# Monogamous viewed as "unnatural"



## BarbedFenceRider (Mar 30, 2018)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...your-partner-doesnt-believe-adultery-is-wrong



I obviously have my own point of view and this article certainly made my lunch come back up....


1. None of the OP's statements showed the wife concerning HIM and his well being.

2. She only views her "out of marriage" flings as her need for gratification

3. The kid...

4. The dis qualifier that monogamy is "outdated".

And finally, that little part of "why get married" if your going to want the C*ck carousel ride daily? And did the wifey just "spring" this on OP one day.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

I really hate it when people like her decide marriage is a good idea. Yes, marriage is monogamy. If you don't like it, don't marry. Its really simple Luckily, she found herself a doormat husband who isn't too concerned about being a cuckhold. Maybe it will work for them long enough until the kid is out of diapers...


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

When you look at nature, some of gods creatures mate for life and others do not. 

You also get instances like the brown-headed cowbird. The male mates with a variety of females and sometimes flies with a variety of flocks for added female variety. The female cowbird will lay her eggs in the nests of other monogamous species of birds so she does not have to be bothered with raising her own brood. If these other birds do not accept the egg, the female cowbird will return (to check on her precious baby), retaliate, and destroy the nest along with all the eggs from the other birds. These other birds are then forced to build a new nest, and the female cowbird almost always returns to lay her egg there until these other monogamous birds finally accept it and raise it.

There is a moral to that story somewhere. I think it is has to do with something about monogamy being really difficult and having to accept additional responsibilities for those that are not.

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## OnTheFly (Mar 12, 2015)

Marriage is like democracy, it's the worst possible institution, except for all others.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

I didn't read the whole thing. The question of "Is monogamy natural?" is unanswerable and meaningless. To some people it is pretty natural, to others not in the least. To me, being left-handed is extremely unnatural, to others the opposite.

I understand some people like relationships where some cheating takes place, whatever. Just be upfront w/ your partner.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

That article brings up a lot of questions. 

Now, the discussion about monogamy vs non monogamy. I agree that it is not one that will ever be solved or agreed upon. 

Even here on TAM there are couples in various types of open relationships. And I won't pretend to judge or say that one way is better or worse for all. 

For me, I am the kind of guy that could go either way. I have never been in an "open" relationship where there is one primary relationship. But I have had situations where I openly saw several (usually less than three at one time) women and everyone was above board about what was going on and no one was exclusive. The problem with that arrangement for me is that in every case one or two of the other parties changes their minds and wants the arrangement to change. 

That can get messy. I frankly got tired of it and decided to go into relationship mode and be monogamous if necessary. 

However in this article, this is not what is happening. Further, while the male has ideas about letting her be empowered and free, in reality this guy is just a weak sissy that so far has not found the courage to dump this woman as his wife. 

The male is the story is a sad excuse for a man in general. Another causality of the feminist, politically correct world that some people allow themselves to be influenced by.

I would never allow myself to be apart of that situation in any way. But I would not condemn anyone that wanted to be in a mutual swinging, open, whatever else, relationship...


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

a lot of things are natural. 

Eating other animals babies is natural. 

Tossing your weaker siblings out of the nest so you get more of the food is natural. 

killing other inhabitants in their habitat so you can take their habitat is natural.

Killing someone that has infuriated you is natural.

Killing someone so you can take their mate is natural. 

Killing someone trying to take your mate is natural.

Peeing and pooping right where the urge strikes is natural. 

Grabbing all the available food and feeding your offspring while letting others starve to death is natural. 

Lot's of things are natural, but we devise cultural and societal rules and codes of conduct so we aren't going all Darwin and leaving the bodies in the streets every day.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I didn't read the article.. but the subject is one that interests me... if not to say saddens me ..books have been written on it...it appears a # of authors are going out of their way to TAINT anything monogamous as "just not normal"...it's not in our nature.. so why fight it...like there is no value in it at all... 

