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)?

Well, monogamy and polygamy depend on the social construct of the species. When it comes down to it, right now humans don't need to resort to polygamy to reproduce. So it depends on the social structure itself.

Polygamy and monogamy are more about survival methods than anything. Both are natural.

Natural is whatever happens.  If people do it, it's natural to them.  You may believe that *you* can love only one person at a time, but what do you know about me in that aspect?  I've been in love with more than one person at the same time, even if I wasn't in a 'relationship' with both of them.

I mean, wouldn't it be great if we could all be in love with everyone all the time?  Knowing that every person you see cares about you completely?  I think that would be fantastic.

In a way not really, since if left unchecked, male animals will have the tendency to hump everything that breaths.

Keeping to one partner at a time tends to make for better off offspring (in a quantity vs quality aspect of uprearing)

(just my 2 cents/opinion)

Quote from: FlanKitty on December 12, 2009, 10:45:37 PM
In a way not really, since if left unchecked, male animals will have the tendency to hump everything that breaths.

Keeping to one partner at a time tends to make for better off offspring (in a quantity vs quality aspect of uprearing)

(just my 2 cents/opinion)

True.

I think that monogamy is natural.  You see it through out the animal kingdom.  It helps in the survival of the fittest. 

Humans has a tendency to have more that one mate.  But if huans are left to it, I think They prefer monogamy over polygamy.



Hugs and Love
Janet

Monogamy is natural as in it is found in nature.
The question should rather be "Is monogamous behavior human nature?"
I don't think it is. I do not believe that human beings are specifically geared towards having one sexual partner. However, as a sentient being with complex social customs and awareness there of, we have more control over those aspects of our nature than most other species on this planet.
This means, even if we're not specifically geared towards it, we are able to choose it and live up to our choice.

And I too have experienced Love towards more than one person at a time. My partner knows of this and knows that it may happen in our relationship that I'll come to him and inform him that I'm experiencing emotion of that nature to another person.
It won't mean I'll act on it, not necessarily, and not at all without everyone involved being "okay" with it.
Fairytale love isn't real.

Quotebut is sexual monogamy practical long term (whilst one still has a sex drive)?

Is Masturbation practical?

Everything is natural.... nothing is natural. It just is what it is.

Got i?? lol...

It was somewhat necessary for the evolution of our species to the dominant role on the planet, because our young are born unable to fend for themselves. Hormonal systems evolved to compel us to mate not for life but for long enough to ensure the survival of our offspring...which involved not only the 'maternal instinct' but bond forming with the male partner as well to keep him from eating or killing the baby or simply leaving as the female grew weaker during pregnancy. I did a paper on this once when examining the psychology of parents allowing obviously detrimental operations to be performed on their intersexed children; it's a fascinating topic.

I really think the introduction of refined grains and sugars over the past few thousand years, a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms, is changing our bodies and brains and it's interesting to speculate on where we as a species are heading. Anyway in modern western society, we see something called "Serial Monogamy". It's a rather interesting subject 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Serial_monogamy

Yes, and so is polygamy.

I believe monogamy is a silly idea that makes no sense.
Of course I may have a biased opinion because I'm in love with someone who's in love with someone else

Quote from: SilverFang on December 26, 2009, 03:58:33 AM
Yes, and so is polygamy.

^^^
This.

I feel like there should be a flow chart for this:

Would you rather be in a single committed, intimate relationship?
Would you rather be in several committed, intimate relationships?
Would you rather be in a single uncommitted, yet intimate relationship?
Would you rather be in several uncommitted, yet intimate relationships?

If you answered yes to any of the above, and experience shows you to be correct in your choice, then it is probably a natural choice for you.

From an evolutionary sense, no monogamy is not "natural" for humans.  Though, I would be hesitant to use the word natural, as it implies a moral value.  Humans show sexual dimorphism (differences between genders).  Specifically, the size of humans points towards our polygamists routes.  Males, obviously, are much bigger than females for many reasons: protecting and guarding mates, fighting between individuals, securing resources, etc.  Other evidence pointing towards the swinging sexuality of humans is that fact that nearly 15% of the children born are born to the incorrect genetic fathers.  In other words, about 15% of children are raised to father's who, unknowingly, are raising offspring that are not their genetic kin (the research is out there, trust me).  Why is this? Humans, and every other organism out there, is selfish in an evolutionary sense.  Our genes, unconsciously and unknowingly, shift us to do what is right for our genes.  That could be cheating on a spouse as to secure better genetic material, or to spread one's genetic material through unconscious drives.  These drives are fitness enhancing (look up the definition of fitness in a biological sense).  Of course there are individuals that fall outside of the norm, but in general, individuals take advantage of opportunities when they are advantageous to their genes.  So are humans strictly monogamous? No.  Does this make it right to cheat on a spouse? Absolutely not.  Biology does not justify what is right or wrong; those are values that our society decides. 

Quote from:  link=topic=69421.msg469667#msg469667 date=1260676499
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)?

Really? You think one can only love one person at a time?

Don't you love your mother? Your father? Each of your children (if you have any) individually? Have you never had a nonsexual friendship deep enough to call 'love'? I think most of us love and are loved by a lot of people in our lives. The social expectation is simply that we should only love one person for whom we have sexual feelings - but even that I think is unrealistic. Neither love nor sexual feelings is something that we entirely control.

Now, sexual behaviour is something that we do control. I'd say sexual monogamy is clearly more realistic than monogamous love, if not necessarily more natural. I'm not sure either one is natural. But then, I've never been one to use "natural" to mean "healthy" or "desirable" or "ideal."


_{edit-fixed quote}

I believe one is fully capable of loving more than one person at a time, in a romantic, and sexual way.

As far as being designed for that, pfft.  Men are programmed to, "spread their seed."  Women are programmed to submit to the greatest performer.  This wishy washy only one is cultural training, surely with many influences of particular religions and beliefs, etc.  A man and the mother of his children make a great team together.  They are tied together through their mutual creation, and the woman can take care of the man, and raise children, while the man takes care of the family's needs and raises children as well, so whatever their gender, they may repeat the cycle.  That's created this idealistic monogamous story of romance.

But, more than one lover is fine as well.  One individual is rarely capable of fulfilling entirely, what another might assist in filling in the gaps, into a collective effort for everyone to feel companionship. 

Then again, I'm still as programmed as anyone else.  As much as I wish I could be polygamous, I still seem to only be able to stick with one person at a time, even if it's just a play person.  It would be nice to be with one person sometime down the road, but it would also be nice to truly enjoy freedom while I have it...

Perhaps the question should be, "Is monogamy natural for you, here and now?"

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.