# Is Monogamy "Natural"....?



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

I was skimming through a Wiki biography of Ethan Hawke, and it mentioned his views on monogamy --
_"People have such a childish view of monogamy and fidelity. 'He's cheated so he's bad, she's cheated so she's bad', as opposed to a recognition that our species is not monogamous... Sexual fidelity can't be the whole thing you hang your relationship on. If you really love somebody you want them to grow, but you don't get to define how that happens. They do."_

Of course, he lost his marriage to UMA THURMAN for CHEATING, so his thoughts aren't really a surprise, but I have heard this before in other articles and from other people (and my own father, when I was younger), with some anthropologists/biologists/psychologists, etc etc, saying that monogamy isn't normal or natural for humans, it's a cultural thing, blah blah....and I started wondering what the members of TAM thought about it....:smile2:

I'm sure this question has been debated on here at some point, but I couldn't find any specific thread about it recently, and I'm really interested in what everyone's thoughts are about this idea -- I know MY personal thoughts on it (I don't believe their rationals at all, I believe our "species" IS monogamous) (in fact, I don't even believe the idea that we can make this into a "species"-thing), but what about you guys....?? 

What do YOU think when you read his viewpoint?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

I don't really think or worry about whether or not it is "natural." I just look at whether or not it works. For my wife and I, it works. Even before marriage, when I was just dating, I did not multi-date. I was always a one-woman man. I can't claim that was entirely "natural" since I might see another woman I thought attractive and I could certainly understand the drive to be with more than one woman, but I also knew that wasn't for me. 

The glory of being a human being rather than an animal is that we have the power of rational thought rather than just being a slave to our mindless instincts. So while our monkey mind might tell us to go nail everything in sight, your rational brain can help us decide whether or not that's what we really should do. 

As for the statement in the quote, I find that completely off base. Cheating isn't just a matter of being nonmonogamous, but rather the violation of a promise or commitment made to someone you supposedly care for. So yes, cheating _*is*_ bad, and thinking or saying so _*is not*_ childish or immature. What's childish... nay, worst than childish but rather sub human, is denying the human capacity for rational thought and the ability to control ones actions.


----------



## ReturntoZero (Aug 31, 2015)

"Selfishness" is the most natural state of humanity.

Babies are the most selfish creatures on earth. They have to be to survive.

Why does anyone think that "natural" is good?

The younger someone gets stuck in their development, the worse they turn out as adults.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

returntozero said:


> "selfishness" is the most natural state of humanity.
> 
> Babies are the most selfish creatures on earth. They have to be to survive.
> 
> ...


thank you!


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Monogamy is unnatural.

Women are attracted to nice guys when infertile. They like bad boys while ovulating. The most reproductively successful human women were cheaters who had a nice guy “husband” to raise her children while having some children by genetically superior men.

When there are more females than males, the males abandon the females. When there are more males, monogamy becomes the norm.

But I agree that “natural” isn’t necessarily better. That’s true of food, medicine, wearing sunscreen, getting vaccinated, and just about everything.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Like most things having to do with humans there is a yin and a yang.

There are a lot of things that are 'natural' for humans. For example to attempt to live in peaceful co-existence is natural for a group of people, but war is also natural. Murder is also 'natural'. Theft is 'natural'. Rape is 'natural'. You don't think so? Watch videos of apes and monkeys. They all do these things. I watched a pretty disturbing video of some type of monkey a couple of days ago of an adult male monkey fighting to steal a baby from it's mother to rape the baby. Every time the male was able to try to rape the baby, the baby would scream in pain. But that male kept attacking.

It does not matter what is 'natural'. As humans we need to strive to do what helps us avoid actions that help us all live together and not harm/destroy each other and the environment.

In all of human history, no civilization has survived that allows for promiscuity as the norm. Why? Because tight family structure is the basis of civilization.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Speaking for myself, monogamy is very much my nature and Mrs. C's as well.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

> "People have such a childish view of monogamy and fidelity. 'He's cheated so he's bad, she's cheated so she's bad', as opposed to a recognition that our species is not monogamous...


Typical cheater-speak. Those two propositions he states are not "as opposed" to each other at all. What's bad about cheating is not that it's unnatural, but that it's a violation of a promise he made. 

Almost everything we do is not "natural", including his field of work.


----------



## Inside_Looking_Out (Apr 8, 2012)

Take a look at the number of posts in the 'Coping With Infidelity' forum vs. the posts in the 'Long Term Success in Marriage' forum. Should tell you what you need to know about how it stacks up on here.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Inside_Looking_Out said:


> Take a look at the number of posts in the 'Coping With Infidelity' forum vs. the posts in the 'Long Term Success in Marriage' forum. Should tell you what you need to know about how it stacks up on here.


TAM is a self-selected group of people. Basically people who are in a successful marriage are way too busy being happy to search the internet for support for problems that they do not have.

If you wanted into a TB hospital and used the large population of TB patients, would you extrapolate that to mean that everyone in the world has TB?