I often feel in today's society.. my way of being/feeling/ is just a thing of the past ...people will teach the only reason anyone got married, remained faithful in their marriage had more to do with "religious or cultural constraints"... we've come to accept, even expect unfaithfulness, sexual variety, even some measure of cheating today...

I surely understand the need for Happiness in any relationship though...or it's best to "get out, move on"... My parents divorced and rightly so...best for all involved...It needs to be a viable partnership of sharing & caring all the way. 

Faithfulness, honesty, Intimacy on the deepest level has always been very very important to me.. even in my youth.. I was very particular about guys.. if they played around.. I knew they were not a suitable match for me, what I wanted in life. I did marry a man who feels as strongly as I -in this area.. We're like the cuddling Prairie Voles I guess.. that's what we enjoy... 









There have been studies about vasopressin in men.. Maybe so much of this comes down to our hormones.. I don't really understand it all, interesting studies though... obviously we are not all wired the same... Our upbringing, values and influences surely play a major roll as well... 

Monogamy gene found in people 

Infidelity Lurks in Your Genes 

How Oxytocin & Vasopressin Play A Role In Monogamy 

 The Reason Prairie Voles Mate For Life Is A Lesson In The Science Of Love


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

badsanta said:


> When you look at nature, some of gods creatures mate for life and others do not.
> 
> You also get instances like the brown-headed cowbird. The male mates with a variety of females and sometimes flies with a variety of flocks for added female variety. The female cowbird will lay her eggs in the nests of other monogamous species of birds so she does not have to be bothered with raising her own brood. If these other birds do not accept the egg, the female cowbird will return (to check on her precious baby), retaliate, and destroy the nest along with all the eggs from the other birds. These other birds are then forced to build a new nest, and the female cowbird almost always returns to lay her egg there until these other monogamous birds finally accept it and raise it.
> 
> ...


Hmmm we are not animals, and we can chose to be monogamous and faithful. Animals live on instinct, we can chose how we act and what we do. We have values(or should have) and a sense of right and wrong.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I didn't read the article.. but the subject is one that interests me... if not to say saddens me ..books have been written on it...it appears a # of authors are going out of their way to TAINT anything monogamous as "just not normal"...it's not in our nature.. so why fight it...like there is no value in it at all...
> 
> I often feel in today's society.. my way of being/feeling/ is just a thing of the past ...people will teach the only reason anyone got married, remained faithful in their marriage had more to do with "religious or cultural constraints"... we've come to accept, even expect unfaithfulness, sexual variety, even some measure of cheating today...
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of what you say, but these apparent studies that show there is a cheating gene or whatever it is, are just an excuse for people to excuse their cheating. A bit like a cheater claiming their have a 'sex addiction' therefore they cant be faithful. 
My dad and his before him were both cheaters. None of us, the children, have cheated. Being faithful is a choice in the end.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

I am amazed at this mans weakness and how he has let her lies influence him. What his wife said is total nonsense, just an excuse to cheat. You have to wonder why they got married with such opposing views on faithfulness, or maybe she didn't tell him till after the marriage that she was a serial cheater. 
Either way, I cant see any alternative but for him to end that marriage. Otherwise what are they teaching their child?


----------



## BigDigg (Jan 11, 2018)

Not moralizing either way here but think it's fair to say that there's a wide spectrum of opinion and desire when it comes to monogamy. Certainly there are many here that believe in the classic fairy tale and will only cop to having eyes for their SO, others that feel fantasy is OK so long as you don't act, and then of course the CoI community (the cheated and the cheaters). Some like Diana view this as a moral weakness issue (some truth to that - a promise is a promise) but i'd argue that different people might be wired differently and circumstances (and yes morals) matter in how the express that. Not a cheater gene (on/off) specifically as I'd guess most people (men and women) would seek other partners at least occasionally if just based on hedonistic desire (biological urge) alone. 

It's important to remember that Marriage itself (and the commitment it entails) is inherently a social construct, not a biological one. It's a proven model that certainly benefits the raising of children and wealth, and also promotes a more stable society. The definition and expectations are also relatively a fluid thing if you look at it over time. It's changing now rapidly too. What's possible for each partner, women in workforce and financial independence, fathers more involved in child rearing, etc. has changed the needs and benefits of marriage for both men and women from say 100 years ago. 

