# Is Monogamy natural?



## I amJack (Nov 2, 2017)

I?m curious what everyone thinks about this. I?ve read several articles where researchers state implicitly that humans were not meant to be monogamous and that polygamy/polyandry is a more natural state for us. 

Please share your gender and your thoughts on this.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Monogamy in a committed relationship is natural for me regardless of what any study or article says.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Mar 27, 2017)

I amJack said:


> I?m curious what everyone thinks about this. I?ve read several articles where researchers state implicitly that humans were not meant to be monogamous and that polygamy/polyandry is a more natural state for us.
> 
> Please share your gender and your thoughts on this.


Male.

Yes, it's the natural order because men naturally don't want to share their women, and women naturally don't want to share their men. Though both may have natural desires for other men or women, each chooses nonetheless to be bound by a social contract ending their own free agency and the free agency of his or her lover. 

If you think about it, our desire to fully possess our significant other and not share him or her is emotional and instinctual. It is not born of logic or freedom of choice. We are wired that way by nature, and the results of successful monogamy are a healthy family unit (each child having 1 mother and 1 father within the same nuclear family), avoidance of STD's, and long-term financial security and prosperity.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Monogamy is absolutely what marriage should be. We are not animals who operate just on instinct, but even many animals have only one partner. 
The family unit is that way for bringing up healthy and happy children. The dad the mum and the kids. A strong protective family unit. Supported by the wider family.

I see this idea of 'monogamy isn't natural' as an excuse to cheat and sleep around. We are made to find the opposite sex attractive, but to also bond and join with one partner. We also have self control, and also responsibilities towards our spouse and children so that we don't act like some animals do who have little or no idea of moral values or integrity. Many of us have no problems with being monogamous and find it completely natural. Its how we want to be and how we are. 

This idea of well its not 'natural', so therefore we just cant help having sex with many people, its not our fault etc is a total cop out.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Monogamy is not just about kids and hetros @Diana7


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

MrsHolland said:


> Monogamy is not just about kids and hetros @Diana7


Monogamy has always been for the family unit. First the husband and wife are faithful to each other, and when the children come along, its the best and healthiest place to bring them up in. Dad mum and kids. Its been that way since history began.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Monogamy has always been for the family unit. First the husband and wife are faithful to each other, and when the children come along, its the best and healthiest place to bring them up in. Dad mum and kids. Its been that way since history began.


So people without kids don't have the right to be monogamous???

And you are wrong, oh so wrong about the hetro family unit being the best and healthiest place to bring up kids. A happy, loving place is the best place regardless of the make up of the family unit



> https://www.theguardian.com/australi...rs-study-shows
> 
> Quote:
> As the marriage equality vote draws toward its close, a comprehensive study published in the Medical Journal of Australia shows children raised in same-sex-parented families do as well as children raised by heterosexual couple parents.
> ...


----------



## Roselyn (Sep 19, 2010)

Monogamy is natural for me. My husband & I have a very busy career life & we prefer a simple peaceful life at home. We are without children by choice. We deal with each other only, without the crowd of other people. We agreed on our monogamous marriage 37 years ago. We are in our monogamous marriage because we each want to be in our lives. We are happy and share the same values.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

MrsHolland said:


> So people without kids don't have the right to be monogamous???
> 
> And you are wrong, oh so wrong about the hetro family unit being the best and healthiest place to bring up kids. A happy, loving place is the best place regardless of the make up of the family unit


I said that the married couple should be faithful and monogamous. 
Children need both a father and mother to grow up emotionally and sexually healthy. There have been cases where the children of 2 men or 2 women have now grown up and said they wanted a mum and dad not 2 dads or 2 mums. Its important for each sex to have both mother and father.


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

Time will tell if same sex parents are good,better or worse.

Hasn't been happening too long with enought frequency to tell yet.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

I amJack said:


> I?m curious what everyone thinks about this. I?ve read several articles where researchers state implicitly that humans were not meant to be monogamous and that polygamy/polyandry is a more natural state for us.
> 
> Please share your gender and your thoughts on this.


