(April 2, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Jenny A Wrote:   Not cheating sexually occasionally requires effort. But not often.

I think I;d have to try pretty damned hard to cheat.  It seems like alot of work, to me.  I;ve got a buddy, great guy..did real nice by his wife and his kids..but, you know..not remotely monogamous.  Everytime he tells me about it all I can think of is how exhausting it must be.

I'm a woman who likes male friends.  Occasionally one of those wants more than friendship.  Actually, that has happened once or twice with female friends.  The difference is the men are sometimes tempting.  But don't picture men falling all over themselves to have sex with me.  It's a tri yearly or so event.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:37 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It's not exactly a secret, Deidre, lol.  Theirs was one of those marriages that eventually became a prison..not because it had to, but because it didn't conform to either of their expectations.

Ah, okay.  So they have an open relationship? Sometimes, that works for some.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:31 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: Last year, I got married, and I'd say that long term monogamy from a biological standpoint, might not seem natural, because there are always temptations. I think especially in our culture where so much is coming at us on social media, etc it can be hard to avoid those things that may tempt us. But, monogamy is a choice, and if you do take vows with someone to stay faithful to them, then it's only right to stay true to those vows. If someone cannot be faithful, he/she should at least share that with their spouse/partner, and end the relationship to explore others. Cheating is never an option, because you're robbing the other person of being in a relationship where they are under the assumption that they're with a faithful partner.

Yes, monogamy is a choice. So is non-monogamy.

I agree, if you take vows to be monogamous, you should abide by those vows or renegotiate them.

But don't mistake monogamy with being faithful. Or mistake non-monogamy with cheating. Those are only valid if the assumption is one of monogamy.

On the other hand, it is still possible to be faithful in a non-monogamous situation: being truthful and supportive. Cheating still means to go beyond the bounds of the agreements made. it's just that those agreements may include other partners.

No.  She'd have preferred it if they were monogamous..so would he.  That's just not how it panned out.  Didn't stop either of them from being great partners in every other way.  They were affectionate, they were friends, they provided for their kids in a big way. They even fed into each others more destructive habits. They were one of those couples that liked to sneak into the garage and argue..and then make up, lol. In all of this they both loved (I think still love) each other deeply.

It would be a mistake to see in either of them that they were bad people for the simple fact of their marital implosion - but they both struggled with that as well...adding to the stress.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:24 pm)rskovride Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 11:20 am)Hammy Wrote: I think both monogamy and polygamy are natural for humans. But I definitely think they're more monogamous than most animals.

I knew someone was going to say this.  Of course it is natural for some because it happens.  That is not the essence of the question, imo.

Then "natural" needs to be defined.

I think I already predicted that and dealt with what I suspect to be the essence of the question here though:

(April 2, 2018 at 12:01 pm)Hammy Wrote: 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.

Bold added.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:41 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 12:31 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: Last year, I got married, and I'd say that long term monogamy from a biological standpoint, might not seem natural, because there are always temptations. I think especially in our culture where so much is coming at us on social media, etc it can be hard to avoid those things that may tempt us. But, monogamy is a choice, and if you do take vows with someone to stay faithful to them, then it's only right to stay true to those vows. If someone cannot be faithful, he/she should at least share that with their spouse/partner, and end the relationship to explore others. Cheating is never an option, because you're robbing the other person of being in a relationship where they are under the assumption that they're with a faithful partner.

Yes, monogamy is a choice. So is non-monogamy.

I agree, if you take vows to be monogamous, you should abide by those vows or renegotiate them.

But don't mistake monogamy with being faithful. Or mistake non-monogamy with cheating. Those are only valid if the assumption is one of monogamy.

On the other hand, it is still possible to be faithful in a non-monogamous situation: being truthful and supportive. Cheating still means to go beyond the bounds of the agreements made. it's just that those agreements may include other partners.

As long as both partners are on the same page, there's no problem with any agreement made. If someone feels the need to start lying, and sneaking around to get their needs met, and the other partner is totally in the dark about it, that's wrong to me. I have heard a lot of excuses from cheaters and in the end, some of the excuses might seem valid and we're only human, but get out of a bad relationship. Lying and being deceptive isn't healthy, and it's unfair to the other person.

So, I'd say it comes down to what works best for the couple, as long as both are consenting. If I feel that my husband isn't satisfying my needs but I don't communicate that to him, and I sleep with other men to get those needs met, that's on me. I think that the other person at least should be given the right to fix what's wrong on their end.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(April 2, 2018 at 12:10 pm)polymath257 Wrote: [...]Natural? it isn't natural to wear clothes or to live in buildings. [...]

Isn't it, though? If you're a member of a species, that doesn't have good protection from weather, in the form of fur, or fat, but does have a natural ability to solve those problems by creating such protection - what would be considered a "natural" behavior in a situation, when you have to migrate into less favorable climate, than the one you've evolved in?

The problem here is that people are equivocating and jumping to all different definitions of "natural" without being clear about it, or even realizing they're doing it.

If "natural" is opposed to "artifical" or "man-made", then no, clothes and buildings are not natural. But if "natural" is opposed to "supernatural" or "bad for you"(for those folks who like to commit the naturalistic fallacy), then of course it's natural.

I don’t think the question of monogamy is a ‘natural’ versus ‘unnatural’ type of proposition. I think it suits certain personality types, but not others. We are able to decide what we want for ourselves, and I think as long as a person is on the same page as their partner and no one is being deceived, then there is no moral objection to not being monogamous.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:42 pm)Khemikal Wrote: No.  She'd have preferred it if they were monogamous..so would he.  That's just not how it panned out.  Didn't stop either of them from being great partners in every other way.  They were affectionate, they were friends, they provided for their kids in a big way.  They even fed into each others more destructive habits.  They were one of those couples that liked to sneak into the garage and argue..and then make up, lol.  In all of this they both loved (I think still love) each other deeply.

It would be a mistake to see in either of them that they were bad people for the simple fact of their marital implosion - but they both struggled with that as well...adding to the stress.

Nah, I get it. We're all works in progress.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Jenny A Wrote: It doesn't appear to be natural for birds either.  Genetic testing reveals so called monogomous pairs  cheat.  httpslif://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/bwdsite/solve/faqs/do-birds-mate-for-e.php  http://animals.mom.me/birds-monogamous-4226.html
And most birds are only socially monogamous for a single season.

For me living and sharing my life with just one person is pretty natural.  Not cheating sexually occasionally requires effort. But not often.

I would think we're more naturally monogamous than most birds (or any other animal for that matter).

Swans I think are an exception.

But I think we're kind of sexual omnivores, really. Like we are with food... we take what we can get and if that means being faithful to one person, fine, if it doesn't, fine.

I think things like sexual jealousy or fear of losing the partner you have contribute to monogamy in humans, but I think our drives contribute to polygamy.

Of course, polygamy isn't the same as cheating. It's not cheating if you never established a monogamous relationship in the first place.

I really think it's both.

Although yeah I'd say our basic urges are sexually polygamous but then we do have a monogamous drive for protecting one partner over others, and for feelings of romance, and for protecting a partner who bears our child, so I'd say we have as many drives for monogamy as polygamy.