# Humans are naturally polygamous



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.
Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.


*Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy

*When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.
The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.
Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.


----------



## roxtehproxy (Sep 9, 2009)

Interesting threads Rob, it certainly makes me think.


----------



## SilverScorpio17 (Nov 13, 2009)

That's...weird. I never thought of it that way. That explains some stuff.

But jealousy and possessiveness are powerful emotions, almost as powerful as greed. I don't know which one would win out. 
Also, I think your theory only applies to societies or time periods in which women are incapable of generating their own income. Because I'd much rather make my own money and not share my partner with someone else.

What about STDs though? Women are more likely to contract STDs, and I believe the risk of anyone contracting an STD goes up in a polygamous setting.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and how much does the percentage in height have to differ to tell if a species is polygamous? Do you have a link to this study?


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Humans are naturally...hmm.

I don't think so. Most humans prefer keeping a mate for life. Therefore, I think humans just like to have sex and are very poor at restraining themselves.

We've evolved into a polygamous state. I suppose you could also make the arguement that humans are naturally murderers.

We're naturally a lot of things. This only means that whatever is easiest or instinctive must be our true nature. Obviously, not being married and going around having sex is easier.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

> EDIT: Oh yeah, and how much does the percentage in height have to differ to tell if a species is polygamous? Do you have a link to this study?


JournalPrimates PublisherSpringer Japan ISSN0032-8332 (Print) 1610-7365 (Online)

Walter Leutenegger1 and James T. Kelly1
(1) Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin


----------



## Nearsification (Jan 3, 2010)

Bob you never stop entertaining me. :crazy:


----------



## Yin Praxis (Jan 16, 2010)

I tend to be more convinced of the argument that humans come closer to serial monogamy as their default mode of behavior.

Intersting to note that in primitive cultures (foragers, pastoralists, horticulturalists), polygyny was allowed, but usually a small minority practice.

Your OP, by the way, didn't explain why I couldn't just reverse the gender roles and still find the same logic. You are presumably note even considering polyandry.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

while polyandry does happen it is usually more rare than polygamy, I think because before society and even in the beginning that generally since the male was the provider that he would be in the position to choose multiple mates. The articles do cover polyandry a little bit but I did not find it note worthy. 

Still this is all speculation, and there are many people who disagree and find flaws in the theory. I just found it fascinating, and I do believe it is only because of societies views that monogamy has become so popular, I believe without morals or inhibitions it polygamy would have remained more consistent until woman got the chance to become providers themselves.


----------



## KaylRyck (Feb 2, 2010)

Ol' Sultan Hassanal can keep his wives. 

But I know something about myself. Me: naturally polygamous? Not a chance.


----------



## Yin Praxis (Jan 16, 2010)

RighteousRob said:


> while polyandry does happen it is usually more rare than polygamy, I think because before society and even in the beginning that generally since the male was the provider that he would be in the position to choose multiple mates. The articles do cover polyandry a little bit but I did not find it note worthy.


Yes, polyandry is rarer, but I was addressing why womeon shouldn't want it. The biologicla correlations and the current demography are not the same part of the argument as saying why anyone should want a certain system. 

Anyhow, there appears to be a relationships between the sustainability of the life in the environment and marriage practices. Whe polyandry does arise, it's often in very hostile places. Polygyny, as I said, is usually rare even when it's accepted, but starts to become more common as surplus of resources are more viable. The reason at least seems obvious. Polygyny makes a higher ration of offpsring to adults, polyandry makes less (in comparison to monogamy). One man with many wives can have a lot of kids very fast, while one woman with many husbands still can't have children any faster. In the one, we soon have a huge number of kids for one family, even if the family has multiple mothers, while the other it's very low. You can afford tons of children in a bountious environment, while the desolate ones require a lot of care for one child. 




RighteousRob said:


> Still this is all speculation, and there are many people who disagree and find flaws in the theory. I just found it fascinating, and I do believe it is only because of societies views that monogamy has become so popular, I believe without morals or inhibitions it polygamy would have remained more consistent until woman got the chance to become providers themselves.