I think what is "natural" is irrelevant. We have evolved well past living in the wild and apply our big brains to many facets of living from society, to economy, to ... well everything. While my husband and I identify as polyamorous, there are a great many benefits to choosing monogamy. Polygamy is illegal and so it should remain. The legal nightmare that that would be is hard to imagine. I am not sure why anyone would choose polyandry, but whatever works I guess. 

If I were to wonder what is natural, which I clearly don't, I would look to the higher primates that resemble us. What do they do?


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

The need for monogamy actually came out of a need for men (not women) when we moved from hunter gathers and evolved into farming where ownership of property became a real thing, and passing that property on to his children, with monogamy the thinking was that he could better know that any offspring would be his....the natural state of hunter and gathers had been communal sharing within tribes or groups.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Sure, monogamy is natural, as is non-monogamy. Humans by nature are clearly not strictly monogamous, but humans also have a very strong urge to pair bond, especially to have/raise children (at least until weaned). These competing factors probably evolved out of the necessity of extra-pair matings to ensure genetic diversity in very small tribal communities.

If monogamy is completely natural, then we'd never hear about people cheating. If non-monogamy is the norm, we wouldn't see many long-term devoted relationships.

Human mating and bonding is a wide spectrum, and the predominant mode seen is largely a reflection of both culture and environmental conditions. Plus, we can make choices based on our own personal nature, because even within culture and environment, people will have different genetically-based and experientially-based tendencies and preferences. Everything from strict monogamy to wild promiscuity is natural for humans, and is one of the reasons humans are so successful as a species in reproducing under so many conditions.


----------



## sandcastle (Sep 5, 2014)

Jack-
Obviously just about everyone is struggling with the theory of monogamy.

Go be a bonobo.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Too simple a question really.

Are urges natural? Yup.

Acting on urges? Yes, no and maybe.

I believe we are as evil and corrupt inside as any of the worst of humanity at any point in history.

Given the wrong/right circumstances and too many choices leading down paths of darkness and weakness, any of us are capable of nearly anything.

It boils down to choice. 

There have been, and still are, societies that don't allow choice. Children can, and have been raised in bisexual, child rape cultures and despite the tears(because getting raped as a child doesn't feel good) many grow to view it as normal.

Several tribes throughout history have not practiced monogamy or even the choice for monogamy but being raised to it, know nothing different.

We can be trained, conditioned and coerced into nearly anything.
By ourselves and others.
We are malleable, not hard wired.

The only difference between the most noble and heroic in history and the most vile and offensive is a fractional matter of decisions.

I am monogamous. I probably could have been conditioned somewhat towards poly as a child but I honestly don't think as I developed that I would have ever been comfortable with sharing or being shared sexually.

I understand polyamoury without sexual liaisons. I love many but don't want sex with them.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Monogamy is absolutely what marriage should be. We are not animals who operate just on instinct, but even many animals have only one partner.
> *The family unit is that way for bringing up healthy and happy children. The dad the mum and the kids. A strong protective family unit. Supported by the wider family.
> *
> I see this idea of 'monogamy isn't natural' as an excuse to cheat and sleep around. We are made to find the opposite sex attractive, but to also bond and join with one partner. We also have self control, and also responsibilities towards our spouse and children so that we don't act like some animals do who have little or no idea of moral values or integrity. Many of us have no problems with being monogamous and find it completely natural. Its how we want to be and how we are.
> ...


Amen, Dear!

The bolded part above is a strong opinion of mine, oft cited. Without families, viz., children raised by loving, responsible adults, society will collapse.
If 'The Village' cannot regulate itself, cooperate within it's own member conflagration, how can a village of hedonists raises children. Children that are willing and able to be working, productive adults, not selfish knuckleheads. Thinking and acting from their well exercised loins.

