Is Monogamy Realistic?

[YourTokah]

Is it realistic to be monogamous your entire life, or is that the result of the influence of religion? Perhaps it began with male chauvinism? I think it goes against human instinct in many ways, and is pleasing in emotional ways.

But for me,
there can NOT be only one.

[Jack]

Religion seems to spend a lot of time trying to either refute our animal natures, or blame them on circumstances beyond our control. I find both those dishonest.

I often hear people claim that the small number of homosexual relationships observed in other species proves that homosexuality is an aberration in nature. But those same people ignore the fact that monogamy is just as rare among the majority of the animal kingdom.

Most people agree the purpose of sex (biologically) is reproduction. Having a number of mates increases the odds that an individual's traits will be passed along to future generations. Multiple mates is the most common situation among living things because it offers the best opportunity for the species to survive.

We can't totally escape our origins. I think when it comes to the sexual act, our instincts tell us to have sex with as many partners as possible. To help us deny our humanity, some religions have decided to make multiple partners a sin. Thus monogamy, thus marriage.

I believe in emotional monogamy (because I can't truly love more than one person at a time...call me lazy) and physical poligamy.

[PatrickHenry]

To help us deny our humanity

There are various definitions of humanity.

For some folks it means just about anything."I'm only human!"

For others it is a specific code. "That ain't human!"

Some would say humanitarianism defines humanity.

I don't agree that monogamy is an attempt to deny humanity, or that denying humanity is a purpose of religion.

[Jack]

The "humanity" I meant was the part of us that we share with other animals. Those traits common to all animals, and more precisely, mammals.

[PatrickHenry]

Ok! Humanity=animality! In at least one sense...

[Critter]

Why is monogamy not realistic?

If you truly love someone, would you not want to show respect and love for them by NOT sleeping with other people?

On another note, just because animals behave a certain way does not mean we should do the same. We are humans, aren't we supposed to be BETTER than the animals?

IMO, it's a matter of self-control and respect.

[Matt W]

Definately. I'd say it's realistic. My folks have been together something like 30 years, and demonstratively love each other still.

[CJFreeman]

The "humanity" I meant was the part of us that we share with other animals. Those traits common to all animals, and more precisely, mammals.

The Contention: Humans are not the only species to exhibit homosexual inclinations; animals display the same leanings.

The Response: Yes, animals do display some behaviours that, by their appearance, validate to those who believe human beings to be animals as well, the behaviours of homosexuality. A dog, for example, will hump another of the same kind. It will also hump any of the various, available objects within its reach. The problem here is that animals act out of instinct, and are incapable of higher reasoning. Presumably, human beings can formally distinguish between legs, basketballs, and men or women. If the argument were “since dogs can hump basketballs, humans should be allowed to hump basketballs,” then it may have some merit. Happily, animals do not determine normative behaviour for human beings. Thank God! I do.

[tman_ndsu08]

Is it realistic to be monogamous your entire life, or is that the result of the influence of religion? Perhaps it began with male chauvinism? I think it goes against human instinct in many ways, and is pleasing in emotional ways.

But for me,
there can NOT be only one.

Biologically, nature wants men to impregnate as many different women as possible. This ensures the survival of the species.

[Chris]

Is it realistic to be monogamous your entire life, or is that the result of the influence of religion? Perhaps it began with male chauvinism? I think it goes against human instinct in many ways, and is pleasing in emotional ways.

But for me,
there can NOT be only one.

I tend to agree. It was religion that shaped our morals of today. I was watching something the other night about our evolution and sex. It said that we were promiscuious and also mated for life. I think its not a good idea to go sleeping around now a days because of AIDS et al. But I think you and the scientists are right on this issue. How different would our society would be if we had gone in a different path free of the influence of religion?

[Chris]

Biologically, nature wants men to impregnate as many different women as possible. This ensures the survival of the species.

Exactly, thats what I was getting at. Thanks tman.

[belverron]

Biologically, nature wants men to impregnate as many different women as possible. This ensures the survival of the species.

Don't forget the biological benefits of monogamy. Better parental care, especially in ancient times when wealth didn't play such a factor.

[belverron]

So, it took me a really long time to copy this down. I don't think it's available online, so I'm sorry about the ridiculous length. Enjoy.

There is broad agreement among evolutionary biologists that most of our ancestors lived in a condition of only occasional polygamy during the Pleistocene period (the two million years of modern human existence before agriculture). Societies that hunt and gather today are not much different from modern Western society. Most men are monogamous, many are adulterous, and a few manage to be polygamous, sharing perhaps up to five wives in extreme cases. Among the Aka pygmies of the Central African Republic, who hunt for food in the forest using nets, 15 percent of men have more than one wife, a pattern typical of foraging societies.