Yeah but, how far back are you going when you say society's views, how far back are you going? I have to ask again why there has been so much monogamy in foraging and tribal cultures. 

Also, is it not society's beliefs that kept women from providing for themselves in the first place? In many bands, I do believe most, women's foraging provides more of the nutrience than male hunting. Places were plants are scarce and animals are large, like the arctic or the sahara, are the exception, because there's more to hunt than to forage. But in most cases foraging provides more of the food. In agricultural tribes, women usually do the agricultural work, and anthropolgists today speculate that women might have discovered most of it.

So in was sense do you mean providing?


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

providing food in winter where there are no plants, protection from animals bigger than them, protection from other tribes. The typical things that they believe occurred when our species was a hunter gatherer species.


----------



## Yin Praxis (Jan 16, 2010)

RighteousRob said:


> providing food in winter where there are no plants


Where we originated, that didn't come up.



RighteousRob said:


> protection from animals bigger than them, protection from other tribes. The typical things that they believe occurred when our species was a hunter gatherer species.


There was surprisingly little violence among foragers, but it is true that some time after bands evolved into tribes, violence sky-rocketed.

Anyhow, I do tend to think these latter two points are the source of male/female inquality, and it's not so much because of differeing strength either. Yes, we do know that women tend to be a bit smaller, weaker, and have hips that are really crappy for running, but I don't think it was a big enough difference to explain the problem alone. I think our differing reproductive roles hold the key. Back in those days, women had kids constantly. Chances are, a woman of age (which might be as young as 13) was practically always pregnant or nursing. Those are two vulnerable, debilitating states to be in, and I think that is what lead to the combatative responsibilities falling into mens' hands. The physiological process of reproduction is one thing the genders cannot trade, even if they badly wanted too.


----------



## Shenis (Feb 4, 2010)

Hippie free love communes failed in the 60s because they would naturally partner up and leave as couples. 

Also, the actual social scientists who study these things all come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. There isn't one human nature to explain the mating habits of all humans. Some prefer monogamy, some do not. Some do sometimes. That is as much as they will even claim.

I find your theory weak and unfounded.


----------



## NotSoRighteousRob (Jan 1, 2010)

Yin Praxis said:


> I think our differing reproductive roles hold the key. Back in those days, women had kids constantly. Chances are, a woman of age (which might be as young as 13) was practically always pregnant or nursing. Those are two vulnerable, debilitating states to be in, and I think that is what lead to the combatative responsibilities falling into mens' hands. The physiological process of reproduction is one thing the genders cannot trade, even if they badly wanted too.



very good point, I am a bit distracted but yes that is a very key role in the male being the protector/provider in the early days of evolution. 



> Also, the actual social scientists who study these things all come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion. There isn't one human nature to explain the mating habits of all humans. Some prefer monogamy, some do not. Some do sometimes. That is as much as they will even claim.
> 
> I find your theory weak and unfounded


I am not saying that it is in everyone to be polygamous. But I think genetics still tell us to seek out multiple partners in order to provide the best possible distribution of genes. I do not know how anyone can argue this when it is built into the genetics of almost every living thing. In my opinion it is society that restricts with its taboo's and moral righteousness what our genes actually want us to do.


----------



## oops (Aug 13, 2009)

humans are naturaly whatever they wanne be. our species arent living in the woods anymore, we have much more oppertunities.

But yes dpendance is pretty much vital in nature.


----------



## reyesaaronringo (Dec 27, 2009)

i would say we are only as loyal as our options.


----------



## Litchi (Dec 2, 2009)

did u think it is true?


----------



## Arioche (Aug 5, 2009)

I read about this theory a while ago, and I really don't have problem with it, although I think both parties should have to consent to another person joining the party to avoid the nastiness.

As for the person who said that humans evolved into polygamy, I think the exact opposite; our society's "moral" code pushed us to be monogamous imo.