----------



## Lostinthought61 (Nov 5, 2013)

Monogamy evolved when our ancestors moved from hunter gathers to farming when property evolved, the need to pass on the property from one generation to another...the need of thinking that one had the need of establishing a monogamists relationship in order to secure the lineage of father to son...at least that is one theory.


----------



## Inside_Looking_Out (Apr 8, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> TAM is a self-selected group of people. Basically people who are in a successful marriage are way too busy being happy to search the internet for support for problems that they do not have.
> 
> If you wanted into a TB hospital and used the large population of TB patients, would you extrapolate that to mean that everyone in the world has TB?


Oh, I certainly realize that...that was why I was saying that is how it stacks up on here, since the OP was wanted to know about how TAM felt about infidelity.

That is just human nature...we always pay more attention to the negative things and gloss over when things are going well.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I don't really think or worry about whether or not it is "natural." I just look at whether or not it works. For my wife and I, it works. Even before marriage, when I was just dating, I did not multi-date. I was always a one-woman man. I can't claim that was entirely "natural" since I might see another woman I thought attractive and I could certainly understand the drive to be with more than one woman, but I also knew that wasn't for me.


It works for us as well. It worked for my parents and my husband's parents. It is the only option for us. What other humans choose to do is up to them but for us that is the path we have chosen to follow.

The people who cheat do so because they want to cheat. My sister's husband cheated and got caught. When he explains the whole episode now you feel sorry for the both of them. There is no winner in any infidelity. He lost both his boys who do not want to speak to him under any circumstances. My sister has tried to get the boys to acknowledge their dad but they flatly refuse. The girl he cheated with sued 4 other men for maintenance of the baby, which means she was having sex with at least five men at around the same time. 

Men can be absolute dogs at times.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

MaiChi said:


> It works for us as well. It worked for my parents and my husband's parents. It is the only option for us. What other humans choose to do is up to them but for us that is the path we have chosen to follow.
> 
> The people who cheat do so because they want to cheat. My sister's husband cheated and got caught. When he explains the whole episode now you feel sorry for the both of them. There is no winner in any infidelity. He lost both his boys who do not want to speak to him under any circumstances. My sister has tried to get the boys to acknowledge their dad but they flatly refuse. The girl he cheated with sued 4 other men for maintenance of the baby, which means she was having sex with at least five men at around the same time.
> 
> Men can be absolute dogs at times.


Hmmmm...

Look at your second to last sentence.... given that, why single out men in your last sentence? Neither sex has a monopoly on either virtue or vice.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> Look at your second to last sentence.... given that, why single out men in your last sentence? Neither sex has a monopoly on either virtue or vice.


Correct but I am looking at it from my sister's position and seeing her ex as a part time dog after what he did with the full time dog.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Some people have open relationships. So there is not monogmay but also no cheating.

Most people who want variety want for themselves and not for their (main) partner.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

MaiChi said:


> It works for us as well. It worked for my parents and my husband's parents. It is the only option for us. What other humans choose to do is up to them but for us that is the path we have chosen to follow.
> 
> The people who cheat do so because they want to cheat. My sister's husband cheated and got caught. When he explains the whole episode now you feel sorry for the both of them. There is no winner in any infidelity. He lost both his boys who do not want to speak to him under any circumstances. My sister has tried to get the boys to acknowledge their dad but they flatly refuse. The girl he cheated with sued 4 other men for maintenance of the baby, which means *she was having sex with at least five men at around the same time.
> *
> Men can be absolute dogs at times.


I get that, {men can be dogs} statement. What about the woman you cited as having five lovers?
Both sexes can be lascivious.

Historically, men have exhibited this cheating behavior more than women. It fluctuates relative to each World Age period and the changing cultures. Back in the middle ages, women with higher social standing may have cheated more than a peasant girl, though peasant girls were raped and abused more.

In our present society, women cheaters are closing the infidelity gap with respect to cheating men. Nobody knows the true percentages.
People tend to deny, to deceive or to exaggerate if they have done so.


In the U.S.

It might be safe to say that 15 to 25% of women will cheat at least once in their life. 18% is often quoted.
With men it could be said that 25 to 35% of men will cheat at least once. 33% is often quoted.

In Europe {both West and East}} those numbers are said to be much higher.

https://www.indy100.com/article/mos...ffairs-cheat-unfaithful-french-survey-7424631

https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fo1117_adulteryweb12001.jpg?quality=60&strip=all


----------



## StarFires (Feb 27, 2018)

Cheating has always been a part of societal norms. Any time there is a significant percentage of people who do a certain thing, then it's a common thing to do, and being common makes it normal even though not every single person does it.

People do what comes naturally to them or they wouldn't do it. Out of all the things that come naturally, some are not and don't have to be regulated, such as breathing, eating, seeking out companionship, etc. because those are basic needs and needs are natural. Some are regulated, such as a person, for whatever reason moral or religious, vow to themselves to never do this or that. When a person who has such values acts against those values, they're still acting to fulfill a need (even if the needs is motivated by compulsion) or a combination of needs. And again, needs are natural although not everyone shares the same compulsions.

