If we biologically were are programmed to want more partners, and even dissatisfied with one partner over time (biologically that is), why emphasise on monogamy?

(June 27, 2016 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If we biologically were are programmed to want more partners, and even dissatisfied with one partner over time (biologically that is), why emphasise on monogamy?

Who said we are biologically programmed to want more than one partner?

(June 27, 2016 at 10:33 am)Irrational Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 10:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If we biologically were are programmed to want more partners, and even dissatisfied with one partner over time (biologically that is), why emphasise on monogamy?

Who said we are biologically programmed to want more than one partner?

This is what supposedly studies show.  You can google it. But I even remember this being taught in a social science class in school.

Because we're quixotic creatures, who have contradictory desires, that are not formed by rational premises.  Our sex drive compels us to seek out mates - and doesn't go away when we find them, but the purpose of seeking out those mates is to identify and confer advantageous traits to our offspring, which are only advantageous when they are not shared by all.

Clear that up for you?

If the question has more to do with the cultural structure of monogamy (which is not uniform), then, in context..it has more to do with property law than anything we're programmed, or not programmed, for. I want to have confidence that -my- children get my stuff, and my wife want's to have confidence that her children get my stuff. Flip it the other way round as well, ofc.

If you commit yourself to 1 person for life, you should honor that commitment.

Maybe monogamy arose because we are social creatures, other social animals are monogamous.

+ Raising a human kid is a lot harder compared to other species kids, so it benefits if both partners commit to sticking together for the kid's sake

(June 27, 2016 at 10:34 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 10:33 am)Irrational Wrote: Who said we are biologically programmed to want more than one partner?

This is what supposedly studies show.  You can google it. But I even remember this being taught in a social science class in school.

Perhaps this was true for our ancestors from an evolutionary perspective, and perhaps this is the case for many people today. I'm certainly not one of them. I'm fine with my sole partner.

(June 27, 2016 at 10:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Because we're quixotic creatures, who have contradictory desires, that are not formed by rational premises.  Our sex drive compels us to seek out mates - and doesn't go away when we find them, but the purpose of seeking out those mates is to identify and confer advantageous traits to our offspring, which are only advantageous when they are not shared by all.

Clear that up for you?

If the question has more to do with the cultural structure of monogamy (which is not uniform), then, in context..it has more to do with property law than anything we're programmed, or not programmed, for.  I want to have confidence that -my- children get my stuff, and my wife want's to have confidence that her children get my stuff.  Flip it the other way round as well, ofc.

The thing is right now we think in one way, because, cultural norms has given us a way to think.  Right now you are saying it's about inheritance, but, given the future, what if people say, our kids can earn their own living without my inheritance, I won't sacrifice my sexual fantasies that I've been programmed biologically to have.  What if society on a large part gravitates towards this as they become aware of the science and studies that show this is the natural state of humans?

Before we thought the natural state was monogamy, and that is how humans ought to be, and will be happier doing. Society didn't think about science or studies and what we are actually programmed biologically to want.

If it's shown we lose sex drive often for one partner, and are searching out novelty, and we are programmed that way biologically, why resist our biological tendencies, why not form society based on our biological desires?

(June 27, 2016 at 10:49 am)MysticKnight Wrote: The thing is right now we think in one way, because, cultural norms has given us a way to think.  Right now you are saying it's about inheritance, but, given the future, what if people say, our kids can earn their own living without my inheritance, I won't sacrifice my sexual fantasies that I've been programmed biologically to have.  What if society on a large part gravitates towards this as they become aware of the science and studies that show this is the natural state of humans?

If cultural norms change then cultural norms change, but that won;t make our competing biological impulses go away any more than it has now.  

Quote:Before we thought the natural state was monogamy, and that is how humans ought to be, and will be happier doing. Society didn't think about science or studies and what we are actually programmed biologically to want.

"Before we thought" is a generous way to describe what we did before.

Quote:If it's shown we lose sex drive often for one partner, and are searching out novelty, and we are programmed that way biologically, why resist our biological tendencies, why not form society based on our biological desires?

We have formed such a society, how could we help it? We don't have any non-biological desires.  Apparently, our desires are a wider subject than you're prepared to allow for. How about you, do you want many wives, or one? Personally, I can barely handle the one I've got. I don't need the added frustration of juggling women in my life. In this regard, it hardly matters what cultural norms are, or what I may be biologically programmed for. If the cultural norm was polygamy I;d still just have the one wife. If I'm programmed to promiscuity, I;m more effectively programmed to avoid difficulties and things that would tank the one female I;ve got locked down. More than either of these, why the hell would I downgrade from the wife I have - she's fuckin awesome, it's not like I settled...and I'm sitting here waiting for something better to show up.

A bird in hand is better than two bushes.

(June 27, 2016 at 10:41 am)Socratic Meth Head Wrote: If you commit yourself to 1 person for life, you should honor that commitment.

Maybe monogamy arose because we are social creatures, other social animals are monogamous.

+ Raising a human kid is a lot harder compared to other species kids, so it benefits if both partners commit to sticking together for the kid's sake

Well, yeah. I'm not sure why there's this conviction that we're all programmed to be polygamous or whatever. Some of us are going to be monogamous in proclivity and others are going to be polygamous. Also, being biologically programmed to do something doesn't mean this will carry over unconditionally across generations or that it can't be changed within individuals. We're not robots after all.

(June 27, 2016 at 10:41 am)Socratic Meth Head Wrote: If you commit yourself to 1 person for life, you should honor that commitment.

Maybe monogamy arose because we are social creatures, other social animals are monogamous.

+ Raising a human kid is a lot harder compared to other species kids, so it benefits if both partners commit to sticking together for the kid's sake

what about Inuits who would marry two by two (two men and two women) in case a man died or a women died....it worked for them.

As well, what if it general society shifts away from having children as the earth get's over populated. So what if this is taken out of the equation for a lot of people?