Originally posted by red g jacks
....in theory. i think for most of us we end up with someone we don't want to lose so we make the commitment.. but in reality the desire to be with others never leaves.
Originally posted by NemeBro
At no point did anyone imply that someone saying "I'm your boy/girl friend" isn't necessarily a concession of monogamy.
I think you've watched too much star trek.
But, no, NemeBro is correct: humans are overwhelmingly polyamorous. So much so that it is weird to think it normal to restrict humans to just 1 partner.
This is not to say that we can easily justify cheating but we should recognize that this permanent monogamy thing is a new invention: an artificial construct.
Originally posted by riv6672
Saw this while surfing the net..."Its not cheating if you're not the one who's married."
So, a few questions to maybe get some conversation going:1. Would you cheat on your spouse/partner?
2. Would you sleep with a person who had a spouse/partner?
3. If your spouse/partner cheated on you, would you be angrier at them, the person they are cheating with, or would it be equal?
1. No. I'd only have sex with someone else if we both agreed it as okay. And then I wouldn't really consider it cheating.
2. I would have sex with something that had a partner if I didn't know that person. Their problems are their problems.
3. If my partner cheated on me, I'd be angrier with them, unless they cheated on me with a friend.
Again, I don't care if my partner has sex with other women/men, as long as I get to as well. (Preferably at the same time.)
Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
1. No. I'd only have sex with someone else if we both agreed it as okay. And then I wouldn't really consider it cheating.2. I would have sex with something that had a partner if I didn't know that person. Their problems are their problems.
3. If my partner cheated on me, I'd be angrier with them, unless they cheated on me with a friend.
Again, I don't care if my partner has sex with other women/men, as long as I get to as well. (Preferably at the same time.)
👆
You're a good person.
Originally posted by dadudemonThis reminds me of, 'If man was meant to fly, he'd have wings.'
But, no, NemeBro is correct: humans are overwhelmingly polyamorous. So much so that it is weird to think it normal to restrict humans to just 1 partner.This is not to say that we can easily justify cheating but we should recognize that this permanent monogamy thing is a new invention: an artificial construct.
I believe lifelong pair bonding precedes humanity; we see it in a lot of animal species (birds come first to mind). We see animal polyamorousness too, but the point is, one seems 'as natural' as the other. Afaik, humans have permanently paired throughout history, across cultures. There seems to be a strong genetic predip (at the very least, a strong meme-set) for it, since it does have (or certainly had) survival value in rearing human babies.
I think modern humanity's predicament is that we are a much more long-lived and egocentric species than ever before. Thanks mainly to technology, everyone can more/less self-indulge, and this would include (if not star) worldly, sensual pleasures. Why should I have to put another person's needs/feelings first, and not what I want, for the rest of my life?
Yeah, given future tech, the permanent human pair bond may become a thing of the past. Imo, that would be our loss. I'm not sure an escalating self-indulgence is an entirely good thing.
Originally posted by Mindship
This reminds me of, 'If man was meant to fly, he'd have wings.'I believe lifelong pair bonding precedes humanity;
It probably does. But there is a difference between social monogamy and sexual monogamy. While there may have been monogamous pair-bonding as far back a the split (when chimps and humans split), they would be the rare exception.
Originally posted by Mindship
[B]we see it in a lot of animal species (birds come first to mind). We see animal polyamorousness too, but the point is, one seems 'as natural' as the other. Afaik, humans have permanently paired throughout history, across cultures. There seems to be a strong genetic predip (at the very least, a strong meme-set) for it, since it does have (or certainly had) survival value in rearing human babies./B]
That strongly depends on what you would like to target. In short, no, humans are definitely not monogamous. Monogamy, in the strictest sense, is very rare among humans unless heavily enforced through very harsh social norms (meaning, deviation from the norm causes severe negative social consequences). Even then, there are large amounts of deviation ("fooling around", as it were).
Humans are becoming less polyamorous but we still have the vestiges (pun intended) of our polyamorous roots such as our penis size and shape and the lingering presence of sexual asymmetry (we are sexually dimorphic).
I don't even know if "polyamorous" is the correct word, too! Basically, both males and females have multiple sexual partners but not necessarily at the same time. Generally, polamory means "at the same time (but not necessarily an orgy...just concurrent relationships)" but it does not mean 1 partner here, move on, 1 partner there. I looked for the word and I think polyamorous is the closest fit.
Regardless, pair-bonding is weak in humans. Even among the seemingly monogamous bird species, we are discovering that the offspring sometimes have different fathers than the social father. Also, they observe that the male goes off and mates with other females. But, at the end of the day, the social pair-bond stay together.
In fact, monogamy seems extremely rare among all species.
I should clarify that in order to be strictly monogamous, we would need to pair-bond with only 1 partner the rest of our lives, a majority of the time. Humans don't do that....we shop...6, 7, 8, or 20 partners.
Originally posted by dadudemonI see your point. I was generally thinking monogamous as in married.
That strongly depends on what you would like to target. In short, no, humans are definitely not monogamous. Monogamy, in the strictest sense, is very rare among humans unless heavily enforced through very harsh social norms (meaning, deviation from the norm causes severe negative social consequences). Even then, there are large amounts of deviation ("fooling around", as it were).Humans are becoming less polyamorous but we still have the vestiges (pun intended) of our polyamorous roots such as our penis size and shape and the lingering presence of sexual asymmetry (we are sexually dimorphic).
I don't even know if "polyamorous" is the correct word, too! Basically, both males and females have multiple sexual partners but not necessarily at the same time. Generally, polamory means "at the same time (but not necessarily an orgy...just concurrent relationships)" but it does not mean 1 partner here, move on, 1 partner there. I looked for the word and I think polyamorous is the closest fit.
Regardless, pair-bonding is weak in humans. Even among the seemingly monogamous bird species, we are discovering that the offspring sometimes have different fathers than the social father. Also, they observe that the male goes off and mates with other females. But, at the end of the day, the social pair-bond stay together.
In fact, monogamy seems extremely rare among all species.
I should clarify that in order to be strictly monogamous, we would need to pair-bond with only 1 partner the rest of our lives, a majority of the time. Humans don't do that....we shop...6, 7, 8, or 20 partners.