Therefore, given the statistics on how many have admitted to cheating in fairly recent studies (although study samples are limited) and the fact that it's been done throughout history, that makes cheating a normal and natural thing to do. To answer your question, monogamy is not natural. That doesn't mean it has to be acceptable to all.


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

It doesn't matter what anyone else does or says about monogamy. It's a choice you may make, or you can decide not to. If you exchange wedding vows, you're making a commitment in those vows to be monogamous. A choice to be monogamous. 

Secretly cheating simply should not happen, ever, in a marriage. Easy, of course, for me to say. But if one partner decides that he or she can no longer honor their vows and is going to find "happiness" by cheating with someone, it should be told up front. Obviously the real world doesn't work like this, because we pretend we weren't planning to cheat, things just happened. We can rationalize just about anything. We have to. But I think it entirely reasonable to take steps to end a marriage prior to cheating if the wedding vows are going to be tossed out. That's just me. No personal experience in this regard, although almost a year ago I was beginning to give serious thought to moving on, thinking about what D would mean.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't think "natural" matters. Its "natural" to take a dump when your bowels are full, but that doesn't mean that defecating in public is acceptable behavior. 

I don't find anything special about monogamy itself but I do put a high value on upholding promises / oaths, so if you agreed to be monogamous, you should be.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Is using utensils when we eat natural? Cooking food? Deodorant? Toilet paper? I could go on and one. Is it natural? Who cares.

Which always leads to my next point, which I would bring up to Mr Hawk. If you want to be poly or have an open marriage go for it, it's your life, the problem is, it seems like a vast majority of the people who want to be poly/open want the right to lie about it and pretend like they intend to be monogamous, therefore not shrinking the pool of potential mates. I suspect if Mr Hawk had told Ms Thurmond that he intended to have an open marriage she wouldn't have married him. It seems they only become honest about their poly/open intentions after their spouse has invested huge amounts of time and resources into them. Or worse after they are caught lying and cheating, therefore making them *******s.

Ethan Hawk sounds like a jackass.


----------



## Violet28 (Oct 4, 2018)

I read that interview a long time ago and thought it was bull****. He's trying to excuse his cheating by pretending he is so sophisticated and evolved that monogamy is beneath him. Since when is doing what we want when we have the impulse a sign of emotional and mental growth? He's trying to insinuate an 'animal element' in the human while stating he's advanced beyond things like loyalty and faithfulness. Humans are a higher order species, we have the ability to choose our actions and be loyal to an ideal or a promise. We are capable of self-control and if you make the promise to be only with one person, that is a choice you made. Nothing to do with 'natural' or 'unnatural'. What a pig.


----------



## CatholicDad (Oct 30, 2017)

I guess the children should also just get bounced around from mansion to mansion and I'm sure they'll turn out just fine.


----------



## CatholicDad (Oct 30, 2017)

People justify evil behavior all the time by believing themselves enlightened... they know "better".

Truth to people like this is whatever they want it to be.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

Monogamy might not be natural for human the animal, but when it comes to property rights and investment of life hours and effort then the civilised human is best with monogamy (even it it is limited serial monogamy)


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Here is a novel thought, maybe both at times can be natural, pleasure can be found in both for sure. This whole thing, in my mind at least, goes back to the big questions, what is the purpose of life for example. Today there seems to be no question that the purpose in life is to be happy, but I think that is a very shallow purpose. I personally don't think happiness is the default setting for a human being or something even to be your main goal. Mostly because I don't think the kind of shallow happiness is easy to obtain and when you do it's short lived. 

I think contentment and a kind of long term happiness makes more sense, but that usually doesn't come with a lot of the kind of quick and euphoric highs that you get with the initial mating process. This being what cheaters mistake for love most of the time. Lust is not love even though our media tells us it is. Desperately needing to be with someone because it gives you a euphoric rush is not love. That is the easiest thing in the world for anyone to do. Love is picking up soup for your sick spouse after a long day of work on a snowy Monday when all you want to do is go home and detach. Make no mistake lust is fun for sure but it ain't love. 

It comes down to your priorities, most people are not capable of doing the Open thing or the Poly thing nor do they want that. If they are honest they want to have their cake and eat it too. But it's true to say monogamy comes with a cost, and that cost is you really only get an to have that euphoric high of a new relationship in the early part of you match. Then you give it up for other kinds of highs that come form long term goals and achievements. Not unlike how saving works with finance, and considering how most people live their lives in dept is it any wonder that the divorce rate is 50%. 

It reminds me of the ("Women get bored with long term sexual partners") blogs posts that are linked on here and other places from time to time. I mean my feelings about that are almost always "duh". Why is this shocking? Men get bored too it's just that we have always be pretty open about that, but most of the time we all laugh at the idea that because of that marriage should go away. We call those men dogs and other names. We basically think of them as immature. What's the difference? There are lots of things in life that can be boring from time to time. But you do what adults do you change it up, you work on it, or you are bored. 