One of the reasons hunting and gathering cannot support much polygamy is that luck, more than skill, plays a large part in hunters' success. Even the best hunter would often return empty-handed and would be reliant on his fellow men to share what they had killed. This equitable sharing of hunted food is characteristic of these people (in most other social hunting species there is a free-for-all) and is the clearest example of a habit of "reciprocal altruism" on which the whole of society sometimes appears to be based. A lucky hunter kills more than he can eat, so he loses little by sharing it with his companions but instead gains a lot because next time, if he is unlucky, the favor will be repaid by those with whom he shraed now. Trading favors in this way was the ancient ancestor of the monetary economy. Bu because meat could not be stored and because luck did not last, hunter-gatherer societies did not allow the accumulation of wealth.

With the invention of agriculture, the opportunity for some males to be polygamous arrived with a vengeance. Farming opened the way for one man to grow much more powerful than his peers by accumulating a surplus of food, whether grain or domestic animals, with which to buy the labor of other men. The labor of other men allowed him to increase his surplus still more. For the first time having wealth was the best way to get wealth. Luck does not determine why one farmer reaps more than his neighbor to the same degree that it determines the success of a hunter. Agriculture suddenly allowed the best farmer in the band to have not only the largest hoard of food but the most reliable supply. He had no need to share it freely, for he needed no favor in return. Among the \\Gana San people of Namibia, who have given up their !Kung San neighbors' hunting life for farming, there is less food sharing and more political dominance within each band. Now, by owning the best or biggest fields or by working harder or by having an extra ox or by being a craftsman with a rare skill, a man could grow ten times as rich as his neighbor. Accordingly, he could acquire more wives. Simple agricultural societies often see harems of up to one hundred women per top man.

Pastoral societies are, almost without exception, traditionally polygamist. It is not hard to see why. A herd of cattle or sheep is almost as easy to tend if it contains fifty animals as twenty-five. Such scale economies allow a man to accumulate wealth at an ever-increasing rate. Positive feedback leads to inequalities of wealth, which leads to inequalities of sexual opportunity. The reason some Mukogodo men in Kenya have higher reproductive success than others is that they are richer; being richer enables them to marry early and marry often.

[tman_ndsu08]

Don't forget the biological benefits of monogamy. Better parental care, especially in ancient times when wealth didn't play such a factor.

Biologically, women are the ones who are supposed to be raising their children.

[YourTokah]

Why is monogamy not realistic?

If you truly love someone, would you not want to show respect and love for them by NOT sleeping with other people?

On another note, just because animals behave a certain way does not mean we should do the same. We are humans, aren't we supposed to be BETTER than the animals?

IMO, it's a matter of self-control and respect.

Monogamy is not realistic because it conflicts with generations and generations of the instinct to reproduce. That's one reason.

I truly love my husband. I respect him and love him. I sleep with other people because I enjoy it, and so does my husband, but we completely love only eachother. Thankfully, he is as open-minded as I require, so I am showing him zero disrespect by enjoying physical sensations with other people.

We aren't better than animals. We are animals. We happen to be a little higher on the food chain than most of them, but we certainly could take a few lessons on how to treat eachother from some members of the animal kingdom.

As far as it being a matter of self-control and respect, I think that it has nothing to do with self-control OR respect. I am not talking about infidelity, I'm talking about sex with other people. Multiple people. I am not advocating lying to your partner about such an occurrence, because it is quite thoughtless and irresponsible. I think it is an ultimate form of respect when someone loves and trusts you enough to be okay with you having sex with other people from time to time while remaining married to and very much in love with your spouse.

As for self-control..... I have a great deal of self control, certainly as much as the next person. I'm not running down the street frothing at the mouth and jumping on top of anything that walks. I'm not secretly addicted to sex and meeting strangers in dark corners for a quick rendezvous. I turn it down quite a bit, as a matter of fact.

I enjoy my life, enjoy having sex with other people, and wouldn't have it any other way.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Monogamy is a committment, based on love and respect. Religion does focus on this because.. take christianity for example. The focus is on good moral character, and monogmay is a part of that.

[YourTokah]

Definately. I'd say it's realistic. My folks have been together something like 30 years, and demonstratively love each other still.

Do you know that your folks haven't tried the swing lifestyle? Or that they aren't active in it? I'm sure you assume they would not do any such thing, but you know what they say about assumptions. My husband and I will be together for the rest of our lives and will love eachother more every day. But we still have sex with other people.

[YourTokah]

Monogamy is a committment, based on love and respect. Religion does focus on this because.. take christianity for example. The focus is on good moral character, and monogmay is a part of that.

Monogamy is an unrealistic commitment, based on love, respect, expectations, the status quo, religion, societal norms, etc.

I do not consider myself to be immoral at all. I suppose that morality is relative, especially between individuals of different religious beliefs.

[belverron]

Biologically, women are the ones who are supposed to be raising their children.

That's just plain wrong. Support it. I gave you the nice bird example. Sure, it's possible for women to do so in our society (although not usually with any sort of grace), but take it back a few hundred thousand years.

Keep in mind that the male's concern is not the survival of the species but of his own progeny. Sticking around to one degree or another makes a lot of sense. Read the bit I put up. Even when men had 100 different partners they were often providing for all of them.

Now, adultery also makes sense, but that's a different discussion.

[belverron]

The focus is on good moral character, and monogmay is a part of that.

Why?