Do you believe humans are meant to be monogamous?

1. 64

   Sheepsquatchposted 12 years ago

   Do you believe humans are meant to be monogamous?
   
   This is not really a question of morals as it is of nature. Do you believe that humans are built to be with only one other person romantically, or that we are not built to be faithful. Please give reason why a person would be better at one than the other/
   
   

   replyreport
2. 89

   Theophanesposted 12 years ago

   Depends what you mean by monogamous I would guess. Scantly few humans are genuinely monogamous (having only one sexual partner for life or until that person dies.) Just that fact alone makes me believe no, we're not really built for it. In fact very few animals are. We're like birds. We form pair bonds in order to raise our children together and raise the odds they'll be OK until its their turn to go out into the world. However studies show women, like many birds, are more likely to cheat on their regular mate when they're ovulating with men that they sense have stronger genes (due to the higher rate of testosterone these chosen males tend to have in comparison.) Men on the other hand are male animals and biologically speaking if a male mates with more females there's more chances he'll have offspring, this biological imperative will give them an added drive. Add all this together and you get a lot of miserable relationships as well as the notion of serial monogamy - that is staying in a couple until you can't stand each other any more and then moving on to the next. Humans are complex creatures. A small percentage of us might be monogamous, a much larger percentage will be serial monogamous, and then there are others who choose not to have a partner or choose to have multiple partners. Unlike many animals one size does not always fit all. This is a good thing to remember when reading about these studies which only indicate likely possibilities, not what is actually happening in any individual case.

   replyreport
3. 84

   krillcoposted 12 years ago

   I'd say both yes and no. 'No' because our 'caveman brain' tell us to hunt down lots of women and make babies with them, and 'yes' because our higher brain allows us to give meaning to relationship beyond sex. It would seem to me that the more self disciplined individual who has also attached multiple meanings (emotional, psychological, spiritual) to monogamy is the one who is more successful at it.

   replyreport
4. 69

   dashingscorpioposted 12 years ago

   "meant to be monogamous?" As Theophanes pointed out in an earlier answer that the fact most people have had (more than one sexual partner) in their life would indicate that monogamy is a "lifestyle choice" and not a genetic code.
   As humans we get to (choose) how we live our life. The choice is not made for us. Any animal which mates for life probably does not end relationships and start new ones over and over again. If anything the majority of human beings choose to be "Serial Monogamist".  Cheating or breaking a promise is also a choice as well. Each of us makes our own decisions regarding our behavior.

   replyreport
5. 94

   jansharesposted 12 years ago

   Truthfully, no, we weren't meant to be monogamous which is why fideliy is so hard. Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, a lot due to infideliy. Because no amount of commitment can completely shutdown natual chemistry, we as humans are vulnerable to acting on illicit attractions and temptations. No judgment, just facts. When that vulnerability meets lack of discipline and disregard of the promise, we stumble. Ditto to krillco's comment. FYI, see the research of anthropologist Helen Fisher on this subject.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Garifaliaposted 12 years ago

   If swallows, whales, dolphins and wolves remain faithful to one partner, why wasn't man meant to? It makes for stronger species and reduces the possibility of accidentally marrying your half sister/brother. This is why in some countries (like my own) it is against the law to marry your first cousing (no...you don't go to jail, the church won't marry you).
   Anyway, a man I once dated told me that it's a myth that men need many women or cannot stay faithful. If there is love and respect, he not only remains faithful but can go without sex for a long time waiting to reunite with his love.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      dashingscorpioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Humans only have 5 basic "needs" to survive. (air, water, food, shelter, clothing). Sex is a "desire or want". Men don't (need) many women but there are some that (want) many women and vice versa. We (choose) our goals/wants in life.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Garifaliaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      To be more scientific, sex and the desire for it was meant to serve reproduction. When hormones start acting up, then men or women have a drive for sex. It comes on its own during those reproductive years. But  man has taken it to a level unnecessary

      replyreport
   3. 64

      Sheepsquatchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      For the species to survive you have to have reproduction. It is a basic need for the species. Humans have the ability to choose whether they try to provide for the their needs. Genetically we are designed to reproduce. It isn't just a desire.

      replyreport
   4. 69

      dashingscorpioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Sheepsquatch, Would you agree that people that don't want children should not have children? It's possible to desire or enjoy sex without having the intention to reproduce. Only those that want children should have them. One man's opinion! :-)

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Garifaliaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Sheepsquatch to you dear dashingsorpio, but nature meant sex for reporduction. The development of the human brain and other factors that has brought the matter to today's point (in sticking to the original question).We enjoy whether childless or not

      replyreport
7. 61

   MickSposted 12 years ago

   No, Mother Nature, didn't design man to be monogomous  It is within nature for man to have many partners, over, say, 10 days, he can make 10 women pregnant.  No matter how many diferent partners a woman has over the same time period, once she is pregnant another partner can't cause another pregnancy until the completion of the current pregnancy; although, multiple partners give a better chance of pregnancy.  It is to do with survival and increase in the population, not man made sensibilities of fidelity.

   replyreport
8. 68

   Mazzy Boleroposted 12 years ago

   The idea that men are driven by evolution to impregnate as many women as possible is now disputed.  In the wild, men were needed to provide food, shelter and protection to the woman and children. It would be impossible to do that if they were fathering children all over the place as some do now! 
   
   However, on sexual intercourse women release oxytocin, the love hormone, whereas men only release dopamine, the pleasure hormone.  If the man is emotionally attached to the female already, however, he too can release oxytocin and there will be a stronger bond.  If the couple have sex without that pre-existing emotional attachment on the man's part, as is the norm now, there is a resulting imbalance, with the female experiencing bonding while the male does not.  This perhaps contributes to the short duration of many relationships nowadays.
   
   The old ways, where a young man had to come a-courtin' and not expect physical contact for quite some time, was actually in the female interest.
   
   (Of course, women can be promiscuous, too, and some would find themselves a man to protect their kids and then get a different man to father them.)

   replyreport