Posts and articles like this never really get to the point of the problem, they always mistake the problem about the feeling (I know, shocking in the "do what makes you feel good" society we live in.) The problem isn't the feelings it's how you act on those feelings. It's the same thing we teach kids, it's understandable to have the feelings but if you lie and cheat then you are wrong. You need to address these feelings in a healthy way, in a way that doesn't hurt others. I mean we pretty much all get this with stealing and violence, but somehow not when it comes to relationships, or not everyone gets this. I think a lot of people don't want to. 

Marriage and monogamy isn't a panacea for happiness. It's not happily ever after, it's work, it's boring at times. Many times sacrificing short term "fun" or personal "fun" for long term goals, and if you can't see the benefit in that then maybe you shouldn't be married.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

sokillme said:


> Ethan Hawk sounds like a jackass.


Who couldn't bull**** Uma into staying with his pathetic ass!>

I think Uma is a little odd looking but I find her attractive on many levels. Boggles my mind what people take for granted and throw away.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

I mean you can argue anything... violence is natural, murder is natural, rape is natural, hate is natural... 

We are all evolved and can make decisions that surpass our basic instincts.


----------



## Betrayedone (Jan 1, 2014)

The answer to your question is...............magic 8 ball says..............NO!


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Monogamy is natural for some people, unnatural for others.

In a sense, monogamy is natural... but so is cheating, polygamy, polyamory, celibacy, etc. Every person is different.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> Who couldn't bull**** Uma into staying with his pathetic ass!>
> 
> I think Uma is a little odd looking but I find her attractive on many levels. Boggles my mind what people take for granted and throw away.


She IS odd looking in a spectacular and beautiful way. IMO.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

sokillme said:


> She IS odd looking in a spectacular and beautiful way. IMO.


I see eye to eye with you on this one even though I would have to look up to meet Uma's as she is taller than me barefoot, not to mention if she is wearing heals...:wink2:


----------



## Visexual (Nov 8, 2008)

Monogamy is for the birds. No, wait, birds aren't monogamous. For example, eagles do mate for life but DNA has proven they're not monogamous.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

I have a dog that is a breed where being overweight is dangerous. I have noticed that as long as I keep feeding her, she will continue to eat. There are many things, like self control and maturity, that are not natural for us. Resisting the urge to punch jerks in the face may not be natural for us. Resisting the urge to mow down the guy in the left lane who is going way under the speed limit may not be natural for us. For some people, sadly, keeping the marriage vows there they made may not be natural for them. But if they have character, they will find the self control to do so. I don't think the question about monogamy need to be whether or not it is natural in nature… I think the question needs to be, am I an animal or do I have the self awareness and character to be faithful to my spouse whether birds and frogs do it or not?


----------



## snerg (Apr 10, 2013)

MaiChi said:


> The girl he cheated with sued 4 other men for maintenance of the baby, *which means she was having sex with at least five men at around the same time*.
> 
> Men can be absolute dogs at times.


Wait a minute.

Men can be absolute dogs?

What about the woman in your story here where you state she was having sex with at least 5 men?

What do you call her?

Ninja edit, I see your follow up post about the point of view.
I think you're a bit kind in your description.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

We seem to live in a time when many people are in complete denial about the nature of men and women. The more we've latched onto equality, the more mixed up and convoluted things have become.

Saying that men are dogs is a way to abdicate responsiblity. Not in every situation, but most definitely in modern, American relationships.

It's the expectation that men _should_ be something other than who they are.

I was part of a group on facebook that was all female, but with many young women - I'd say about half my age. 

One woman posted that she was concerned that a new dating app was going to have many naive women taken advantage of.

I posted that it was simple. If you don't want to be taken advantage of, don't have sex with strangers.

She told me I was victim blaming. I said, no, it's called personal responsibility.

Then she went on some irrelevant tangent about people being abused. 

She was quite capable of arguing with me. Capable of cussing at me and digging her heels in and demanding that she be automatically seen as a victim.

But yet she's incapable of saying no to sex? I don't think so. To me it was all nonsense. 

It's very disheartening that blame is more and more prevelant. 

Two of the big political issues at the moment are student debt and universal income. More wiping away personal responsibility. 




snerg said:


> Wait a minute.
> 
> Men can be absolute dogs?
> 
> ...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

minimalME said:


> We seem to live in a time when many people are in complete denial about the nature of men and women. The more we've latched onto equality, the more mixed up and convoluted things have become.
> 
> Saying that men are dogs is a way to abdicate responsiblity. Not in every situation, but most definitely in modern, American relationships.
> 
> ...



Amen, and amen!


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

personofinterest said:


> Amen, and amen!


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Visexual said:


> Monogamy is for the birds. No, wait, birds aren't monogamous. For example, eagles do mate for life but DNA has proven they're not monogamous.


Same thing with swans. The females act monogamous but the DNA shows they are sneaky.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

To quote the great philosopher Butthead -

“Taking a dump is natural. But we have to learn to take a dump in the toilet”
- Butthead


A lot of things are natural. Taking a wiz or a dump is a normal and natural daily function but for public health and sanitary reasons it’s important to manage waste in designated facilities or public health will be placed at risk.