Just Sayin'


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

Among mammals it is. Most mammals have one mate for life, or at very least one at a time.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

MrsHolland said:


> So people without kids don't have the right to be monogamous???
> 
> And you are wrong, oh so wrong about the hetro family unit being the best and healthiest place to bring up kids. A happy, loving place is the best place regardless of the make up of the family unit


Aw, come on, Dear Mrs. H....:|

She means well. Don't twist her words.
That is my job!:grin2:

Pick on me. I like it. :grin2:
...................................................................................................................
When I go to England for tea, it will be at her house. Or one like hers.

I will go the the Pub with @MattMatt
I'm buying.


----------



## Anastasia6 (May 28, 2017)

Yes it is natural.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

No, monogamy is not the least bit natural. 

Our natural state is for men to try to breed with every fertile woman that they see to attack any other man that is trying to breed with her so that his own genes pass on to the next generation. 

And the natural state for women is to hook the strongest man that she can for each breeding cycle (which may mean multiple males over time with each new breeding cycle) so that she delivers the baby with the strongest genes and that she has the strongest provider so that her baby survives. And she will fight off other females so that the resources go to her babies even if it means other women's babies die off in the next drought or plague. 

That is our natural state. 

But as you can tell, if we lived according to our natural state, it would be mass chaos and death. If we are going to live in a society there has to be structure and rules and boundaries. 

Monogamy and life long marriage is a man-made concept so that you don't have legions of lesser single males killing off all the stronger alpha males that are hoarding the women to themselves and it is to ensure that males provide for and protect the women that they impregnate and to support and protect the offspring that they fathered. 

And it is also means to try to assure males that the offspring that their mates deliver are actually their own genetic stock. 

Marriage as legal concept came along during the development of agriculture so that land and equipment and property would be handed down through legal heirs and kept in families. 

Monogamy is not natural but it is necessary and important to maintain a civilized world and keep things from going Darwinian and there being a mass bloodbath for survival.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

If one equates 'natural' to 'common', common practice, I would say yes to monogamy.

As others have said, we can be 'programmed' to be something other than common.

Now, if we throw in the conditioning word "right', as in 'morally right", all bets are off.

Though, that is a shame.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

SunCMars said:


> If one equates 'natural' to 'common', common practice, I would say yes to monogamy.
> 
> As others have said, we can be 'programmed' to be something other than common.
> 
> ...


Why? Bearing in mind that not everyone is Christian, what is the shame?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Among mammals it is. Most mammals have one mate for life, or at very least one at a time.


Your statement is false. Monogamy is rare in the animal kingdom at large. Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals, only 3 to 5 percent are known to form lifelong pair bonds.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Why? Bearing in mind that not everyone is Christian, what is the shame?


I am not Christian. I am not good enough for such a label.

I am referring to honor and commitment. One's word, one's vows, one's promises.
............................................................................................................................
On your poly-amorous views:

I have no objections.
I like you a lot.

I have fears.
The ones expounded on TAM, ad nausea.

Fear that one of the two parties will fall in love with someone else.
Fear that one of the two parties will go against set boundaries....secretly.

I could not do polyamory.
I could not bear to share my wife.

Could not bear seeing my wife 'passionately' kissing another man. That would really bother me.
Her getting pumped by a stranger is bad enough. That 'part' is pure sex, pure friction, genitals rubbing against each other. Until one or both climax.
The kissing? Not.

Her face in ecstasy, while being pumped and while being kissed? 

My heart would stop beating.............................................. then I would beat the POSOM senseless.

Yes, I am ferociously jealous.

Just Sayin'


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

MrsHolland said:


> Monogamy in a committed relationship is natural for me regardless of what any study or article says.


^
What she said.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Nov 7, 2017)

..


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

I think monogamy is natural absolutely. Now lifetime monogamy to the same person? Maybe not. I think humans were made more for serial monogamy. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective to mix up the gene pool.

Polygamy was really only accepted at times where young men were killed in such numbers during war that many women were left without husbands or children, but it's not the natural order of things IMO.



