(April 2, 2018 at 11:28 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 11:18 am)Lutrinae Wrote: Pedophiles have dreams, too.

I don't think being sexually attracted to babies and children is natural lol. I think it's some sort of disorder or mental illness in the person.

Are we using natural as a standin for good and right..because if that's so...I think I'll need to change my vote, lol. It's something we do. It;s something we've long done, long before it became an institution that probably is more than a little bit fucked up. I've been on the shitty end and the fun end of it.

The more I look into it, the more convinced I am that long-term monogamy is, in fact, unnatural. It would be so nice if it were, but then again, it would be nice if I could jump off a high surface, flap my arms and fly by my own power, and that's not happening either.

I can't think of more than a few married couples that I know that have stayed together and remained faithful for more than 20 years. Its not so much natural as it is a cultural norm. Albeit, a fading one.

It would be nice if it worked out for everybody....but, you know, decisions made today might not seem so compelling in 20 years.  The wife and I celebrated our 10th in february.  My grandparents have been together for 60, her mother and father for 40.

---

-I'd lay the failure of culturally normative monogamy squarely at the feet of those same cultural norms, btw.  

Alot of people seem to get into it thinking that it will or has to conform to them...I know I did, the first time.  Not really surprising that it failed, since relationships, ultimately, don;t give a fuck about our norms.  They operate on an entirely deeper format and lash out against those norms and those expectations.

(April 2, 2018 at 11:28 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 11:18 am)Lutrinae Wrote: Pedophiles have dreams, too.

I don't think being sexually attracted to babies and children is natural lol. I think it's some sort of disorder or mental illness in the person.

Everything is natural though. Some things are just more common than others, or moral than others (or both or neither).

What is your definition of "natural" here? Because as far as I know it is anything besides supernatural, which is basically everything.

I mean, sure, there's also stuff that is artificial or man-made. But 1. None of the things we are are talking about are that either. 2. Those things are derived from fully natural substances, and humanity itself is also natural.

I'm forced to pretty much agree that monogamy is natural because everything is.... but I take it that what you really meant is "Is monogamy something humans have cultivated but before civilization developed they were all naturally non-monogamous?" to which I say "no"... I think humans in the state they evolved in, prior to culture, are probably both naturally monogamous and non-monogamous.

---

(April 2, 2018 at 11:33 am)Mathilda Wrote: One is not the opposite of the other.

Both monogamy and polyamory are natural. In the same way that both heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality and pansexuality are natural.

DING DING DING! We have the correct answer.

You explained it better than I did though.

I'd also add asexuality to the mix.

We reached behavioral modernity no later than 50k years ago. The Oggs and Ogginas of the world could be just as committed to each other as anyone today..probably alot more so out of sheer necessity. Nothing says love like dodging lions in the bush with your kids in tow. Who do we think it was that buried all those people and laid ornaments in their graves?

(April 2, 2018 at 11:40 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 11:28 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't think being sexually attracted to babies and children is natural lol. I think it's some sort of disorder or mental illness in the person.

Are we using natural as a standin for good and right..because if that's so...I think I'll need to change my vote, lol.  It's something we do.  It;s something we've long done, long before it became an institution that probably is more than a little bit fucked up.  I've been on the shitty end and the fun end of it.

Natural can't be used as a standard for "Good and Right" though, because that commits either the moralistic or naturalistic fallacy (depending on if CL is starting from the premise that polygamy is immoral and therefore must be unnatural or if she is starting from the premise that polygamy is unnatural and therefore immoral).

My marriage doens't have the monogamy assumption. But we are still 'faithful' to each other in the sense of being honest and supportive. My wife has had another partner for a couple of years now.

Natural? it isn't natural to wear clothes or to live in buildings. For those inclined to monogamy, that is a good thing. For those inclined to polyamory, that is a good thing.

(April 2, 2018 at 11:42 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: The more I look into it, the more convinced I am that long-term monogamy is, in fact, unnatural

Yes I would say that polygamy is "more natural" if by that we mean "more common in non-civilized humans" and monogamy is more of a construct of civilization. But I still think it's a bit of both.

I'd say we're mostly polygamous though, as most animals are. We're just able to form stronger romantic bonds than other animals so that leads to us sticking with one person for a long while, sometimes, before the relationship inevitably fails eventually. Unlike with swans!

Our romance drive and sexual drive seems to clash with each other. So I'd say that's why we're a mixture of polygamy and monogamy for the most part.

I'd say that we're overall most likely romantically monogamous but sexually polygamous.

What if the poor swans just fucking hate each other but can't override their conditioning?