It’s natural to kill those that trespass against us. 

It’s natural to eat other animal’s babies.

There’s a lot of things that are natural but not conducive to the collect good of the hive.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

oldshirt said:


> To quote the great philosopher Butthead -
> 
> “Taking a dump is natural. But we have to learn to take a dump in the toilet”
> - Butthead
> ...


 Exactly. It isn't rocket science. Let's be honest, most people who talk about monogamy not being natural are either people who have cheated or people who want a little strange. There are exceptions of course. The poster who used to be here who practiced non monogamy was one of those few people who didn't do it in a defensive manner. But most people who rail against monogamy on the Internet are either trying to ease their conscience or appear hip and cool lol


----------



## snerg (Apr 10, 2013)

minimalME said:


> Two of the big political issues at the moment are *student debt* and universal income. *More wiping away personal responsibility*.


I agree to a degree with student debt.

However, a great majority of young people are fed the line of "get an education at any cost, because it is the key to your future."

So they are saddled with 10s of $1,000 debt.
A responsibility they weren't ready to take, yet society, friends, family, etc, has forced the belief that they must undertake this in order to succeed later in life.

Also, what is 20, 30, 40, 50 1,000 dollars of debt to an 18 - 22 year old?
It's a number that really doesn't make sense till they are overburdened with the bill, don't have a job in the degree they achieved, and are attempting to figure out how to pay off loans that will require at least 6 digits (yeah , try to get a job like that right out of college).

So I won't be too harsh in my judgement.
I agree it's their mess. It's their responsibility.
But a whole lot pf paradigms need to be changed so as to correct the student loan issues.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> Same thing with swans. The females act monogamous but the DNA shows they are sneaky.


It is possible for a woman to get pregnant (naturally) and give birth to another female's child. This happens when a twin forms in the womb, one fails to fully develop, and living cells are absorbed into the other twins body. This twin grows up never realizing she had a twin sister and can give birth to her twin sister's child that is 100% different DNA from her own. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Monogamy for men is when you reach that period where you crave freshly made samwiches and clean underwear over random poon.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

*Is Monogamy &quot;Natural&quot;....?*

I think whether it’s natural or not is the wrong question, at least in terms of for modern marriages. It’s interesting in terms of evolutionary biology and anthropology, but in terms of present day? Who cares.

I mean, I woke up in my centrally air conditioned house this morning. Not natural. I told Alexa to shut up with the alarm already, and tell me the news. Not natural. I made myself a coffee with Peruvian beans, not natural. I drove myself to work, not natural. I spend my day making money by talking to people and sending emails, not natural.

None of that is natural. Why do relationship models need to fit with whatever we did as bipedal primates on the savannah a million years ago?

Cheating, to me, is an issue about abuse, and about the violation of the social contract. Abuse because of all the gaslighting, etc that comes commonly with cheating. The social contract is the glue that holds our society together.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Monogamy for men is when you reach that period where you crave freshly made samwiches and clean underwear over random poon.


My masculinity may be questioned, but I can make my own damn sandwich. especially if I want a good one.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

It is natural as in naturally occurring in some people, but it doesn't mean it's natural for everyone. From my experience some people need to be monogamous, others need to by poly. Still others can be happy either way (the relationship version of bisexual).

Cheating is still cheating. If you are keeping secrets from the people you are in relationships with from each other, then it's cheating. If all are aware, then it's ethical non-monogamy


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Casual Observer said:


> If you exchange wedding vows, you're making a commitment in those vows to be monogamous. A choice to be monogamous.


This only applies if your marriage vows contain such a condition. Mine didn't, and we did so on purpose.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I don't really think or worry about whether or not it is "natural." I just look at whether or not it works. For my wife and I, it works. Even before marriage, when I was just dating, I did not multi-date. I was always a one-woman man. I can't claim that was entirely "natural" since I might see another woman I thought attractive and I could certainly understand the drive to be with more than one woman, but I also knew that wasn't for me.
> 
> The glory of being a human being rather than an animal is that we have the power of rational thought rather than just being a slave to our mindless instincts. So while our monkey mind might tell us to go nail everything in sight, your rational brain can help us decide whether or not that's what we really should do.
> 
> As for the statement in the quote, I find that completely off base. Cheating isn't just a matter of being nonmonogamous, but rather the violation of a promise or commitment made to someone you supposedly care for. So yes, cheating _*is*_ bad, and thinking or saying so _*is not*_ childish or immature. What's childish... nay, worst than childish but rather sub human, is denying the human capacity for rational thought and the ability to control ones actions.


