Is monogamy natural?

[Genevieve Swann]

Monogamy is natural among many species of birds. I know pigeons and parrots for sure will not take another mate unless one dies. I think penguins also.

[inoutallabout]

I can't remember where, but I do remember reading that the shape of a man's penis was shaped in a way that suggests that it's purpose is not only to place his own seed in the woman of choice, but also "scoop out" the seed of anyone else in the process.
Meaning that it appeared to be an evolutionary tool for/from a non-monogamous social structure.

Eeeeeeew!  Icky!  Yuck!  No, just no...


An another note, what about uncircumcised penises?  Surely if a woman was filled with another man's seed, then it would collect itself into the flap of his penis, and then be carried along to the next woman.  I wonder...

[Miniar]

Eeeeeeew!  Icky!  Yuck!  No, just no...


An another note, what about uncircumcised penises?  Surely if a woman was filled with another man's seed, then it would collect itself into the flap of his penis, and then be carried along to the next woman.  I wonder...

Actually no.
The foreskin does pull back for the most part during coitus.
However, foreskin or no, there "is" always the chance in unprotected sex with a short stop between female partners of transferring something, anything, from woman A to woman B. Including someone else's seed.

[Dryad]

Seeing as both men and women are very competitive when it comes to partners and courtship, I'd say monogamy is perfectly natural for humans, and the 'normal' state of relationships.
However, whenever you can speak of 'normal,' there's exceptions. And polygamy is, to me, just an exception to the rule. It's just as natural as monogomy; some people just simply float differently than others.
Me; I couldn't be in a poly-amorous relationship. Not for the life of me. Because like it or not, there will always be a play of favourites. If you can deal with that, then sure. I can't, though, and I want my partner all for myself. (Don't want several, either.. Just the one. I couldn't imagine life with several partners at once. Picturing life with only a single partner for the rest of my life seems nice, though. Aiming for that.  )
Other people seem to do fine in polyamorous relationships. Though I have to say that each and every poly relationship I've witnessed so far fell apart in a maximum of three years. Which further enforces my personal view that it just doesn't work.

[Shang]

Sexual monogamy, that is. I fully believe one can love only one person at a time, but is sexual monogamy practical long term (whilst one still has a sex drive)?

I think it depends on the person involved.  For some people sexual and emotional monogamy could be a very natural thing while for others, it is not.  I'm sexually and emotionally monogamous right now, but it's only because I can't find anyone else.  I really enjoy the person I'm with and I really really like him, but I don't have that switch that says "you can stop looking for a romantic partner now".  I never really realized you could have a healthy relationship with multiple people and so I just thought I could never have a healthy relationship with one person because it always seemed I was looking for someone else even though I was really happy with the person I was with.  My boyfriend is monogamous and he is fine with me bringing someone else into the relationship.  It would take lots of work from everyone within the relationship to work, but it's possible.  I know a few poly relationships and all of their relationships are going swimmingly and each poly relationship has been going on for years now.

_{edit-fixed quote}

[TechnoChick]

Sexual monogamy, that is. I fully believe one can love only one person at a time, but is sexual monogamy practical long term (whilst one still has a sex drive)?

I think it is.  The evolutionary idea behind monogamy is two parents combined effort in the survival of their offspring makes sense and then there is the idea that it is a evolutionary adaptation because it reduces the risk of disease versus polygamous individuals with multiple partners.

However polygamy also makes sense especially when it concerns males only it's just more risky when it concerns their health especially when the woman they are with has been with so many others before they pitched their tent so to speak.

It's the idea of marriage and civil unions that I can't stand revolving around contracts.


_{edit-fixed quote}

[TechnoChick]

You ever notice that in the bible every man has several wifes (starting with Adam), and then suddently the costume dissapears. Yet, nowhere we have an entry saying that G-d come and siad: "excuse me but from now on, just monogamy folks"

Polygamy seems was the way for most acient cultures, and mongamy a social construct.

I think it goes both ways.  There are biological evolutionary advantages of monogamy as there are for polygamy.

[sascraps]

I've always been a true romantic and believe in only being with one person at a time. And I think if you can feel fully romantically in love with more than one person at a time, then it's lust and not love. Lust can feel like it's love, but it's not.