----------



## Korvyna (Dec 4, 2009)

Can I get a shipment of these men that are taller than me shipped to my hometown? We've got a shortage... :shocked:

I won't lie, I am pretty against commitment right now... So monogamy isn't my thing, but if I could find someone who didn't irritate me after a month or so, I'd probably change my mind. :happy:


----------



## abster (Feb 9, 2011)

*Monogamy is an oddity*

i read this article online called Monogamy is an oddity at Softpedia. In that case, i must be odd. It talks about how only 7% of mammals are monogamous and how society has imposed monogamy on us and that its part of the process of evolution. It also talks about how monogamy places so much pressure on couples and its like the ideal and ppl who are in long term relationships are seen as 'successful'. What's your take on monogamy? Can humans ever be monogamous? The article also talks about sexual monogamy and social monogamy and how thats different. A person can have sex with many partners but still stay in a committed emotional relationship with one partner. Kind of like Will Smith and Jada Pinkett in an open relationship but are still married and have kids.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

After researching oxycotin and monogamy and all that jazz. (after a member here used science to show we are naturally monogamous)

Yes, we are naturally monogamous hence why open relationships are quite rare and hardly ever last.

By default, I want an open relationship, out of honesty though because I'm always searching for potential mates. Only when I start to really like them or fall in love, do I turn monogamous and wish for no one else. That darn oxytocin.

I've spoken to many people about this and quite a lot of them can't handle the fact science backs up the claim and instead, get butthurt and ragequit the discussion. 

Frankly, I'm all open to new concepts and I originally believed we were not monogamous, but hey, there's proof we are. Google it.

I've been in an open relationship that turned into monogamy after we developed strong feelings for each other. Of course, we're all different but we're all capable of the oxytocin bond therefore all capable of monogamy. Except for certain kinds of people, I recall. Autistics...I think.

Anyone who claims monogamy is not natural because they look at animals in nature needs a wake-up call as animals are different, are they not? And us humans happen to be biologically monogamous.

That, and the main reason for animals having many partners is reproduction. That's all. 
We're talking about multiple *relationships* here. Handling one person is hard enough IMO. Hard is an understatement...


----------



## Paradox1987 (Oct 9, 2010)

Erm, I've done both, and the issue for me isn't one of sexual exclusivity as it is a notion of fidelity, in the truest sense of the word. However, this is merely my preference and take on it.

Out of my 3 real relationships (per se), I have been cheated on in 2. It isn't the fact that they slept with someone else that upset me, or even made me feel unhappy. Rather it was the fact that my trust had been breached. Hiding the truth from me caused me more pain than admitting an extra-relational affair. So I decided to give an open relationship a whirl, where there were open, well acknowledged ground rules. I have no problems being exclusive, but I like to know where I stand and I like clarity. 

Sure, an open relationship brought with it its own problems, like mutually agreed ground rules, compromise, etc; but it threw into sharper relief (for us) why we were actually together. Honestly, its just not as simple as what do humans naturally do. As the answer is "a lot of things". If you're interested in it; give it a whirl and decide for yourself what you're looking for from a relationship/partner. Anyhow, what you want will change due to the passage of time, reassessment of self values; and of course, exposure to the market as it were.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

626Stitch said:


> What are your opinions on monogamy versus polyamory and open relationships?
> 
> All points of view welcome!!


 We humans have many diff needs that vary as we get older. (Sharing, giving... are also needs, we need to give). A lot of people say "_I won't ever... whatever_" just because they don't feel that way now. Big mistake. Projection and anticipation are important to make better decisions.


 Many will wrongfully try to satisfy ALL their needs with only one individual.
Many will wrongfully try to satisfy ALL their needs with far too many individuals (right needs with the wrong people)
Many needs are up to us, not for the rest of people to satisfy.


First I don't get why people marry the "_good friend_" and then expect a great lover. The taste begins in you towards the other one, don't expect him-her to magically make you feel something. Some marry the great lover and then expect a good friend. I guess people try to jump to commitments too quickly. I believe a lot of monogamy and polyamory depends on the choices you make. And yes, many don't know the roles of friends, partners, family, lovers, husband, wife, etc....


I respect opinions but I've heard some that fall into "I want this, that and that too", just too many diff things, but actually are not diff tastes or needs, sometimes is pure lack of stability.


And sometimes we lack imagination or hope (faith???).... "_Hey, there is a fish able of breating underwather... and outside water... and able of -kinda walking-!!!, never thought such thing existed_". But yes, such fish do exist.