Great post and I agree completely.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> It is natural as in naturally occurring in some people, but it doesn't mean it's natural for everyone. From my experience some people need to be monogamous, others need to by poly. Still others can be happy either way (the relationship version of bisexual).
> 
> Cheating is still cheating. If you are keeping secrets from the people you are in relationships with from each other, then it's cheating. If all are aware, then it's ethical non-monogamy


Its still adultery. I honestly don't see the point of being married if you are going to commit adultery.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

personofinterest said:


> Exactly. It isn't rocket science. Let's be honest, most people who talk about monogamy not being natural are either people who have cheated or people who want a little strange. There are exceptions of course. The poster who used to be here who practiced non monogamy was one of those few people who didn't do it in a defensive manner. But most people who rail against monogamy on the Internet are either trying to ease their conscience or appear hip and cool lol


Looks like I might be his replacement. 😉

Most people who are practicing ethical non-monogamy will readily point out the difference between that and cheating. And very few of us actually bash monogamy. But I agree with you that there are a good number who try to use poly/open as an excuse for their cheating.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

CraigBesuden said:


> Monogamy is natural for some people, unnatural for others.
> 
> In a sense, monogamy is natural... but so is cheating, polygamy, polyamory, celibacy, etc. Every person is different.


Everyone has self control if they choose to exercise it.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Its still adultery. I honestly don't see the point of being married if you are going to commit adultery.





> a·dul·ter·y
> /əˈdəlt(ə)rē/
> noun
> voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.


If they wait to have sex until after they are married to the others, then no it's not adultery. That said, not everyone places the same religious value upon adultery as you and others seem to. There are other religious choices, including atheism, in which adultery and sex outside of marriage is not sinful, which is the implication your post gives as to the issue.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> My masculinity may be questioned, but I can make my own damn sandwich. especially if I want a good one.


My culinary skills dwarf Mrs. Conan's. I salute your manly sandwich skills sir!


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> Looks like I might be his replacement. 😉
> 
> Most people who are practicing ethical non-monogamy will readily point out the difference between that and cheating. And very few of us actually bash monogamy. But I agree with you that there are a good number who try to use poly/open as an excuse for their cheating.


In your case, and with others who agree with this thinking, that poly is good, or, at minimum, is OK, marriage should not be entered into, since you will be entering other women.

Why? 
Remember the required vows. Unless, some special vows are spoken. (I doubt this.)

Better answers: 

a) Live in a commune with like minded people, all unmarried.
b) Remain housemates, unmarried, openly uncommitted.
c) remain FWB's, living separate lives.

This (somewhat) takes the moral obligation out of the arrangement, but not the jealousy that naturally will arise. And remember, relationships are not static, they are dynamic, people tend to mature and feel differently about life, later on.

Two people may mate, one may develop feelings for the other and then may NOT want to share. A natural thing.

I certainly agree, people are different, on many levels, but are the same on many others.
Jealousy is ever present. Honesty from others is a universal want.

Do what you want in life. If you want to step outside 'the norm', suffer the consequences!
And you will, I suspect! :grin2:


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

SunCMars said:


> In your case, and with others who agree with this thinking, that poly is good, or, at minimum, is OK, marriage should not be entered into, since you will be entering other women.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





SunCMars said:


> In your case, and with others who agree with this thinking, that poly is good, or, at minimum, is OK, marriage should not be entered into, since you will be entering other women.


Is this supposed to be a euphemism for sex? Also why are you assuming that my other spouses or outside relationships would be women? 





> Why?
> 
> Remember the required vows. Unless, some special vows are spoken. (I doubt this.)


Exactly what vows are "required"? Are you talking about "traditional" Christian vows? Again you make an assumption, about my religious beliefs this time. Even so, many Christians are no longer using the "traditional" vows.





> Better answers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Setting aside the subjective nature of "better", why are these preferable to marriage?





> This (somewhat) takes the moral obligation out of the arrangement, but not the jealousy that naturally will arise.


Jealousy occurs naturally in monogamous as well as polyamourous relationships, do you aren't exactly making a case for one above the other here. Numerous are the relationships where the husband or wife is jealous of the platonic relationships their spouse has with people of their own sex/gender. 



> And remember, relationships are not static, they are dynamic, people tend to mature and feel differently about life, later on.


Again, nothing here that is different between a monogamous and a polyamourous relationship, so what exactly is your point?





> Two people may mate, one may develop feelings for the other and then may NOT want to share. A natural thing.


Indeed it is in some people. With other, they are fine, even willing to share.





> I certainly agree, people are different, on many levels, but are the same on many others.
> 
> Jealousy is ever present. Honesty from others is a universal want.


Why does this read as if jealousy and honesty are mutually exclusive? There also seems to be an implication that there cannot be honesty in a polyamourous relationship. If either of these is true, how did you come to such a conclusion?





> Do what you want in life. If you want to step outside 'the norm', suffer the consequences!
> 
> And you will, I suspect! :grin2:


Consequences can be positive as well as negative. I have achieved both types when I was practicing monogamy, and I have also experienced both in poly/open. Once again, you've noted something common to both. :grin2:

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

I think that looking at adultery through the definition above (to have sex with someone other than one's spouse) is short sighted. In my/our marriage, we instead use the root of 'adultery':

Adulterate: To render (something) poorer in quality by adding another substance, typically an inferior one.

