Is long term monogamy unnatural for human beings?

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Like birth control!

He put it into more words than that, but thats the gist of it.

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

I think that our animal instincts do drive us to be monogamous though. I think our romantic drive, caring for our young and our sexual jealousy drive us towards monogamy, and it is only our sexual urges that don't discriminate that much. I'd say it's kind of like how we are with food really: We're sexual omnivores

Once you take our the supernatural part of his post, he doesn't seem to have much of a point left. As it could be applied to condoms or computers or other great things that aren't 'natural' in the sense in which you speak.

The point is that the transcendence/supernaturalness does not exist so he doesn't seem to be left saying anything interesting.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

My animal instinct is to pick a winner and burn the earth before and for her. It's already something the current wife and I have discussed. I can't even say no to the ex. She asks me for something and I have a strong compulsion to provide it...this was the understanding that the current wife had to agree to- to be in this relationship with me. My societal contract with her has expired, my biological contract persists until or beyond the death of our child, depending on the circumstance.

Obviously, I'm hoping I die first, and will do anything I can to make that a reality.....also part of who I am, biologically - part and parcel with my understanding with both wives.

Your linked article was nonsense, in service of a religious ideology, not representative of a binding biological reality.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What's natural about vaping or eating deep fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches ??

You vape deep fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches??

[Succubus]

This is the professor referred to in the article. Matt Walsh

Greetings Mr. Walsh,

I am a college professor, author, and researcher. It was obvious to me before you ever stated it that you are a man of little education and limited intelligence. Still, I commend your newfound fame and congratulate you on the enormous amounts of money you must be making.

…You have become a hot topic in some of my classes and this very much worries me. It wasn’t until your name came up for a fifth time that I decided to investigate you. Your prose are rife with fallacies and Neanderthalic musings, so I could easily disembowel and discredit any part of it. But I’d like to concentrate on what seems to be your most common themes: heterocentricism and monogamism. Whether you’re writing about marriage, “stay at home moms,” abstinence, or any other “issue of the family,” you seem to think that there is only *one* way and only *one* sort of family...

Of course this professor is never identified which makes this whole thing sound depressingly familiar.


A little of Mr Walsh's musings.

I think it is very appropriate that the first thing the angel said to the women at the tomb was "do not be afraid." Indeed, what is there for us to fear now? He has already conquered sin. He has already triumphed over death. We were lost and now we're found. We were blind and now we see. He is risen. Hallelujah. Happy Easter, everyone.

[Angrboda]

Hogamous, Higamous,
Man is polygamous,
Higamous, Hogamous,
Woman monagamous.

It seems that we're arguing at cross purposes here, in that some are arguing that we should seek that state which in some sense is most "natural." Supposedly this comes from the assumption that we will prosper best by practicing those habits which best conform to our strengths as a species. At the same time, we have the somewhat religious notion that transcending our baser, more animalistic nature is what's best for us, in that when we transcend the mundane we are raised to a higher state. It sets up an interesting conflict in that the religious impulse tends to pull in both directions, in that the dictates of natural law should be reasoned out from our basic nature, yet also in line with the Neoplatonic roots of Christianity, that we have a "higher" and lower self, and we should always strive to the higher self so as to be closer to God. This impulse to avoid our "baser" instincts in favor of those influenced by reason and our less emotional impulses seems well preserved in secular society as well, which has typically pitted the habit of reason and rationality against that of our emotions and animal drives. Regardless of its origin, this seems a pervasive prejudice, yet I rather doubt the rationales given for it. I would prefer to think of it as pitting one set of animalistic instincts against another. This not uncommonly happens in nature when a species is drawn towards competing goals, both of which are of benefit to all or some of our species. For the male, the evolutionary pressure to sire as many offspring as possible pushes the species away from long term relationships, yet the needs for a long term parenting commitment due to the brainy nature of our offspring pushes us in the opposite direction. I have the feeling that our idealizing reason over emotion is likely similar in that it is not an example of a clear good which should be pursued regardless, even if such were possible, but rather that we need to balance our needs as emotional creatures and rational ones. In that sense, I think arguments about "transcending" our baser natures are just so much nonsense held over from philosophical assumptions that have outlived their usefulness.

Another aspect of the whole question of what's in our best interests, either individually or as animals, has to include the fact that the male and the female have different priorities in the process of sexual selection and reproduction. It would benefit the male to rape women to maximize the number of offspring a single male can sire, yet it is against the interests of the woman in more ways than one to discourage such practice in favor of stable and exclusive partnerships (for both the pre-natal and post-natal benefit of the child, as well as the individual interest). So ultimately I think there are a number of "goods" which we could aim to satisfy with sexual relationships, and that the nature of those goods has likely varied over time and different conditions. Arranged marriages for political and social advantage have a long history during which such habits were beneficial both to the society, and to the individuals involved. On the other hand, the existence of a unique religious culture that must compete with other religious cultures, such as the mormons, may argue for a situation in which polygamy is best for all concerned. And again, there has to be a consideration of what is in the interests of each sex, as polygamy where the male takes multiple wives tends to be a more prominently represented pattern than that of women taking multiple husbands, so it's possible that nature favors the one example over that of the other. And then, beyond these considerations are those as to which solution we are most likely to be adept at practicing, and in modern society that tends to favor monogamy. So there's no single answer that comes through clearly. Given the abuses of polygamy as practiced by some cultures, such as the Mormons, then polygamy should be avoided. However, if such dangers can be averted, I see no clear cut reason for avoiding polygamy. And again, all this has to take into account the cultural context. In a society that is organized around the kibbutz, or a more communal society than is typical in the West, may argue for different choices.