----------



## Falhalterra (Apr 24, 2011)

Besides just us humans, the rest of the animal kingdom is pretty polygamous. The reason we believe in our society we are monogamous is just to keep society together and functioning on a stable platform, but everybody is different. I know I couldn't stand being in an open relationship and I don't want to. Dating for me is actually difficult since I develop feelings pretty quickly and become dedicated to the man I'm infatuated with. That's how it's always been for me. lol


----------



## Cloudlight (Jan 5, 2011)

Olena said:


> After researching oxycotin and monogamy and all that jazz. (after a member here used science to show we are naturally monogamous)
> 
> Yes, we are naturally monogamous hence why open relationships are quite rare and hardly ever last.


 I do not mean to be rude, but where are you finding your sources and do you mind if I take a look at them?
I don't mean to offend anyone's beliefs here, and I don't want to derail by turning this into another obnoxiously drawn out nature/nurture discussion.

In studying human evolution, it is nearly inarguable that humans were promiscuous. Monogomy is a human creation, not a biological or natural one. Some people do find it easier than others (or more "natural") but that does not mean that we are biologically designed to be monogomous. In fact, I believe that we are designed to be quite the opposite. Almost all of the political arrangements for sexual relations between humans are human creations, therefore none of them are "natural" or "unnatural." Monogomy is simply the way our society designed itself. It is another way to stabilize and keep norms among us. The thread would be called "Are humans naturally promiscuous?" if we designed our society's sex-related norms around promiscuity. 

Personally, I find it very easy to be monogomous, but I think promiscuity could to less issues in personal/sexual relationships.


----------



## Duck_of_Death (Jan 21, 2011)

I would suggest that the term "monogamy" would apply to a certain subset of units (i.e.: Hominids) while the other beings, charming and autonomous as they may be, fuck--or dream of fuckin'--a lot of other fuckers.

Modern data also suggests that promiscuous people often seek each other out, while monogamous couples stay together. Other data suggests that frequent flings can impair the bonding ability usually found in those with fewer sexual partners.

Much of this boils down to upbringing, background, brain chemistry and hormonal levels present in the hominid(s) in question.

Levels of sexual options would also come into play.

I suggest.


----------



## zelder (Apr 17, 2011)

I think polyamory and polygamy are natural but difficult. If you can't love one person then you have no business adding more people.


----------



## jessaywhat (Sep 10, 2011)

no i don't think we are by nature monogamous outside of mating and sex. from what i understand, after chimpanzee females give birth they usually spend time taking care of their babies among other mothers of their tribe. and the male usually along the other males usually stick by males guarding the women and babies as a whole, instead of their individual families. i think now that were evolved beyond that point we can handle being monogamous if we so choose, but it is not as needed. we've also evolved so fast that we don't really need to stick together in tribes we can pretty much do it individually with families of our own. maybe that's what were doing with monogamy.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

Mr.Nickster said:


> I do not mean to be rude, but where are you finding your sources and do you mind if I take a look at them?
> I don't mean to offend anyone's beliefs here, and I don't want to derail by turning this into another obnoxiously drawn out nature/nurture discussion.
> 
> In studying human evolution, it is nearly inarguable that humans were promiscuous. Monogomy is a human creation, not a biological or natural one. Some people do find it easier than others (or more "natural") but that does not mean that we are biologically designed to be monogomous. In fact, I believe that we are designed to be quite the opposite. Almost all of the political arrangements for sexual relations between humans are human creations, therefore none of them are "natural" or "unnatural." Monogomy is simply the way our society designed itself. It is another way to stabilize and keep norms among us. The thread would be called "Are humans naturally promiscuous?" if we designed our society's sex-related norms around promiscuity.
> ...


You're not being rude. 

You know, people confuse opinion with fact quite a lot. Everyone I've tried discussing it with has gotten butthurt when I showed up the Science. 


I've looked this stuff up and so far, it seems science backs up the claim we are naturally monogamous.