This definition works much better for us. Adding a 3rd person sexually would dilute our emotional and sexual relationship together, weakening it and making it vulnerable when things aren't going as well as we'd like. We value what we have together, and treat it like anything else of value - by protecting it, and not doing things that make it less valuable to us.

By this definition, adultery doesn't require marriage at all. It is an action that weakens the relationship between two people. It doesn't even require another sexual partner. It's anything that is added to a relationship that weakens it.

It works for us, anyway. Obviously other people will hang their hat on whatever definition works for them and rationalizes their choices.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

pplwatching said:


> Adulterate: To render (something) poorer in quality by adding another substance, typically an inferior one.


I can see this, and with all that you added after, it makes lots of sense. But I'd also keep in mind that better or poorer will be subjective. And as example let me ask this: is the love and care you have and provide for any children you have diluted by having more children?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

With some, this...polyandry.

There is no answer, no solution, only a dissolution of a good life, of good living practices.
This be, a watering down of what is known to be solid thought.

Coming up with a counter talking point; it is only that:

A point dulled by stark reality, by countless finishes, those past lives seen to completion, having lived well and good.


Well and good, through monogamy.




[TH]- something SCM would so write.


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> Is the love and care you have and provide for any children you have diluted by having more children?


The love relationship that I have with my wife is fundamentally different than my relationship with my children. I'm not following how you're comparing fidelity in my marriage to my relationship with my kids, but I suppose that depends on how you define "love" and "care". 

I have the same hopes, wishes, and feelings for each of them but that doesn't seem to be a good way to define love (for my wife or my kids). Unfortunately, money, time, focus, and energy are finite quantities and children (and marriage) require a lot of each. The question is, how can I love each the same? Each new kid requires sacrifices from everyone already in the family. As parents, my wife and I signed up for this. We didn't give our kids a choice about having siblings, and they don't have a choice about how we divide our time, energy, or resources among them. Still, out of love we try to be fair and judicious about that division. Part of my love commitment as a spouse and parent was also not to have more kids than we could divide our resources between.

In the words of my father, "kids are selfish little bastards." When one is acting out, or going through a rough patch, my relationship with each of them is impacted. Also, my relationship with my wife was impacted by each addition to our family. The time and energy that we gave to our children undoubtedly impacted both our emotional and sexual intimacy, at one point landing us in marriage counseling. I would like to think that the strain on our marriage didn't affect the kids, but the reality is probably that it did.

So, to answer your question, each new child changes the love relationships in the family. Because we wanted children, adding them didn't dilute our relationship, other than the problems that eventually came with my wife being "touched out" by the kids. The only way to "re-balance" and still love them all equally (in my opinion) is to continue to treat them equally. Very young kids aside, I expect them each to make sacrifices - without asking them first. It's my job to teach them that sometimes they need to wait. It may not be fair to them, but that's the way families work (in my opinion). 

I would never consider having another child without asking my wife, much less asking her to accept less of my attention or otherwise "dilute" our relationship. I don't have the right to demand the same of her. My kids get to live with what we decide. We just try to treat them all equally, which I believe translates to loving them all equally.

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

SunCMars said:


> With some, this...polyandry.


Did you mean polyamory? Because polyandry means one wife multiple husbands.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

pplwatching said:


> The love relationship that I have with my wife is fundamentally different than my relationship with my children. I'm not following how you're comparing fidelity in my marriage to my relationship with my kids, but I suppose that depends on how you define "love" and "care".
> 
> ...., which I believe translates to loving them all equally.
> 
> I hope that answers your question.


Loving them is more the point. Naturally the more people you have in your life, friends, family, children, spouses, the more your resources are divided. Except love, at least in most people's case. Adding more children doesn't mean you love your other children less. Having more than one friend doesn't mean you have less love for the one. And the same goes for spouses. Plus, adding more friends and/or children doesn't reduce the love you have for your spouse.

With this in mind, your point of time and resources, while valid, isn't universal. Less time with my one wife doesn't make me feel less valued or loved by her, nor her by me when I spend time with my other wife, my husband or my friends. But indeed there are people out there who feel less valued when their SO spends time with just friends or even family.

My point is that such values are highly subjective and there is no wrong way. Just what is wrong for the ones involved.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> Adding more children doesn't mean you love your other children less.


It means that I love them differently because I have diluted myself, and changed the nature of our relationship. Perhaps they might thin that I love them less (especially given the amount of time & energy a newborn/toddler requires). There is a risk that they will resent that change, but they don't get a choice or say in the matter. With our kids we "hoped for the best" and it worked. With my wife, I choose to give her 100% of the time and energy that I have.

Edited: I screwed up this quote, and am fixing it.



> Re Friends...


I can only speak for myself, but it means that I love them differently. Usually, someone ends up getting the lions share of my time. I have had friends that resented that, who chose to walk away from our friendship.



> And the same goes for spouses. Plus, adding more friends and/or children doesn't reduce the love you have for your spouse.


