How natural is monogamy for men? page 2

[Ollie]

Its not natural for ANYONE. Its something humans make a commitment to do (or try and do) and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. But its not natural.

[fyrespryte]

I think monogamy is natural for some people, and not for others. I think that there are a lot of people trying to be monogamous, who shouldn't, because that's what they think is "normal" and "natural." I find successful polyamoury to be more a matter of spiritual evolution rather than physical. I really find it's a shame that monogamy is "the norm" in our society. I think there are a lot of people who are naturally poly who find themselves in situations where they end up cheating, or are simply unhappy because they don't realize that poly is an acceptable choice.

[cillakat]

This is a complex topic. The sort that inspires the writing of say, doctoral dissertations. And powerful essays. And books. And laws.

Did I mention that it's complex? And further complicated by the fact that in our modern environement, childhood is essentially extended for many years past what it would have been in an EAA and with that means a longer term of parental investment.

[Daemonized]

I think that life long monogamy works great if you choose wisely. My grandparents were together for 70 years. I, on the other hand, have never managed to hold a relationship for more than a few years and usually for a lot shorter than that. So, choosing wisely over the long term probably means not choosing me.

[cillakat]

I think that life long monogamy works great if you choose wisely. My grandparents were together for 70 years. I, on the other hand, have never managed to hold a relationship for more than a few years and usually for a lot shorter than that. So, choosing wisely over the long term probably means not choosing me.

LOL. It's good to know yourself!

[cillakat]

*drums fingers on table and waits for Serial to show up and write, with his usual brevity and succinctness, something that makes the complex, simple*

[SerialSinner]

My take is that we are Serial Monogamists (and "sinners") by nature.

The approximately 4 year strong emotional attachment makes sense in the context of bearing a child, in which the make and female are motivated to stick around and hence provide maternal and maternal investment. Emotions like jealousy and the obsessiveness we find amongst a couple who is "deeply in love" would have been positively selected as they woul secure investment and hence increase the survival of the progeny.

It also makes sense to think that men are hard-wired to spread their genes as much as possible and investing in his own genes, while women would be more concerned about attracting parental investment regardless of the original father (she already knows for sure the kid has half her genes).

In big societies, widespread monogamy would be the desired scenario because it seems to promote a more peaceful interaction amongst males. In big polygamous societies, women tend to be considered as some sort of commodity, where the wealthiest marry many of them and the poor often have access to none. Picture an important percentage of the male population with no access to women throughout their lives and the impact this would have in their... socialization skills.

In today's western society, Monogamy would imply making a long-term choice in which we trade off short-term craving satisfaction for a family life and company when old. This is particularly true in our modern societies, where, as opposed to life in, lets say, small tribes, single people are much more prone to find themselves socially isolated as they age. So suppressing instincts would be a good trade-off in the long term.

My take is that the more we understand human nature, the more aware we are of the real sacrifices required when entering a long-term monogamous relationship, and therefore the more careful we will be in choosing out partner. It also helps fight pervasive bronze age moral constructs stating that any non-monogamous cravings and thoughts are a reflection of character flaws and psychological anomalies; and allow couples to freely explore other association schemes more aligned with their particular "socialization needs"

Anyway, and in short, no, we would not be naturally hard-wired for long-term monogamy.

[Stabby]

So if we take our axiom of propagation and maintenance of genes in the gene pool we arrive at the idea that the more children one has and the more genetic success and this is what we will be more inclined to. Just an endless sea of random and uncommitted copulation, and men using women as genetic vessels. Splendid. But the goal of the game isn't so much so mate as much as possible but to maximize the amount of related genetic material in the gene pool in the future. Women have some tricks up their sleeves as well. It can often take years before a woman will let a man mate with her and this simply isn't time that most men are willing to waste. Years of courtship can act as incentive to stick it out and stay with a partner. What is more genetically advantageous, having a child every two years with the same mate after 5 years of courtship (15 years = 5 children) or flitting around to different mates trying to impregnate them and escape? This sort of fuck-everything-and-run theory doesn't give women the credit they deserve. A quality woman is usually intelligent and perceptive enough to discern who is loyal and sincere and who is a man-whore. Combine a dumb woman and a disinterested man-whore man and the child isn't going to have any advantage to speak of. Which brings me to my next point: what about survival and propagation of posterity? Fatherless children tend to have all sorts of economic and psychological disadvanteges. I contend and I think many would agree that a stable, united family setting is the most advantageous for not only the creation of offspring but to ensure their survival and propagation themselves. Usually propagation in our modern setting has more to do with how many children one can support successfully and that tends to boil down to finances. Of course nothing is set in stone but the most advantageous propagation strategy is not so black and white as it might appear. Not to mention the fact that nobody tends to want to mate with an old dude they just met and that window of opportunity usually dissipates within a decade or two. More evidence for the stable family setting.

Or perhaps we can recognize that we are not our genetics and are increasingly disposed to subverting our genetic instructions and manipulating our pleasure mechanisms as ends in themselves rather than means for our genes to force their own ends. Hence childless couples or asexual humans. In the light of higher consciousness, what is "natural" is hardly of consequence or meaning anymore. What is natural is whatever we feel like.

[SerialSinner]

Or perhaps we can recognize that we are not our genetics and are increasingly disposed to subverting our genetic instructions and manipulating our pleasure mechanisms as ends in themselves rather than means for our genes to force their own ends

That sounds very optimistic

*drums fingers on table and waits for Serial to show up and write, with his usual brevity and succinctness, something that makes the complex, simple*

That's sounds very optimistic as well, but thanks

[cillakat]

Yes, stabby, what is "natural" for us is perhaps nearly irrelevant and difficult, if not impossible to tease apart from the cultural variables.

"Usually propagation in our modern setting has more to do with how many children one can support successfully and that tends to boil down to finances"

Theoretically yes....but in reality?