Married but Happy said:


> Your statement is false. Monogamy is rare in the animal kingdom at large. Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals, only 3 to 5 percent are known to form lifelong pair bonds.


Monogamy doesn't denote a lifelong pair bond, just two people together at a time without others involved. I've dated dozens of women but married one, am I polyamorous and not monogamous?


----------



## Betrayedone (Jan 1, 2014)

oldshirt said:


> No, monogamy is not the least bit natural.
> 
> Our natural state is for men to try to breed with every fertile woman that they see to attack any other man that is trying to breed with her so that his own genes pass on to the next generation.
> 
> ...


OMG! Finally, a voice of reason.........Lots of gaslighting and rationalizing going on in this thread. Man was never meant to be a monogamous creature. Polite society has rammed it down our gullet over the centuries. Don't buy into the hype!


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

VermiciousKnid said:


> Among mammals it is. Most mammals have one mate for life, or at very least one at a time.


Ummmm no. That is simply an inaccurate statement. 

There are only a few mammals noted to be mated for life. The vast vast majority are opportunistic breeders or have multiple couplings per breeding season. 

Mating for life is extremely rare in mammals.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 27, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Monogamy has always been for the family unit. First the husband and wife are faithful to each other, and when the children come along, its the best and healthiest place to bring them up in. Dad mum and kids. Its been that way since history began.


Who knew monogamy existed 4 billion years ago?


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

If monogamy wasn't the "natural state" monogamy wouldn't have been the preferred lifestyle for nearly every disparate society for thousands of years. We humans, we smart, we're not squirrels or dogs. Monogamy came about through sociological developments in human society back to our hunter & gatherer days. So while men are driven to mate, the society we carefully built keeps that drive in check, therefore monogamy is completely natural. Even animals have to obey societal mores which keeps their natural drives in check. A male wolf can't just run around mating every female or the alpha kills him. In human society if 1 man tried to commandeer 10 women, and the other 9 just jerked it, that dude would be killed and women raped, it wouldn't work because the rest of mankind would have no reason to support the society and go do their own thing (we're kinda devolving back to that today).

Again, monogamy doesn't mean a lifelong pair bond, just 1 man, 1 women (generalizing and leaving out gay, demi-queer, dual sex etc...) together at a time in a relationship, typically for the purpose of having offspring and raising it into adulthood, or at least into adolescence. Monogamy provided the best situation for humans to develop. If polyamory was the best method, we would be poly amorous, simple as that.


----------



## Herschel (Mar 27, 2016)

Monogamy is a manmade construct. Really, it’s a way for the inferior to keep getting some. I lock you down and then use guilt/god to keep you from banging someone else cause I’m not so sure I can. 

I’m not saying it’s bad. I’ve never cheated on the history of my existence, mostly cause I don’t want to be cheated on. I don’t care about monogamy. I care about two adults agreeing and doing whatever works best for them (which, let’s be honest, is monogamy).


----------



## Steve1000 (Nov 25, 2013)

Herschel said:


> Who knew monogamy existed 4 billion years ago?


All I know is that during the Proterozoic era, from about 2.3 billion years ago until around 575 million years ago, there was baby single-celled organism together with mommy single-celled organism and daddy single-celled organism.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*I believe that with the overriding number of God-loving Christian couples, that monogamy’s truly the rule of the day! 

Just don’t ask my RSXW! Her answer might just surprise you!*


----------



## Herschel (Mar 27, 2016)

arbitrator said:


> *I believe that with the overriding number of God-loving Christian couples, that monogamy’s truly the rule of the day!
> 
> Just don’t ask my RSXW! Her answer might just surprise you!*


I think you misspelled "fearing".


