Should people be polygamous?

1. 0

   filmchick1987posted 12 years ago

   I heard someone comment recently that they didn't think people were meant to be monogamous, but have multiple partners.
   My question is, if that's true, why is cheating so shunned in society? It's the absolute no go of most cultures, so if it's ingrained in us to be polygamous, surely we wouldn't care nearly as much?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Sesshoumaru2stposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oh cheating for females? oh not acceptable man.No way she would be a Beee word .Oh men? cheating? Oh yeah that's a pimp,PLAYAH!! right there. How you ganna hate on a player? hate the game not the player my brother.So that's how society thinks,like it or not.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "MAN' IS, genetically, a polygamous creature.
      Monogamy is a societally engendered.
      It has been said to have a religious origination, but that hasn't been proved.
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 60

         lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Polygamy is a religious based, man-made invention. It had to be made part of a religion because there's no way women in such cultures would have accepted it otherwise. Would a woman under natural circumstances choose to share one man with other women? Usually not without having to make some compromise. Polygamy is the construct of unrestrained misogynist men. Polygamy in which women marry several men doesn't work either, since the women in question are worn out by continual pregnancies.
         Monogamy is also a rational religious construct based on natural law, and which by restraining men, protects and respects women.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Much of the animal world does it, presumably for the female to get the best male genes.  The male doesn't seem to care about the quality of genes of the female though - he has other thoughts on his mind.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Male animals must fight, maybe kill other males each time they want to get their own harem of females. Dysfunctional, I would say, by our standards.

               replyreport
            2. 80

               ngurecoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Men are constantly looking for beautiful women just as women are looking for 'strong' men.
               
               Today, the difference between humans and animals is that humans should not have multiple s*xual partners.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  that's a fact ngureco

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  ngureco:
                  
                  Did you take any biology classes when you were in school?
                  
                  you commented:  "...the difference between humans and animals...."
                  
                  If you did, where were you when they taught ya that WE HUMANS ARE animals?
                  
                  Or did ya skip school those couple days?
                  
                  Just curious, what makes you think that we humans are not animals?
                  
                  Qwark

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     ngurecoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     You animal, you are dead wrong on this (j/k). That’s sounds rude.
                     
                     You man, you are dead wrong on this. That’s sounds a little bit better.
                     
                     You Qwark, you are dead wrong on this. That’s sounds better.
                     
                     Spiritually, humans are not animals. Definition of humans is well past biological definition. Always use spiritual and ethical basis in defining humans.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        ngureco:
                        WEll! Ty for clarifying that for me.
                        We are not animals! I'll be darned! I've never been so "dead wrong" in my entire life!
                        I'm just a student of life and didn't know that man is just a "spiritual" form of life.
                        I'd appreciate you defining "spiritual" for me.
                        If you could, can you do it in a form other than a metaphysical opinion?
                        I ask that of you just to make it clear in my mind, "factually," what the derivation of "spiritual man" is/was and refute the biological definiton of "man."
                        I look forward to a learned, edifying response.
                        Much appreciated.  :
                        Qwark

                        replyreport
         2. 81

            earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I have to ask....... who are all these "unrestrained" men having sex with?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               compromised women.

               replyreport
         3. 61

            qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            lizzie:
            Ya haven't done yer homework...as expected. 
            Qwark

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               oh here we go.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Lizzie:
                  Naw. It was ended with you days ago. :
                  I got'cha pegged!
                  Qwark

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh dear me no Qwark, you did not have me pegged. Having a conversation with you was just  starting to feel like someone repeatedly dashing a typewriter against my head.
                     ok, in what respect have I not done my 'homework here'?  Knowing what it is to be a woman perhaps? Knowing that men need to be tamed? Knowing that polygamy is forced upon women by false doctrine?

                     replyreport
         4. 60

            Peter Owenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hi LB - if this is religious based, why do so many types and breeds of animals, especially certain birds, mate for life with one partner.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hi peter - there are a number of mongamous animals; usually the peaceful types. The rough types, Chimpanzees, Baboons, Lions, Hippos, wild horses etc, tend to be polygamous. They will fight and kill for their place and even kill young that belong to other males. Monogamy is a natural state for humans, but when polygamy manifests itself, it is invariably a construct by men (no offense) at the expense of women. Well, at the expense of society actually, if animals are the example.

               replyreport
      2. 60

         Disturbiaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         LOL, it's the caveman brain,  qwark, that makes men polygamous.  Males are genetically hardwired to spread around their DNA which is why they want to mate with as many females as they can as often as possible.  Females, since they have children,  are hardwired to seek out the biggest and strongest males, to protect them and their offspring.  We no longer have to live this way, but the primitive part of our brain still wants to.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Amen Disturbia...AMEN!
            You've done yer homework!
            2 thumbs up!
            Qwark  :

            replyreport
2. 88

   Doctor Kristyposted 12 years ago

   My opinion is that cheating's shunned because people have built up the idea of sex being an act of love between two people, and over time it's become skewed so that cheating on someone is saying that you don't really love them.
   
