrong. I think that there are plenty of people who choose to be polygamous and are very happy with their choice. The point is that if someone can be happy being monogamous, and someone else can be happy being polygamous, who can tell either of them their wrong?
fx-trading-education
I guess that by "meant to be" you mean the natural tendency without any limit provided by society.
In that case I guess that humans should be close to the behaviour of monkeys.
There are group rules with the dominant male having the upper hand on what is allowed and what is not. So I guess multiple partners will be the rule for the dominant members of the group and 1 or even none for the weakest ones.

But anyway humans are not following their instinct but are following the society rules (except for few exceptions).
icecool
tidruG wrote:
jsk02a wrote:
I have ready studies that women are atracted to smart and strong men because it is an animalistic nature - the need to bound one's DNA with strong and capable genes that will carry to the offspring.
That's only a part of the theory. That only relates to animal instinct.

However, humans have certain capabilities that other animals do not. We have the capacity to think, to feel. One of the most important emotions is love. And love doesn't work on animal instinct. We are inherently attracted to people who complement our personalities. That again, to some extent is animal instinct. Each person has a priority list of characteristic traits that they think are important. They have the inherent capacity to recognize which of these traits they have and which ones they're laking, and then they have the tendency to look for the traits they're missing in potential partners.

Apart from this, man has created society and rules, and it is socially advantageous to live in small groups or families, and to live in monogamy.


yes, in terms of relationships we have moved our thinking from between our legs to our brains - most of us anyway, most of the time.
however, as a species we have not developed along the same lines globally so there are still wide cultural regional differences which, in turn, adds to the exciting diversity we display as a species.
i hope this diversity will continue for a long time - otherwise 1984 will be just around the corner as it is already in wide parts of the world.

cheers
RubySlasher
Statistically speaking, marriages do have relatively short life-spans, so that can support the belief that humans are a monogamous race.
However, it doesn't seem like humans go in-heat like monogamous animals quite do, and male humans are possessive over human females (they'll tend to be against their wives mating with other males to ensure offspring, even if they themselves can't supply the DNA. Some males give in to 'artificial fertilization' as it is less emotional damaging.) This kind of behavior is not typical in monogamous animals.

As stated by many people above, humans are emotional beings, and monogamous behavior is damaging to their advanced sense of self.

Chimpanzees don't have such advanced egos, so their non-monogamous mating habits take priority and with careless abandon.

But since there tends to be relapses of non-monogamous habit present in human society at all times, it makes it easy to surmise that maybe we did evolve from a non-monogamous race, like chimpanzees.
This could lead to other theories, like that maybe some people, or maybe even the males of the race, carry 'weaker genes' in them which disallows them the power to be master over their instincts/hormones.

Years from now, the human race may 'evolve' back into simplistic animals with one dimensional egos since carriers of these 'weaker genes' are rewarded with more offspring.

HEY it's like that movie where in the future, everyone was stupider. Forgot what it was called, anyone remember?
psycosquirrel
I think it varies with the individual.

One who wants companionship will be monogamous.

One who only desires the physical side of things will tend towards polygamy, and instead look to friends for companionship and support.

I have seen a very strong trend of happiness and success following monogamous relationships, whereas loneliness and desperation often follow polygamy.

Ultimately, it is our choice.

I chose monogamy.
gandalfthegrey
We are not meant to be anything.

If you want to be monogamous (like myself), go ahead.

If you want to be in a poly relationship, go ahead.

If you want to be in an open relationship, go ahead.


Just don't try to enforce your beliefs on others or claim that everyone is one way or another.

I am naturally monogamous... though I know many people who feel they can never be that way. But that does not mean everyone is (or should be) monogamous, nor should they everyone be non-monogamous.
apple
I think being in a monogamous relationship makes more sense these days since sickness and disease are so abundant.
In terms of procreation life is hard and sooo costly. I think unless a person/couple can really afford to support and take care of children they should avoid having then.

That's my only real reason for supporting monogamy.
jsk02a
Thank you all for your posts. It's really interesting to see the various 'takes' on the idea.
fpwebs
I think that way back in the day we may have had an opportunity to not be monogamous but we decided to have feelings. I think that it is our nature to have multiple partners but we decided to invent this thing called love that governs us now. and sometimes people are happy with one partner but now we are supposed to only have one partner. i think the rules should be changed.
moray
By nature ... I do not think humans are monogamous

But also by nature we do not fly ... swim underwater or that stuff that we do ...
We are also aggressive and like animals would kill each others ...