----------



## Template 2 (Feb 16, 2017)

Female. Married 40 plus years.
No, I do not believe humans were meant to be monogamous for a lifetime. I do believe serial monogamy is probably more natural.
From my experience, as long as men have testosterone coursing through their veins, they are on the lookout for the next best thing, read that as young, thin, fit, and hot. Research has shown that men are visual and naturally enticed by the fecund young female. 
The society we live in has told men that they can look (within reason) but not touch when they are in a married or committed relationship. The consequences of moving on from their partner are very high. A broken marriage is emotionally and financially devastating. I believe it is the consequences that keep many marriages intact, not the exclusive belief in monogamy. 
As far as women and monogamy, I think women are not necessarily driven by hormones to be on the hunt for the next man. Once women have had children, the consequences of ending the relationship are very high until the point the children are grown and self sufficient. Since so many women have worked and have their own financial security, many in my generation have decided to move on from the relationship. And not necessarily to find a new partner, as a man would, but rather to have some enjoyment out of life after having spent years taking care of husbands, parents, and children. 
In an ideal world, where society would not penalize for divorce, I could see men trading in the "old model" for a newer, younger, more attractive one when the "old model" hit somewhere in her 40's or 50's. He may not want to marry the young one unless he wants more children, but could probably serially date a string of young, attractive women, cutting them loose when they started to get the baby rabies so they could find someone to have kids with. The "old model" could move on to a new relationship with a serial monogamist who would overlook her age. Or she can move on to a life of friends, hobbies, and freedom from knowing she was second best after she hit 30 to 35.
So, I think it is natural to be faithful for a period of time and then move on to the next best thing for your age, current needs, and lifestyle. Serial monogamy.


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

Steve1000 said:


> All I know is that during the Proterozoic era, from about 2.3 billion years ago until around 575 million years ago, there was baby single-celled organism together with mommy single-celled organism and daddy single-celled organism.


History means events that are described in written events, typically the last 5,000 years or so. Anything beyond written history is prehistory.


----------



## Steve1000 (Nov 25, 2013)

marriageontherocks2 said:


> History means events that are described in written events, typically the last 5,000 years or so. Anything beyond written history is prehistory.


That's a good point to remember.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

I think there is some confusion about monogamy, which many here apparently mistake with mating for life. I do not think monogamy is natural. I think that there is more than enough evidence that monogamy is not the norm. I think the compromise many make is serial monogamy. While I applaud those who have only one partner their entire life, the reality is that most of us don't. Whether it is a series of relationships before we marry, a string of marriages or even just a series of relationships without marriage, it seems as though humans are somewhat hardwired to have a series of partners over their lifetime. I think this natural tendency is at the root of the seven year itch.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

For those making the argument that society dictates monogamy and therefore it is natural. I heartily disagree. While society may have dictated monogamy, it did so because it was a requirement for the continued existence of the species. That is no longer the case. We are no longer on the cusp of day to day elimination. Our technology has rendered that need irrelevant.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Herschel said:


> *I think you misspelled "fearing".*


*The Methodists that I run with indoctrinates it’s members to love God first, and to fear Him last!

Like John Wesley, I would like to think that that’s the way He greatly prefers things!*


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Betrayedone said:


> OMG! Finally, a voice of reason.........Lots of gaslighting and rationalizing going on in this thread. Man was never meant to be a monogamous creature. Polite society has rammed it down our gullet over the centuries. Don't buy into the hype!


Thanks for giving me tho opening to throw in my bag of fertilizer. Man was never meant to live much more than 4 decades. Medical science has been ramming this false dream of long life down our throats like some snake oil cure. Don't buy the drugs! just let it go. The older you get the more they will make off of you.

On a slightly more serious note. I'm not too hot on the serial monogamy theory either. I really don't see a lot of point in spreading my genes. What I am inspired , motivated, driven by instinct, to do is to protect children. Now that my children are adults, I no longer have that urge for them. But any kid in my town? you bet! Protecting my tribe, or my species future, by sheltering the immature members. I'm all about that.


----------



## leon2100 (May 13, 2015)

Joseph Smith the founder of Mormonism is my 6th cousin 4times removed. there is the claim that he had at least 40 wives including a 14 year old and wives of other followers. 

I get a headache when I think about having more than one... but 40!! That's a man's man!!


