Is long term monogamy unnatural for human beings?

[Amarok]

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple. Here is a nice video going over what you can tell about a species from the differences between males and females:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Oa4Lp5...DDC3D&t=0s

Start at about 3:55.

The problem? Humans are confused. They have characteristics of BOTH monogamous and non-monogamous species! See 1:33:45 and on.

Speaking of the differences between sexes, are you familar with Steven Pinker?

---

*Deidre* studies use statistics. And statistics means shit when it comes to how humans ought to be, it just shows how they are in a certain society, at a certain time.

And that is one of the big flaws in Psychology.

It's not exactly a flaw if its whole purpose is to study how humans are in the society they're studied in . . .

---

Naturalness/unnaturalness doesn't matter and to say that the good is natural, or the bad is unnatural is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. That's the key point, really.

There are some senses that monogamy is natural, and some senses that isn't. But it doesn't matter in either case.

What matters is "Is it healthy?" and "Does it make some people happy?" and I think the answers to that are "It can be" and "Yes sometimes". And I think the same answers are true for polygamy. So why does it matter?

I think it only matters if people actually think there's anything wrong with unnaturalness, or, indeed, if monogamy is considered 'transcendent' or 'supernatural' in some way, which is of course absurdly false.

Pinkers alright but he has pushed some BS idea's