Is long term monogamy unnatural for human beings?

[Seraphina]

For some people, monogamy is natural and for some people it isn't.
I don't think this is a simple, binary yes or no question.
A far more important issue to consider is whether you are with someone who shares your own viewpoint on monogamy and the importance of transparency with one's views.

-Teresa

[Catholic_Lady]

I see how y'all can get caught up with him using the word "supernatural" in the beginning there. But the rest of it can make logical sense for anyone, imho. He made a great point.

[Amarok]

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:  

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.

Your confusing unnatural with wrong. whether it's natural or not does not argue for it being good or desirable . Therefore this article does not address the issue.

---

I see how y'all can get caught up with him using the word "supernatural" in the beginning there. But the rest of it can make logical sense for anyone, imho. He made a great point.

Nope that is not my objection. My objection is the article misses the point 

[Edwardo Piet]

I see how y'all can get caught up with him using the word "supernatural" in the beginning there. But the rest of it can make logical sense for anyone, imho. He made a great point.

Alright then. Lemme strike out the supernatural part.

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

Yes it is natural. Not natural in what sense? Not natural like it may not have evolved and may be part of culture? I'm not so sure about that. In fact I disagree.

It’s supernatural.

I'll ignore this part then.

It’s above our nature.

Guess I'll ignore this part too then.

It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either.

I certainly wouldn't compare it to Space Flight. I think evolution selected for monogamy in part, which is why we are so protective of our partners and why sexual jealousy is a thing. I think it's as natural as polygamy is.

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.

Not for humans it wouldn't. For humans it's natural to use our brains... we would have died out long ago if it were not for our dexterity and brains... as we were far weaker than other primates that we were competing with, but we made them extinct because we developed powerful weapons, tools and outsmarted them. We also didn't stand a chance against things like sabre tooth tigers, were it not for our brains and tools.

It’s probably pretty realistic, too.

Not really... it would go against our nature to go against our brains. There's nothing more natural for humans than using their brains.

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.

We don't transcend them though. We're part of nature just as much as they are. We're animals just like they are. We just have bigger and more advanced brains and the ability to make tools, that's all.

I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment.

Guess I'll ignore this part too then...

You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor?

I think we are. I think sexually we have urges to have sex with many people, and often do, and certainly in some cultures we are able to cooperate and have multiple mates... but sexually jealousy + the romantic drive, plus the amount of monogamous cultures, does seem to suggest that it's also very natural to be monogamous.

I think we have both monogamous and polygamous drives.

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?

We're not biologically fitted to use condoms, and that goes against our "nature" in a sense in that it's artificial. If you feel the same way about monogamy.... I'd say that monogamy is no more or less supernatural than condoms then. But supernature is not your point, so what is your point again? We don't 'transcend' anything any more than we do when we put on a condom.

I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things.

We are capable of tools and technology. There are no 'higher' things if we're talking something spooky or supernatural. We are not above other animals either, we just have more advanced brains. Loyalty is certainly a good thing, but you can have loyalty without monogamy.

Monogamy and loyalty are higher things.

Loyalty we are biologically fit for, and it helped us cooperate and survive as a species, and that's one of the reasons why I think that it's in our biology as well.

Anyways, take our the supernaturalness of it all and there doesn't seem to be a point. Monogamy is no more special than condoms and you can be polygamous and just as loyal. Being loyal to one person has just helped us survive and protect our children in prehistoric times, which is where I think the romantic drive comes from and why it isn't in other animals.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see how y'all can get caught up with him using the word "supernatural" in the beginning there. But the rest of it can make logical sense for anyone, imho. He made a great point.

LOL?  What point?  To say I'm not "biologically suited" to monogamy is to ignore everything about me.  It starts there, and just gets worse, asserting magic in place of the obvious.  

-Biologically, I'm massive, intelligent, fiercely loyal, and deeply committed.  I care more about the ones I love than I care about myself by a long shot. These are my base instincts and condition. It's who I am.  Who I've always been.  None of it needed to be taught and my most instructive lessons have been those times when who I am has lead to misery..my own or others, lol.  If I were a betting man, it's the explanation for why I've never been single. Why I'm a serial monogamist with five kids and more trouble brushing off the ladies than anything else. Why I'm still convinced my every ex was a wonderful person and mommy material, why I never fall out of love.

If my wife....unlikely..but if my wife decides to end this relationship..I'll marry again, have more kids..do it all over again. It's never occurred to me to walk out or step out on anyone. Always in, always through. Always.

So tell me how I'm not biologically suited for monogamy?

[Catholic_Lady]

I think the point was that monogamy (life long loyalty to one person) is contrary to our animalistic instincts, but as humans, we have the capacity to strive beyond purely instinctive, animal urges, for something greater. He put it into more words than that, but thats the gist of it.

Anyway, in that sense I would say it is unnatural.

[Amarok]

This also article also makes the horrific assumption that poly relationships are not loyal . Or argues for their inferiority . Or worst argues that Poly parents are somehow inferior . History and the present  clearly say otherwise .

[Catholic_Lady]

I see how y'all can get caught up with him using the word "supernatural" in the beginning there. But the rest of it can make logical sense for anyone, imho. He made a great point.

LOL?  What point?  To say I'm not "biologically suited" to monogamy is to ignore everything about me.  It starts there, and just gets worse, asserting magic in place of the obvious.  

-Biologically, I'm massive, intelligent, fiercely loyal, and deeply committed.  It's who I am.  Who I've always been.  It didn't even need to be taught my most instructive lessons have been those times when who I am has lead to misery..my own or others, lol.  If I were a betting man, it's the explanation for why I've never been single. Why I'm a serial monogamist with five kids and more trouble brushing off the ladies than anything else. Why I'm still convinced my every ex was a wonderful person and mommy material.

The author did not say we are not "biologically suited" for monogamy. That's what the professor said that he was arguing with. The author's argument is that we are suited for it because we are rational beings.

[Amarok]

I think the point was that monogamy (life long loyalty to one person) is contrary to our animalistic instincts, but as humans, we have the capacity to strive beyond purely instinctive, animal urges, for something greater. He put it into more words than that, but thats the gist of it.

Anyway, in that sense I would say it is unnatural.

Nope all this is false

---

LOL?  What point?  To say I'm not "biologically suited" to monogamy is to ignore everything about me.  It starts there, and just gets worse, asserting magic in place of the obvious.  

-Biologically, I'm massive, intelligent,  fiercely loyal, and deeply committed.  It's who I am.  Who I've always been.  It didn't even need to be taught  my most instructive lessons have been those times when who I am has lead to misery..my own or others, lol.  If I were a betting man, it's the explanation for why I've never been single.  Why I'm a serial monogamist with five kids and more trouble brushing off the ladies than anything else.  Why I'm still convinced my every ex was a wonderful person and mommy material.

The author did not say we are not "biologically suited" for monogamy. That's what the professor said that he was arguing with. The author's argument is that we are suited for it because we are rational beings.

That assumes poly are irrational. And that monogamy is by default more rational.

[Astreja]

Long-term monogamy depends entirely on the people involved. There are many couples who are happy to spend their lives together.

When there is abuse, or irreconcilable incompatibility, IMO the best thing to do is terminate the relationship. No one should feel obligated to remain in a situation that is not meeting their needs and supporting their dreams.