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

chillymorn69 said:


> Time will tell if same sex parents are good,better or worse.
> 
> Hasn't been happening too long with enought frequency to tell yet.


The article cited was done by researchers at The Royal Melbourne Childrens Hospital as a review of many studies done over 30 years. Three decades is a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

SunCMars said:


> Aw, come on, Dear Mrs. H....:|
> 
> She means well. Don't twist her words.
> That is my job!:grin2:
> ...


In that case I hearby challenge you to an arm wrestle.

If you win I will lay off Lady Di. In fact I will put her on ignore so my eyes don't have to be subjected to her bigoted drivel no more.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

MrsHolland said:


> In that case I hearby challenge you to an arm wrestle.
> 
> If you win I will lay off Lady Di. In fact I will put her on ignore so my eyes don't have to be subjected to her bigoted drivel no more.


If a women:

If a women beats me.
To a pulp. 

Beats me at target practice.
Beats me at boxing.
Beats me at arm wrestling.

The Martian will commit suicide.
He will kill his half of our brain.

And I will forever limp, limp askew.

One side of my face a-smile.
The other half a corpse drinking raw bile.
...............................................................................

I know what you are thinking...The wobbly, teary, thin Typist is at home.
SunCMars is abroad, fighting his war.
The Martian has abandoned SunC..... in turn, the world has abandoned him, Ulysses, whilst he do roam.

You a mere, a haughty mortal lady can easily overpower that Key Stroker, slams his slim forearm..... down. 
Shame him before his peers.

But, if anyone, anyone touches the Typist, you have my word.
The underworld, many masses of sympatico lesser gods, and the Martian will return, will wreak havoc.
The Typist belongs to me, SunCMars, there will be war at your homestead, there will be discord.

If you think a fluffy, dusty Ghost is a pansy, wait till he enters every corner, every crevice every opening of your mortal body.
And does so all at once.

In Ireland, SunCMars took piles of cash from hardened criminals, drove them insane.
When someone says a person gets under their skin.....this is what SCM literally dives under.
And then he rolls, and he twists.

And the ghostly old man can still swing a mean club.

Please choose another less painful end. One not delivered by me.

SunCMars......
-this message beamed from Africa.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

SunCMars said:


> If a women:
> 
> If a women beats me.
> To a pulp.
> ...


as my kids would say "I've just been owned".

I will send you a dozen Guinness.


----------



## WildMustang (Nov 7, 2017)

SunCMars said:


> If a women:
> 
> If a women beats me.
> To a pulp.
> ...



OMG...is it just me? Or do these posts by SunCMars crack you up, too?

Dude...you are a BLAST!!!:grin2:


----------



## chillymorn69 (Jun 27, 2016)

Nature wants diversity in the gene pool. A diverse gene pool wards of disease and helps with genitic problems and makes the over all gene pool stronger. For people to survive disease. Birth defects etc etc.

Monogamy dose not help make the gene pool stronger.

But it was very useful in times when it took two to make it in nature to survive the winters and dangers that no longer exists in todays society

I wonder if we are headed to sodom and gomorrh.
Hail Brimstone and fire

Exodus 

Just seem like morals are declining rapidly.


----------



## WildMustang (Nov 7, 2017)

MrsHolland said:


> as my kids would say "I've just been owned".
> 
> I will send you a dozen Guinness.



It's ok, MrsHolland...we are no match for this Martian and his linquistic skill...few are...


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MrsHolland said:


> The article cited was done by researchers at The Royal Melbourne Childrens Hospital as a review of many studies done over 30 years. Three decades is a reasonable amount of time.


I disagree. Most of those studies were done under the societal expectations of one man and woman. The reality is that as society evolves away from the nuclear family as a requirement for the continuance of our species I think you will see more accommodations made for same sex or single parenting. Those accommodations will have a huge effect on the outcomes of those arrangements (hopefully for the better since I am convinced that is where we are heading.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Ynot said:


> I disagree. Most of those studies were done under the societal expectations of one man and woman. The reality is that as society evolves away from the nuclear family as a requirement for the continuance of our species I think you will see more accommodations made for same sex or single parenting. Those accommodations will have a huge effect on the outcomes of those arrangements (hopefully for the better since I am convinced that is where we are heading.