As far as what's "natural," from what I've read, polygamy is strongly represented in primitive societies. However I don't think our allegedly natural state is necessarily going to be what's most beneficial in any given modern society. So I couldn't plausibly answer yes or no, if the question is meant to imply which is best for our strengths and weaknesses as individuals and as a species. I think there are too many unanswered questions which can't be adequately resolved by appealing to how people live in primitive societies. We don't live in a primitive society today.

[polymath257]

Hogamous, Higamous,
Man is polygamous,
Higamous, Hogamous,
Woman monagamous.

It seems that we're arguing at cross purposes here, in that some are arguing that we should seek that state which in some sense is most "natural."  Supposedly this comes from the assumption that we will prosper best by practicing those habits which best conform to our strengths as a species.  At the same time, we have the somewhat religious notion that transcending our baser, more animalistic nature is what's best for us, in that when we transcend the mundane we are raised to a higher state.  It sets up an interesting conflict in that the religious impulse tends to pull in both directions, in that the dictates of natural law should be reasoned out from our basic nature, yet also in line with the Neoplatonic roots of Christianity, that we have a "higher" and lower self, and we should always strive to the higher self so as to be closer to God.  This impulse to avoid our "baser" instincts in favor of those influenced by reason and our less emotional impulses seems well preserved in secular society as well, which has typically pitted the habit of reason and rationality against that of our emotions and animal drives.  Regardless of its origin, this seems a pervasive prejudice, yet I rather doubt the rationales given for it.  I would prefer to think of it as pitting one set of animalistic instincts against another.  This not uncommonly happens in nature when a species is drawn towards competing goals, both of which are of benefit to all or some of our species.  For the male, the evolutionary pressure to sire as many offspring as possible pushes the species away from long term relationships, yet the needs for a long term parenting commitment due to the brainy nature of our offspring pushes us in the opposite direction.  I have the feeling that our idealizing reason over emotion is likely similar in that it is not an example of a clear good which should be pursued regardless, even if such were possible, but rather that we need to balance our needs as emotional creatures and rational ones.  In that sense, I think arguments about "transcending" our baser natures are just so much nonsense held over from philosophical assumptions that have outlived their usefulness.  

Another aspect of the whole question of what's in our best interests, either individually or as animals, has to include the fact that the male and the female have different priorities in the process of sexual selection and reproduction.  It would benefit the male to rape women to maximize the number of offspring a single male can sire, yet it is against the interests of the woman in more ways than one to discourage such practice in favor of stable and exclusive partnerships (for both the pre-natal and post-natal benefit of the child, as well as the individual interest).  So ultimately I think there are a number of "goods" which we could aim to satisfy with sexual relationships, and that the nature of those goods has likely varied over time and different conditions.  Arranged marriages for political and social advantage have a long history during which such habits were beneficial both to the society, and to the individuals involved.  On the other hand, the existence of a unique religious culture that must compete with other religious cultures, such as the mormons, may argue for a situation in which polygamy is best for all concerned.  And again, there has to be a consideration of what is in the interests of each sex, as polygamy where the male takes multiple wives tends to be a more prominently represented pattern than that of women taking multiple husbands, so it's possible that nature favors the one example over that of the other.  And then, beyond these considerations are those as to which solution we are most likely to be adept at practicing, and in modern society that tends to favor monogamy.  So there's no single answer that comes through clearly.  Given the abuses of polygamy as practiced by some cultures, such as the Mormons, then polygamy should be avoided.  However, if such dangers can be averted, I see no clear cut reason for avoiding polygamy.  And again, all this has to take into account the cultural context.  In a society that is organized around the kibbutz, or a more communal society than is typical in the West, may argue for different choices.

As far as what's "natural," from what I've read, polygamy is strongly represented in primitive societies.  However I don't think our allegedly natural state is necessarily going to be what's most beneficial in any given modern society.  So I couldn't plausibly answer yes or no, if the question is meant to imply which is best for our strengths and weaknesses as individuals and as a species.  I think there are too many unanswered questions which can't be adequately resolved by appealing to how people live in primitive societies.  We don't live in a primitive society today.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and nature favors distributed response over a single monolithic bloc.   Both are natural..and it;s great that this is the case, since circumstance can change as quickly as the weather.  

I;ve been doing "the natural thing", so has my buddy who's been up to the opposite.  Between the two of us we can cover any externality.

[*Deidre*]

I have read numerous ''findings'' that men are ''biologically'' not ''wired'' to being monogamous, while women are. That women are more interested in finding that one, true mate to have offspring by, and men are more naturally inclined to want to have children with multiple women.

This could be true, but new studies show that women cheat as often as men, albeit for different reasons, perhaps. Either way, I think monogamy is more of a tribal/societal construct to keep order in various cultures.

[Mystic]

*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.

[polymath257]

I have read numerous ''findings'' that men are ''biologically'' not ''wired'' to being monogamous, while women are. That women are more interested in finding that one, true mate to have offspring by, and men are more naturally inclined to want to have children with multiple women.

This could be true, but new studies show that women cheat as often as men, albeit for different reasons, perhaps. Either way, I think monogamy is more of a tribal/societal construct to keep order in various cultures.

This is another aspect of humans being neither a tournament species nor a non-tournament species.

In a tournament species, the males are generally larger than the females, mating in males is rare except for a couple of 'winners', the mating is non-monogamous, children are taken care of exclusively by the females, and females rarely abandon the young.

In non-tournament species, males and females are about the same size, mating is common for all males, both males and females raise the children, mating is monogamous (mostly), and females will abandon children (because males take care of them).

Humans are right in the middle on almost every characteristic. We just don't go by the usual classifications that work for other primate species (as well as many others).