[xXRebeccaXx]

Sexual monogamy, that is. I fully believe one can love only one person at a time, but is sexual monogamy practical long term (whilst one still has a sex drive)?

Perhaps, but lots of things are unnatural, including T-blockers but I NEEED those.

[Ryno]

I'm basing this off of a National Geographic article I read sometime between 2002 and 2005. It discussed how the lust/infatuation stage of a relationship usually lasts about 4 years, enough time for the woman to become pregnant, and both parents to ensure the most vulnerable stages of a child's life is over. I guess at that point the father can move on to do whatever else he wants, biologically speaking of course. Socially, that's definitely frowned upon

Also, when multiple women live together for a long period of time, their menstrual cycles become in sync, suggesting that women are naturally primary child-raisers, who all looked after the community's young. This could probably suggest a polygamous evolution, where males fathered children of various women. But that's a bit of a stretch since this also means for each mother, there is one father. I forget where I read this so that theory, in my opinion, is bunk. I just brought it up in case anyone is able to elaborate.

I do personally think sexual polygamy is natural and healthy. I also read, in the same NG article in which I found the information for my first paragraph, that when one orgasms during sexual intercourse, the hormone responsible for the love emotion is released as well, creating a bond between the pair. So even though meaningless sex is common, it is possible to fall in love with multiple people. It happens, and whether you decide to act upon it or not is up to you.

Ultimately, I believe that anything we do is natural. Even the iPod you listen to is natural because, while it doesn't come straight from the ground like organic cotton, it is made using materials that originally came from the natural earth, using tools whose materials orinigated from the ground, operated by hands that are as natural as the air we breathe.

There. I just tossed my two cents.

[kate durcal]

Monogamy refers to sex, and the male of the human specis is not driven to monogamy. Monogamy seem to have been evole in the human femle as a way of securing food for her an d her children.

Sex in monogamy or polygamy should not be confused with love.

Kate D

[LaPapito]

   Is monogamy natural?

Theoretically speaking, anything is "Monogamistically" natural... [New word of the day, Monogamistically]. Say it with me, Mono-ga-mis-ti-cal-ly"
However, because one is monogamous in "their" relationship, does not mean that they are monogamous sexually...[and that is important] because social-monogamous [marriage/ co-habitation et.al.] is different from sexual monogamous.
Which brings me to this point, aside from the "birds", [NOT ALL] animals are socially monogamous, and the same holds true for humans, some [NOT ALL], are socially monogamous, but, NOT sexually monogamous [there is a difference]!
It is [NOT], as some may deem, a natural "thing" for every human-being, to want to be married, but it is a natural "thing" for human-beings [to include some animals, as well], to want to be sexually promiscuous [uninhibited, unrestrained]. This is NOT to be confused, with being classified, as a loose whore !
Between animals [humans included], pro-creation is to be considered, the main staple of the Entrée, whereas sex, is [just] the Appetizer.
There are those who might confuse sexual appetite, as being the main staple of the Entrée, but realistically it is not, planting one's "seed" is!
Being in a monogamous relationship, "Socially" might be satisfying, but "Sexually" it may not...and this is the cause for many beautiful relationships ending...it's "NOT" that there is a difference in opinion "Socially", but rather there is a difference in opinion "Sexually".
And this is why; the Sexual Appetizer is normally confused with the Social Entrée!
To have a balanced relationship, one must first "NOT" confuse the two...Appetizer with the Entrée. Remember the Appetizer comes before the meal always...and if one fills up on nothing but Appetizers, then there is no "room" left for the main course...the Entrée!
So, in conclusion, Monogamy IS NOT a naturalistic act...!
We may want it to be...but, in actual reality, how many times have we passed over something that was "morally good for us", just to have a taste of the sweet "apple, cherry, peach" pie?
I for one, have passed over many "morally" good-for-me Entrées, just to taste the Appetizer of said meal...only to ask later, "What's for dinner?" 

[Padma]

Wanting one partner is as "natural" as wanting more than one, I think, depends who you are and who they are. It either works or it doesn't, just like polyamory.

[LaPapito]

Und I agree with tha two of you's