Not sure if the link worked but the review was of 3 decades of research done on children raised in families where the parents are same sex, not man/woman. 



> *Children raised by same-sex parents do as well as their peers, study shows
> Comprehensive review in Medical Journal of Australia concludes main threat to same-sex parented children is discrimination*
> ....
> 
> ...


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows


----------



## introvert (May 30, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> We are made to find the opposite sex attractive, but to also bond and join with one partner.


Lots of us do not find the opposite sex attractive...or at least, not nearly as attractive as the same sex. From my earliest little girl days, I found women to be completely interesting.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

introvert said:


> Lots of us do not find the opposite sex attractive...or at least, not nearly as attractive as the same sex. From my earliest little girl days, I found women to be completely interesting.


I buy that, we agree.
We agree that women are the more attractive gender.

With that in mind, and being monogamist, I cannot, justly can't.

Go on a Gender Bender. Seeking out women polymore at a time.

We agree, those curves are bent smoothly, by an artist of great skill.
As a humble sculptor. All I can do to duplicate those contours, is to run my hands along them, tracing their lineage to clay, to Queens.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

@MrsHolland


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=56338&thumb=1

In most marriages women own the men. Especially monogamous ones.

Alas, some men have no hand holds, loops to grasp. Slippery devils.
These are the Swedish poly-Anders.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

MrsHolland said:


> Not sure if the link worked but the review was of 3 decades of research done on children raised in families where the parents are same sex, not man/woman.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows


Apologies. I thought you were making the case that man/woman is the best option. I agree that many same sex couples are the victims of discrimination and bias. As they become more accepted by society, I think we will see many more studies that confirm that what a child really needs is a loving environment, not necessarily a "mom" and a "dad".


----------



## Handy (Jul 23, 2017)

Is Monogamy natural?

I say no but many of the alternatives create problems that are very difficult to manage so people stay together to honor promises and conform to social standards.


----------



## DaveinOC (Oct 15, 2017)

I amJack said:


> I?m curious what everyone thinks about this. I?ve read several articles where researchers state implicitly that humans were not meant to be monogamous and that polygamy/polyandry is a more natural state for us.
> 
> Please share your gender and your thoughts on this.


To me, when researchers present such ideas, they may be correct in biological standpoint but disregard human decorum, value, intellect and social norm. Animals have primal instinct to procreate as much as possible with different mates but most of our actions are in direct conflict of our biological interest. Similarly, animals take over territory and other necessities through physical coercion, often time killing other creatures to fulfill their self interest. I think it's also natural that we all possess this quality to a degree. Human actions are dictated by whether we CAN or CANNOT do something but more on whether we SHOULD or SHOULDNT. In this sense, relying on biology to determine one's action is not justifiable.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't know what "natural" means. Humans have evolved in the presence of society for a long time. Long enough to substantially effect our behavior. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox

So I don't think it makes sense to talk about human behavior in the absence of society. 

For me personally, I think monogamy is more natural that the alternative, but I think (not sure) I could live with multiple partners. Don't plan to try to find out.


----------



## WilliamM (Mar 14, 2017)

Most mammals live in packs, prides, herds, families which have a dominant male which mates with multiple females. Throughout history a similar model has been followed in many human cultures. The people in those cultures might say that is what is natural.

I love my wife and would move heaven and earth to find her if we get separated for some reason. Sex with other women has been fun, but I would never bother trying to find them again. Mary is forever.

And then there is the fact Mary is bisexual, and she says she wouldn't mind if I had another wife, wink wink, nudge nudge. After all, I am the alpha wolf and I deserve whatever I want.

What is natural is that without Mary I don't think I could go on living. Does that make me monogamous?


----------