Only ... we evolved .. we created some rules .. we cannot kill each others any more (wishfull thinking)

and part of those rules say that we have to commit once ... but it is so unhuman that we are suffering all the time when we see another female walking by!
bonez
We cannot but say humans are might to have only one partner or not.

Going back to the creation of man. God created a man and a woman and not two women for one man. But after man ate the forbidden fruit he lost his sense and began to lust after more women and desires for his flesh increased.

Paul rightly said,, a bishop should be the hushand of one wife.

in various bible context man is made for one woman and one woman for one man
ssthanapati
I think its hard to generalize. I personally prefer to be monogamous. I prefer to stay dedicated to the person i love. And its good for my wallet too Very Happy .
watersoul
Ooh, this is such a tricky one, I love being in a relationship when the person I'm with is only for me and vice versa, but I'll admit I've been tempted loads of times to go elsewhere, and unfortunately I'm ashamed a little to admit I have cheated in the past on a night out.
I think its only natural for everyone to be attracted to other people on occasion even if you love someone, it perhaps means more being faithful when you've resisted temptation over a shallow sexual attraction elsewhere. I don't know though, are we human beings actually "supposed" to be anything?
Go to different places in the world and you'll find different codes of standards, maybe its just social conditioning.
I know one thing, if you tell a partner you're only with them you should stick to it or its just being unfair and cruel?
supernova1987a
a friend of mine used to say it really matter unless you dont pry for other men's womens and as long as there is understanding between all of your wives and you. monogamy or polygamy, if u do not go outside of ur marriage, it will still keep you from any stds as well. however, the best decision would be stay monogamous, thats good for children too.
hangnhu
It interesing reading some of the opinions here

A. I disagree that women don't stray and men do, it takes two to tango and while the men cheat, they need the women coorperation as well. also I read somewhere that statistically, most father assumed the their wife children is their children, this has been proven otherwise in many cases.

B. if human are animal, then we meant to multiply, but if we're human and have much more than natural instinct (which we do) then everyone is different and you can't say yes or no to monogamy
I see no solution to this question, if we tend to genetic, then the answer is no we're not. if we tend to religion and morality, then maybe yes, but that is anopther debate altogether
Da Rossa
Why not being monogamous?

Quote:
We are animals, after all, meant to spread our genes as often as we are capable, no?


Do you feel the species is threatened?
deanhills
LukeakaDanish wrote:
jsk02a wrote:
Truly, I often wonder if human beings are meant to be monogamous. We are animals, after all, meant to spread our genes as often as we are capable, no? I have ready studies that women are atracted to smart and strong men because it is an animalistic nature - the need to bound one's DNA with strong and capable genes that will carry to the offspring. If we take to these primal instincts, then why not others? I would like to know what you all think on this matter...

Are humans meant to be monoamous or not?


By their nature, women are strongly monogamous, men are strongly bigamous. Explanation:

Men spread genes. Thats their biggest purpose in life. And the more women we can spread our genes to (by having sex) the better! There are no downsides - but thats where the women come in to play:

Traditionally women tend for kids - also women risk their life and good health by bearing the child for 8 months. So for those 8 months - and all the years they have to watch the baby, getting food is difficult - so they need a man to do it for them. Therefore they need to find a man who is very dedicated to them - if you want "who loves them". - if the man is running around with another woman he obviously isnt dedicated.

Because women are much more powerful than men, in most cases relationships are monogamous - buuuut then again a very large percentage of men cheat on their partner at some point in their life. - so there's a bit of both in the human nature.
Probably a good point, except we seem to be more than a species, we have a spiritual dimension to ourselves and ethics. We are both good and bad, and constructive and destructive, however always aspiring to good and constructive. Being married with a family and staying monogamous seem to be more of good and constructive, than sleeping around and spreading genes everywhere.
Related topics
The downfall of american society
Programming links, info, and tutorials
World of Warcraft
Decimal, Binary and Hexadecimal
when will the world end?
Who All Believes In Evolution?
science vs. religion
F. Nietzsche
The origin of humans
Have you ever dumped someone and realized it was a mistake?
Our Origins
Have humans developed from primates?
Lineage II full C3 and C4???
...all religion aside - is it wrong to be gay?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Relationships

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.