I don't know where this leaves that particular couple in the article. Honestly I wouldn't tolerate it and he's absolutely setting himself up as a **** and she'll eventually lose all respect for him and the marriage will disinigrate. But i'm not against open marriages and don't judge others on that even if I'm firmly in the monogamy camp with my wife.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

BigDigg said:


> Not moralizing either way here but think it's fair to say that there's a wide spectrum of opinion and desire when it comes to monogamy. Certainly there are many here that believe in the classic fairy tale and will only cop to having eyes for their SO, others that feel fantasy is OK so long as you don't act, and then of course the CoI community (the cheated and the cheaters). Some like Diana view this as a moral weakness issue (some truth to that - a promise is a promise) but i'd argue that different people might be wired differently and circumstances (and yes morals) matter in how the express that. Not a cheater gene (on/off) specifically as I'd guess most people (men and women) would seek other partners at least occasionally if just based on hedonistic desire (biological urge) alone.
> 
> It's important to remember that Marriage itself (and the commitment it entails) is inherently a social construct, not a biological one. It's a proven model that certainly benefits the raising of children and wealth, and also promotes a more stable society. The definition and expectations are also relatively a fluid thing if you look at it over time. It's changing now rapidly too. What's possible for each partner, women in workforce and financial independence, fathers more involved in child rearing, etc. has changed the needs and benefits of marriage for both men and women from say 100 years ago.
> 
> I don't know where this leaves that particular couple in the article. Honestly I wouldn't tolerate it and he's absolutely setting himself up as a **** and she'll eventually lose all respect for him and the marriage will disinigrate. But i'm not against open marriages and don't judge others on that even if I'm firmly in the monogamy camp with my wife.


Some good points, but I don't agree about the 'some are wired differently' aspect. I see that as another excuse that some may use for bad behaviour. I believe that we are all capable of faithfulness and monogamy if we value our families enough. I think that maybe its more what moral values we were bought up with, and what we think is important in life. For me marriage and family are very important, for society as well, so I wouldn't do anything that risked harming my children or marriage.

I also think that people have got more and more selfish and self centered in recent years. They will do things THEY want, rather than think of the people they will hurt who they are supposed to love. People of my generation and older were far more likely to think of their responsibilities and put others before themselves. I am sad that this seems to be disappearing.

If people want to have many partners then why make promises to another in marriage? That's just plain deceptive.


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

I think the debate about whether or not monogamy is natural rather misses the point. I don't care in the least whether it's natural or not. What matters to me is finding someone with whom I am compatible on this account. I insist upon monogamy, for myself and for my partners. If a guy isn't interested in that, no harm no foul. But that means that we are fundamentally incompatible. I'm much more interested in people being honest about their view of monogamy, than about whether or not they think it's the natural order. 

If you aren't monogamous, fine, but don't lie about it in order to have a relationship with someone you know values monogamy, then rant about how it's 'unnatural' when you get caught running around later. There are people who will agree to non-monogamous relationships. Go find one of them instead of deceiving someone and betraying them down the line. Or remain single and date as much as you like. Just be honest about who you are. It's not non-monogamy I take issue with. It's lying about it that's the problem.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

These types of articles are all the same. Low-integrity people that can't live up to any kind of standard so they want to lower the standard so they don't have to feel bad about themselves. That works to a great degree. Western culture is now very dishonest, weak, greedy, immoral, and has probably the lowest standards of morality since the Roman Empire. Like the Roman Empire, western culture will crumble under the weight of its own decadence.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

A lot of good responses in a lot of ways. 

Now I understand that the Christian religious community and some others feel like nom-monogamy of any type is wrong. Now I am fully versed in this community and I generally support the positive side of Christianity and I guess other religions. So nothing I write is bashing that community or any other. 

