Man asks serious question, hard to believe? Read on
 

When you read this thread I want you to have a good think about it. Don't dismiss it out of hand or think it is trival. Think about things you yourself have thought and felt and think outside the square a little.

Do you think that humans, as a species, are supposed to be monogamous? Have we been directed away from what is innate within us by teachings from the church?

Unless you're a virgin or have only had sex with one other person then logically you would have to think that humans aren't supposed to be monogamous - wouldn't you? Remove emotions like lonliness, happiness, belonging, trust et. al. and focus solely on the sexual side of things - do you want to do someone other than your current partner? Do you feel an urge deep down that you feel like you are fighting against? How many other animals 'mate for life', is it natural?

I'm not trying to cause bust ups or anything, I have my own views but I'm interested to hear what others (male and female) think about this.

So, slip the ol' grey matter into gear and tell me what you think.

Well, if you look at the evolutionary history of humans, you find indications that the various species have sometimes been monogamous and sometimes not been monogamous. Same as the distributions among the extant primates...some are, some aren't.

Basically, the idea of monogamy is a cultural thing, has nothing to do with biology.

Correct - the question now is, are we supposed to 'mate for life' or not? And if we are supposed to to 'spread the seed' why aren't we?

Culture suddenly is back on the playing field.

I think it is a strange thing that you ask us to think hard about something, but take the fact that we are a thinking species out of the equation!!! :) I don't think it is possible to think about this just as if we are animals and come up with a complete answer. Personally, I believe in monogamy and that for most relationships the breaking away from that only causes problems, but then I freely admit that my views tend toward the VERY conservative.

I don't want to be a hypocrite here, I have had sex with more than one person. That does not mean I don't beleive in monogamy.

I believe love, trust, loyalty, friendship, happiness and all those other emotions can be found in just one partner.

I also believe that if you have sex randomly without those feelings/emotions, then you have to consider loneliness for yourself. That kind of behavior can only be fun for a while and suddenly you're gonna look around and be a very lonely person. Not to mention the fact that in today's society, it is scary to me to think about having sex with other people. What about disease...whoops, I guess "being scared" is an emotion of sorts and we're not suppose to think about emotions in this.

I, like fzzy, lean toward the conservative on this issue.
I hope you find the answers you seek here, but more likely you have them inside yourself. Good Luck!

I have to agree with Fzzy. We as a society have over time seen that monogamy works best. Yes too, religion has played a part in this I guess but look at the situations where some have "strewn seed". Bastards who don't have a clue who their Dad is so of course no male role model in the home. Different men coming and going in their lives. I can hardly see this as a conducive atmosphere for any person. It also lends itself to the thought that the religious ideas were originally formed with some old fashioned common sense.

White Noise I always love the questions you pose. You always give us something to think about which usually brings out some view in ourselves we don't often see.

Biologically I do not think humans were developed to necessarily be monogamous. I know I would not be if it weren't for cultural and emotional reasons. I do find the idea of " spreading the seed" to be an interesting idea. How would societies through out the world be if more people were not monogamous???

As for the "mate for life" idea. I have but that does not erase my biologic and emotional need to explore. I am not sure "mating for life" is a biological occurrance, many female animals care for their offspring entirely alone, I think it is an adaptation.

A very good question.Are we supposed to be monogamous or not? Further questons arise. Are you asking in a procreation way? Should we mate with several others so the species can flourish?To this,I would say no.The better idea would be to have one mate for life.Ah,but what influences the question is SEX as pleasure.Being a permissive kind of guy,I would say,why not enjoy this pleasure with as many or as few as you choose.It seems to me that socieity's concern is with the recreational or pleasurable side of how we choose to live our sex lives.Of course it is nobody's business with whom we choose to fuck.

All the studies about women choosing men by smell, by the symmetry of the face, how similar they are to themselves . . . those things might lead one to believe that we're meant to be monogamous but it could also mean that women, through instinct, are looking for the "best" men to procreate with . . .

PONDERING:confused:

I would just like to find a nice guy to practise procreation with :)

Another vote on the conservative side and I admit that view is certainly influenced by years of religious and social training. But I do think that where both genders are equals, it really seems to be the logical arrangement.

to answer plain and simple NO

Biologically: No. It is advantageous to both genders to breed with multiple mates. With each of ones offspring being the combination of yours and a different mate’s genes, a disease that infects any one of your children will have a different probability of infecting the others.

Assuming a non zero chance of mortality for any infection, then by combining your genes with those of a different mate for each of your children maximizes the probability of your genes being passed on to subsequent generations.

Culturally Yes. Societies in which inheritance rights are assigned a high social value have historically needed monogamous, non-incestuous, bloodlines to identify who is entitled to the property.

I think that you will find that the teachings of "the church" tend to follow local customs. For example "the church" to which I suspect you refer, arises from pre-modern Europe, from whence the laws of primogeniture also arise. In Africa and Asia, where the local customs were rather different, the indigenous churches accommodated the particulars of those societies.

Ah, I see we do have some deep thinkers here. I, for one, think that, biologically speaking, we are 'hot-wired' to breed with as many partners as possible. At the end of the day, survival - not pleasure - is the reason for sex.

However, others do raise emotions. This is another factor that should be included, and rightly so. I was wrong to discount it so lightly. Still, my driving question was - are we supposed to only have sex with one person NOT be with one person? I have no qualms about soulmates and finding true love. But loving someone and wanting to have sex with them, always and forever, may be separate things. Emotion drives one, DNA drives the other, I think.

Thanks all for taking the time to think. 8-)