It would dilute our relationship and change its nature. It means that I would have to love my wife differently, and as her to accept being loved differently. I'd also have to accept the risk that the new division of my time & attention wouldn't be acceptable to her. Some people may be willing to accept that risk and that's their choice. 



> My point is that such values are highly subjective and there is no wrong way. Just what is wrong for the ones involved.


I wasn't talking about values. I only said that in my opinion, the definition of adultery as diluting and changing the nature of a marriage makes more sense.

Edited to add: I believe that love is not a feeling. If it were, I can say that I don't feel any less and therefore my love is undiminished. However, for me, it is in the things that I do for my spouse and in the time that I spend with her. Sometimes she doesn't need my time, but would love to have it none the less if it's available. Increasing my circle of friends, and to a different extent having more kids, reduces the time that I have to spend with her either doing something with or for her. Kids in particular, and a lack of time spent working on our marriage, got us to where we needed marriage counselling to get back on track. 

That's just my opinion, and it has worked for me/us in our marriage. Your definition and approach appears to be working for you. For me, if love is in my actions and I take away time to actively love her, or direct it towards someone else romantically, then yes I am loving her less.


----------



## temet nostre (Oct 10, 2019)

I read that monogamy is natural because it is the most economical way of reproduction for humans, but it is possible only if we find enough good partner. I read this idea in the book "Sperm Wars - Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles" by Robin Baker. This is a really great book about this topic.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

temet nostre said:


> I read that monogamy is natural because it is the most economical way of reproduction for humans, but it is possible only if we find enough good partner. I read this idea in the book "Sperm Wars - Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles" by Robin Baker. This is a really great book about this topic.


The biological adaptations are fascinating. I remember reading a study that says genetically we fall somewhere between bonobos and chimps in terms of monogamy or something. 

But I’m always fascinated by those that push relationship ideas based on “what’s natural.” Because so little in our life is natural at all.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Also Natural != good. One could argue that the entire point of civilization is to get away from what is "natural". 

Nature is a great place to visit, but you don't want to live there. 




Marduk said:


> The biological adaptations are fascinating. I remember reading a study that says genetically we fall somewhere between bonobos and chimps in terms of monogamy or something.
> 
> But I’m always fascinated by those that push relationship ideas based on “what’s natural.” Because so little in our life is natural at all.


----------



## temet nostre (Oct 10, 2019)

Marduk said:


> The biological adaptations are fascinating. I remember reading a study that says genetically we fall somewhere between bonobos and chimps in terms of monogamy or something.


It is fascinating that all apes make love publicly and don't the idea of a father, in companies world no ape ask who is a father. It is probably the only thing that makes as different form chimpanzees. What do you think about this theory?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

temet nostre said:


> It is fascinating that all apes make love publicly and don't the idea of a father, in companies world no ape ask who is a father. It is probably the only thing that makes as different form chimpanzees. What do you think about this theory?


Sorry I’m not clear on the question.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> Did you mean polyamory? Because polyandry means one wife multiple husbands.


SunC knows of what he speaks (the rest of us probably not so much).


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

CharlieParker said:


> SunC knows of what he speaks (the rest of us probably not so much).


Given that I am in a polygamist marriage with a husband and two wives, I have a good grasp on the differences between polyamory, polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry. Polyandry did not seem to fit in the context of his post, and polyandry is a reasonable auto correct to polyamory.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

maquiscat said:


> Given that I am in a polygamist marriage with a husband and two wives, I have a good grasp on the differences between polyamory, polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry. Polyandry did not seem to fit in the context of his post, and polyandry is a reasonable auto correct to polyamory.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


You’re newish here, I was making fun of TAM’s resident poet poet, not many (some are in fact spot on) of his posts fit “the context”, or any context. We love him.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

CharlieParker said:


> You’re newish here, I was making fun of TAM’s resident poet poet, not many (some are in fact spot on) of his posts fit “the context”, or any context. We love him.


Ah. I see.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## moon7 (May 5, 2013)

I guess so. If it werent "natural" people would have 2 vaginas or 3 ****s or get pregnant from many man at the same time, or not have the capacity of falling in love with a person, but be constantly breaking the neck for whoever lile in extreme ADHD or sexual diseases wouldnt be a problem (if they are is a way of "nature" slowing such promiscuity).

Now, is monogamy easy? Or is it for the strong and courageous? Is monogamy as easy for everybody or have a dificulty scale? Do you see any non-monogamous culture thriving? Wich is culturaly stronger: a monogamous or not culture? Why is non-monogamy assoxiated with cultural failure? Why are the rates of happiness lower after the sexual revolution? Are non-monogamous couples happier or mentaly/finantialy/emotionaly stable then monogamous ones? Are families stronger in non-monogamic societies?

Sorry for my bad english. This rationalization is so bull****y i cant even. Its like a hamster.


----------



## moon7 (May 5, 2013)

OP, i didnt mean you bull****y, but the cheating guy rationalization.

Stronger people-societies are moraly stronger too (and forgiving). Not the suçerficial morality we know nowdays, though.


----------