   I reckon that's a bit stupid really, because all sex really is is a primal urge. But that's the way it is.

   replyreport
3. 60

   Disturbiaposted 12 years ago

   I don't think that being monogamous forever is natural, but I also don't believe in having multiple partners all over the place all at the same time either. That seems like too much drama.
   
   I'm a serial monogamist and I believe people enjoy falling in love, bonding, becoming a couple, but all relationships have a shelf-life, a period of time for which they exist and once that is over, it's time to move on. 
   
   I do believe that we should be honest and faithful within our relationships and those that do want multiple partners should state so up front, so the other person can make an informed decision whether they want to be with somebody who is going to actively seek out other partners.  If people want to be polygamous and everybody is in agreement, what's the problem?
   
   Cheating is going behind your partner's back, betraying the relationship, making a fool of them, and breaking faith with them.  If you say up front you have no intention of being monogamous, how can you be accused of cheating when you were honest and up front right from the start?  But don't promise to be faithful, if that's not your intention.  That's cheating.
   
   People shun "cheating" because organized religion has taught us "till death do us part" is how it should be.  That might have been possible once upon a time, but with a 80 or 90 year life span, how can one person be expected to hold your interest and satisfy all your needs over some 50 or 60 years?

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Miss Disturbia, don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
      My wife and I will soon be celebrating our 50th wedding anniversary. All of the pop-culture wisdom you think you possess hasn’t provided you with one single clue about how interesting and satisfying a lifelong relationship with one person can be. The rewards do not diminish with time. They grow.  You sound like a person who will never discover this for yourself.

      replyreport
4. 62

   prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago

   it depends on what you and your partner/s terms and conditions (capitalistic hehe)
   
   You might not caught up with the physical and emotional demand of having multiple partners (same with having many children).
   
   **add financial..

   replyreport
5. 0

   filmchick1987posted 12 years ago

   Ah, How can you say society or religion has constructed you to behave or live a certain way, when actually, society today encourages 'living together' as opposed to marriage, and fewer people go to church?
   
   So really, you live in a world of polygamy, and yet, cheating, on a whole, is still shunned. Why? If we live in a world where multiple partners is okay, why shun cheating? Why is divorce so hard? Why is it so awkward to be around your former lovers?
   
   There are quite a few animals who mate for life. Bald Eagles? Beavers? Grey Wolves? Some animals are more monogamous than we are. So relating humans to animal creatures doesn't solve your argument.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This all depends what you mean by "society." In American society, affairs are very much frowned upon (at least traditionally; in recent years, there has a been an absolute plethora of highly publicized affairs by politicians and celebrities, so perhaps the culture will become desensitized to it).
      
      However, in France traditionally it was not considered a very big deal, with emphasis on privacy for the male leaders. Here is an interesting article dealing with this topic:
      
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/world … crecy.html
      
      So it varies by culture.
      
      But in general the problem people have, I think, is that you made a promise, and you broke it. You didn't make a promise to be faithful to a casual boyfriend or girlfriend. That's the difference.
      
      Referring to your original question, what culture/ society values and what human nature actually is are two COMPLETELY different things. Some cultures have placed very high value on celibacy--that goes 180 degrees against human nature.
      
      Many religious traditions such as Christianity and Islam feature a general distrust or hostility toward base passions--but that doesn't mean we suddenly don't have them, just because religious authorities said so.
      
      Much of this issue comes down to culture--the awkwardness you mentioned, the "difficulty" of divorce, etc. In South Pacific cultures prior to European contact, the NORM was casual sex; sex was treated as an innocent, playful game that everybody was free to play with anyone at any time. The children that resulted were raised communally, and saw the whole village as their parents. Talk about a different attitude!
      
      Finally, society is changing, as I mentioned. Traditionally it was more conservative, but is becoming less religious and therefore takes marriage less seriously. Hence openness to gay marriage, half of all marriages end in divorce, a new appreciation for living together, etc.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "In South Pacific cultures prior to European contact, the NORM was casual sex; sex was treated as an innocent, playful game that everybody was free to play with anyone at any time. The children that resulted were raised communally, and saw the whole village as their parents."
         
         Beautiful!
         
         There are primitive tribes in S. America that are still "innocent" and consider: "the NORM was casual sex; sex was treated as an innocent, playful game that everybody was free to play with anyone at any time."...and they are a happy people.
         
         Qwark

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lizzieBooposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sounds like they could do with a lock on the bathroom door.

            replyreport
      2. 80

         ngurecoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         And on the other hand, in ancient civilization, as early as 3rd century BC, the Pharaonic cut that was practiced in Egypt, Africa, middle East, Asia, and by Romans, ensured young girls at the age of about ten years were "sewn up" in such a way that s*x was not possible outside marriage.

         replyreport