I get that, it is biblical, and for them that is fine and very understandable. But if someone condemns others, or is hostile about it, for their different beliefs, that is where I get off the boat. Some people are monogamist and not religious in any way. Some are not. 

The article aside which everyone probably agrees that the male in the relationship is weak and silly and it probably will disintegrate.

Who is to say what sexuality is right or wrong. Mono, open, swinger, whatever, isn't that a personal decision?

I just hate to see the people that are not compatible get together and stay together. And I think most would agree that cheating, however you define it is wrong...


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

The answer to this age old question is actually irrelevant.

If, in your marriage vows, you choose to forsake all others, then that is what you do. Period. You use character and self-control and keep your vows.

If you cannot do that because it "is not natural," then don't take vows. Easy peasy.

No one holds a gun to your head to get married. You want "variety?" Stay single.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

The answer to this is, who cares. When was the last time humanity only acted on things that were natural, before we started wearing clothing? Again articles like this are why I tend to be weary of poly people, if you want to be poly go ahead but don't write some article with a very silly red herring and try to convince me, all your doing is convincing me how little faith you have in your lifestyle. 

Why not write an article and say it's fun to **** a bunch of people. At least that I can believe is true at a very primitive level. 

Besides that no one who is moral would say it's right to do it behind your partners back. Or it's OK to force your partner to change their vows because you "need" to.

Oh and one thing you poly folks seem to conveniently forget is the end game of sex is children. Lots of times even when you don't want to. What happens then? Whose kid is it, who has rights to the kid? That has the potential to cause a lot of trouble and clog up courts and social services. Which means in some respect everyone else in society now has to be involved. It's not without it's potential problems even when it is done by a group of consenting adults.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

sokillme said:


> The answer to this is, who cares. When was the last time humanity only acted on things that were natural, before we started wearing clothing? Again articles like this are why I tend to be weary of poly people, if you want to be poly go ahead but don't write some article with a very silly red herring and try to convince me, all your doing is convincing me how little faith you have in your lifestyle.


If the intent of an article is to convince someone who wants to stay mono that they mustn't, then I think the article is silly too. But I suspect the intent of articles by happy polys is to convince conflicted people they have a choice, and while not poly, I think that can be healthy. I think too many people march into prevailing marital norms w/o thinking what they actually want, and that produces a lot of bad marriages. People should think about what they want/can do, and find someone onboard w/ that. If articles about difft. kinds of marriages encourages that, let's have them.


> Why not write an article and say it's fun to **** a bunch of people. At least that I can believe is true at a very primitive level.
> 
> Besides that no one who is moral would say it's right to do it behind your partners back. Or it's OK to force your partner to change their vows because you "need" to.


You can't force anyone to change their vows, just like they can't force you to obey them.


> Oh and one thing you poly folks seem to conveniently forget is the end game of sex is children. Lots of times even when you don't want to. What happens then? Whose kid is it, who has rights to the kid? That has the potential to cause a lot of trouble and clog up courts and social services. Which means in some respect everyone else in society now has to be involved. It's not without it's potential problems even when it is done by a group of consenting adults.


Paternity is actually pretty simple in the post-DNA testing age. Even if you are monogamous, you can't prove it so it can still be disputed and involve the same "clogging" you refer to.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

SpinyNorman said:


> If the intent of an article is to convince someone who wants to stay mono that they mustn't, then I think the article is silly too. But I suspect the intent of articles by happy polys is to convince conflicted people they have a choice, and while not poly, I think that can be healthy. I think too many people march into prevailing marital norms w/o thinking what they actually want, and that produces a lot of bad marriages. People should think about what they want/can do, and find someone onboard w/ that. If articles about difft. kinds of marriages encourages that, let's have them.


I would agree with this except for the "unnatural" part which admittedly is the poster's words and he is not agreeing with it. Like there isn't examples of monogamy in nature, also like monogamy hasn't generally been the human norm in most setting for most of human history. Humans are the only animal on the planet that have written communication as well, do we say that is not normal? 

