(April 2, 2018 at 12:46 pm)*Deidre* Wrote:

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

I agree. Abiding by agreements, being honest and open, and communicating are central to any good relationship, whether monogamous or not.

I think the ability to discuss and make agreements about sex is the human difference.  
I like to have a monogomous partner.  The agreed price is to be monogomous myself.  What other people agree to do is not really my business.  But enough of them either never settle down, or live in open partnerships of some kind to convince me that humans are not naturally monogomous as a species.  The very existence of divorce or laws against infidelity should be enough to make it clear we are not monogomous the way swans are.

Monogamy as a state of continued mutually beneficial transactions.

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

Yes, you did.  Seems I jumped the gun a little bit with a knee-jerk post.

I voted yes. 

But it's probably more like somewhere inbetween.  

If it was a sort of experiment where you could have a world, insert a five typical human males and a hundred females and all of them have the capability to breed you'll most likely find out that monogamy is unnatural.  Once that world is fully populated again they'll probably develop some system of monogamy to regulate breeding competition, it seems to be human nature to want to regulate breeding competition, and while that's going on they'll be figuring out ways to cheat and manipulate that system.  Which is also a big part of human nature.  

Unnatural what's outside the ordinary course of nature.  What the ordinary course of nature is when it comes to human breeding is really debatable. 

The reason why I voted yes is just because I think it's safe to say it's natural for the average human male (the vast, vast majority of the time) to have the base instincts to at least want to have sex with a hell of a lot of women and to think about doing it a lot of the time.  But as I say I do think it's somewhere inbetween.

(April 2, 2018 at 12:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.

I agree. It's all natural. Whether something is nature or nurture is ultimately entirely irrelevant to anything that matters, because, after all, our nurture ultimately comes from our nature anyway.

The point is that, not only is it all natural, but even if it weren't: It wouldn't say anything about morality or anything that matters.

Condoms aren't natural.... in the sense that they are artificial but condoms are very very good things. I know Catholicism doesn't agree, but Catholicism is wrong.

And EVERYTHING is natural in the sense of, not supernatural.

So I guess the big point is "So what?" natural/unnatural doesn't matter. Healthy/moral matters, but neither of those have anything to do with something being natural. In fact, in many cases "unnatural" (as in artificial) things, such as modern medicine can be both very healthy and moral.

---

(April 2, 2018 at 1:36 pm)rskovride Wrote:

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

Yes, you did.  Seems I jumped the gun a little bit with a knee-jerk post.

You know me. I tend to consider stuff

Living indoors with air conditioning and toilet paper is unnatural. What's natural about vaping or eating deep fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches ??

I guess I don't understand the poll.

People are free to be monogamous or not. Lying about ones true feelings about it is reprehensible.

I voted "not unnatural" on the poll above, for the sake of not getting technical. But I do think monogamy is "unnatural" in a sense, though not in the sense that most people would think of. 

A friend of mine posted an article on facebook once that really spoke to me. I dug it up with a google search, and here's the relevant part:  

Quote:Monogamy is not natural. You’re right about that.

It’s supernatural.

It’s above our nature. It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either. If I wanted to be natural, I could live in a hole like a rodent, eat insects, and scamper from one mate to the next, until, after a life of nothingness, I die alone in the cold darkness, decomposing into the dirt without anyone ever noticing. That would be natural. It’s probably pretty realistic, too. So it is fortunate that I am a human being and I am given the chance to transcend the existence of a rat or a lizard. I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment.

You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor? Do you go about your day and, before deciding on any particular course of action, ask yourself if it is something you are biologically fitted to do? I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things. Monogamy and loyalty are higher things.

https://themattwalshblog.com/monogamy-is-unnatural/

Anyway, that's my full version view on the matter.

.................................

The problem with that is that absolutely nothing is supernatural... and especially not human urges or practices