Yes yes it feels good to have lots of mates, it also feels good to not go to work and sleep in. Often times I think it would feel good to punch some people in the face. Where would we be if we did only what feels good. Feelings are a very shallow and possible destructive reason to do anything. Though that seems to be the norm today, and has been for a long time now. Not good.

Besides all that I am for polygamous or at least being honest if you are a so call polygamous. Oh for a world where people would just be honest and say they have no intention of being faithful to their spouses. I am also for being able to travel in time and have super powers. However it's never going to happen. This is because the amount of people who want a polygamist marriage are very small and if they were to admit this fact while they were searching for a long term partner that would pretty much eliminate a very large pool of potential mates. So they hide it until they have enough leverage to force their mate to comply, or at least make it very difficult not to. 

Besides all that I suspect the real truth is these type of people really want their mate to be monogamous and they be given the freedom to be polygamous. To be honest I think most of these people are full of ****. This is just a new way to justify cheating. 




SpinyNorman said:


> You can't force anyone to change their vows, just like they can't force you to obey them.


You can certainly create enough pressure that you force them to choose losing their entire financial and "arguably" emotional well being or let there spouse open your marriage. Ultimatums happen all the time. Stay here long enough and eventually you will read about one. Once you have given a huge part of your security to another human being you are at there mercy so to speak. Lots of Poly folks use this to their advantage. It's why I have such a low opinion of them. 




SpinyNorman said:


> Paternity is actually pretty simple in the post-DNA testing age. Even if you are monogamous, you can't prove it so it can still be disputed and involve the same "clogging" you refer to.


Yeah sure DNA testing solves everything. Like there isn't numerous examples of Men who find out the child isn't genetically theirs and but are still forced to support them financially. Or there are not fathers who lose access to their kids because they are not biologically theirs. If this kind of lifestyle becomes the norm we will be seeing situations like this only on steroids. 

So a triad breaks up and the woman and the first husband have a falling out. The kid is biologically the seconds husbands, does the first husband get parenting rights? Even if he has helped raise the child for 5 years, probably not because in the court system he is just some guy who lived in the house with the couple. What if the two men have a falling out, who is the primary father then. What if the Mother says it's the first husband (not biological) even though the second is the DNA dad? Can he sue? Do we really want this kind of stuff clogging up are already over taxed courts.

What about some women who is so far into the poly lifestyle that she has no idea who the father is? Is she going to take government assistance? Why do I have to pay for that? Can we trust these poly people to even think about this kind of thing? Never heard a pro poly person mention the potential problems I wrote in the last few paragraphs even once. Doesn't seem to even be a thought. I don't have a lot of confidence they think long term enough to even see this as a potential ramification of their lifestyle. Normally you bring it up and they act like it's like unicorns or something. Like the Mets winning the World Series. Not even remotely possible. Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the people practicing or advocating for the lifestyle. 

See if all it was, was people who want to **** around I wouldn't really care so much, but nothing in life is that simple.


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

sokillme said:


> I would agree with this except for the "unnatural" part which admittedly is the poster's words and he is not agreeing with it. Like there isn't examples of monogamy in nature,


Huh? The post you're replying to doesn't used the word "natural" or "unnatural" even once.


> also like monogamy hasn't generally been the human norm in most setting for most of human history. Humans are the only animal on the planet that have written communication as well, do we say that is not normal?
> 
> Yes yes it feels good to have lots of mates, it also feels good to not go to work and sleep in. Often times I think it would feel good to punch some people in the face. Where would we be if we did only what feels good.
> 
> Feelings are a very shallow and possible destructive reason to do anything. Though that seems to be the norm today, and has been for a long time now. Not good.


 If you're saying we have to consider things besides what feels good, well duh. If you're saying we have to ignore what we want and conform for the sake of conformity, I can't think of many things as self-defeating.


> Besides all that I am for polygamous or at least being honest if you are a so call polygamous. Oh for a world where people would just be honest and say they have no intention of being faithful to their spouses. I am also for being able to travel in time and have super powers. However it's never going to happen. This is because the amount of people who want a polygamist marriage are very small and if they were to admit this fact while they were searching for a long term partner that would pretty much eliminate a very large pool of potential mates. So they hide it until they have enough leverage to force their mate to comply, or at least make it very difficult not to.


idk where you get your information but I've read articles by people who went into relationships after the partner telling them they were non-monogamous.


> Besides all that I suspect the real truth is these type of people really want their mate to be monogamous and they be given the freedom to be polygamous. To be honest I think most of these people are full of ****. This is just a new way to justify cheating.


Well it isn't cheating if your partner agrees to it, is it? Maybe some of them want the partner mono, idk. Again, you don't say where you get your information.



> You can certainly create enough pressure that you force them to choose losing their entire financial and "arguably" emotional well being or let there spouse open your marriage. Ultimatums happen all the time. Stay here long enough and eventually you will read about one. Once you have given a huge part of your security to another human being you are at there mercy so to speak. Lots of Poly folks use this to their advantage. It's why I have such a low opinion of them.


 Yes, anyone can threaten to leave a marriage at any time, for any reason, I thought everyone knew that. I think the more people realize their choices, the less likely they are to just do what everyone else does. For example, I've read in some very repressed places, gay people said they thought they were the only person who wasn't attracted to the opposite sex. I know in this country at one time it was common for gays to enter a traditional marriage and eventually bail on it. I don't hear about that as much any more, I suspect b/c gays are more aware of their options. It's hard to imagine the OS people they would've married are worse off.


> Yeah sure DNA testing solves everything. Like there isn't numerous examples of Men who find out the child isn't genetically theirs and but are still forced to support them financially. Or there are not fathers who lose access to their kids because they are not biologically theirs. If this kind of lifestyle becomes the norm we will be seeing situations like this only on steroids.
> 
> So a triad breaks up and the woman and the first husband have a falling out. The kid is biologically the seconds husbands, does the first husband get parenting rights? Even if he has helped raise the child for 5 years, probably not because in the court system he is just some guy who lived in the house with the couple. What if the two men have a falling out, who is the primary father then. What if the Mother says it's the first husband (not biological) even though the second is the DNA dad? Can he sue? Do we really want this kind of stuff clogging up are already over taxed courts.
> 
> ...


As you pointed out custody and paternity issues aren't unique to consensual non-monogamy, and occur in what people thought were traditional relationships. Nothing new here. As for consensual non-monogamy making it worse, I think if people are aware their spouse is non-monogamous they're less likely to assume a child is theirs.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> Hmmm we are not animals, and we can chose to be monogamous and faithful. Animals live on instinct, we can chose how we act and what we do. We have values(or should have) and a sense of right and wrong.


In my opinion I think we are only able to "chose" how we act based on being educated. Values are gradually formed from cumulative social experiences.

If you are suggesting that we can find ourselves in a new & unique situation and then easily act upon our own free willed "choice" that is somehow already based on what is the right or wrong to do... I would argue that is an example of human instinct.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Wow, I've seen less contortions in Cirque de soleil


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> Wow, I've seen less contortions in Cirque de soleil


Sorry I deleted the "Cirque de soleil" part of my response. There is actually a case of what I mentioned in history. I think it should be treated with respect and not that of a circus show. I guess I am at fault for putting that here for the purpose of petty debate...

Read a more touching story of that here https://www.huffingtonpost.com/anya-cordell/conjoined-twins_b_1882489.html


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

badsanta said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, I've seen less contortions in Cirque de soleil
> ...


I wasn't referring to the conjoined twins. I was referring to the pseudo-ahthropolgy lesson that implies we have no choice over nature.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

personofinterest said:


> I wasn't referring to the conjoined twins. I was referring to the pseudo-ahthropolgy lesson that implies we have no choice over nature.


I happen have an online PHD in pseudo-ahthropology!


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

The title of the article, "What If Your Partner Doesn't Believe Adultery Is Wrong?" Well.. that individual would NOT be my partner. 

Have a good day. :grin2:


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

badsanta said:


> I happen have an online PHD in pseudo-ahthropology!


I slept at a Holiday Inn Express.


----------