Research on the Oxytocin bond. That hormone promotes monogamy. That's why even in polyamory/polygamy, there is always a favourite lover. Since we cannot love everyone equally and will always favour one lover, in my eyes + the Science behind it, that says 'built for monogamy'.

Hell, so many women fall in love with their sex partners. Oxytocin is a bitch.

However, do people know the difference between monogamy and marriage? People get them confused. A lot. You can be monogamous but not married, which is...kind of obvious, lol but still, I've noticed so many people get confused.

As for my opinion, I dislike anything society tends to put on a pedestal and I'm not influenced by tradition or anything like that, yet my opinion is monogamy seems to be in our nature, whether we believe it or not. Like I said, polyamory is my my default mode because I find myself always searching for new mates, but when I develop deep feelings/love, I turn monogamous. It's natural. Trust me, I disliked monogamy and any of that crap, and yet look what happened. 

And I'm an INTP, so of course, I had to know why I reacted the way I did hence research. If you look it up, you'll understand why relationships go cold, why sex/spending quality time together is important and why it's not possible to 'love' more than one person equally. 

Awhile back, some retarded old man claimed men were naturally polyamorous and I proved him incorrect using beautiful Science.


----------



## Das Brechen (Nov 26, 2011)

I think we are conditioned to act monogamous. The landscape of society would be significantly different if polygamy were the dominant force in the world. The impact would come by the way of moral acceptance which is the backbone of monogamy.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

@_Olena_ Do you have any of the sources? The Oxycontin thing may not be that important. A favorite lover doesn't mean you don't love other lovers enough to want to stay bonded with them at full capacity. I've personally been in situations where I didn't know which my favorite was. It's not as if we've never heard of someone having a dilemma between two suitors. 

From what I've seen, in a not too distant past, the norm used to be that a male with very desirable traits would have multiple females. You can imagine an alpha male having his pick of multiple women. (and them being bonded to him via oxytocin, if you'd like) Not to say that everyone practiced polygamy, because not everyone was capable of it. Rather, it was not frowned upon, and instead likely something associated with higher social status. 

I'll bet you that shortly before the rise of Judaism (which still allowed multiple wives in it's early form) and Christianity, civilizations that prohibited polygamy were very rare. It's still practiced in many non-Christian/Jewish societies today. Considering that 4000 years isn't a long enough time for us to undergo a huge change via evolution. That aside, a propensity for polygamy would not be bred out regardless; one with the propensity would still be able to select a single mate at a time and carry on their genes. If Christianity/Judaism did have a big part in monogamy becoming the majority, it can hardly be said to be "natural" for humans. 

It may seem like polygamy is the norm for men and monogamy is the norm for women, though previous research has suggested otherwise in my experience. (On top of that I've met plenty of females capable of enjoying multiple sex partners, though only 1-2 romantic partners) I once saw a study on subconscious flirtatious behavior between single women, women that were in a new relationship, and women that were in a long term relationship. (Can someone please help me find this again?) The most flirtatious women were those in a long term relationship. The explanation was that the females has a stable home life to raise children in, so she's free to select mates to breed with, and go home and have her male help her raise the offspring. It's not like cavemen had paternity tests. The woman benefits from the security of a long term relationship, but still has the ability to select the best mates. Interesting stuff. I'd like to research this further when I have more time.

I'll see if I can find some actual sources later to contribute something of more worth.


----------



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

If society didn't become so patriarchal, monogamy and marriage may not have become the norms. Before the Maury show and DNA paternity testing, a man needed to know which kids were his, so he took a wife - she only had him as her partner, no confusion as to whose kids she's having. Female infidelity was, then, obviously very looked down upon because the woman could get knocked up by another man and screw the whole thing up. A wife had to be one man's baby factory. Now, of course some men were unfaithful, but they'd only need to raise and educate the kids they had with their wives; those that bore the family name. Heirs were important, having sons ensured the family business would continue and the family name would go on. Monogamous marriage was built into western society for practical reasons, not just religious reasons.

This might be a troll post, but I think it's funny that men will often bitch about the standard of monogamy and the institution of marriage - lol, y'all made it. Undo it then. Sabotage the GOP or something.

non-troll post: I tend to think our instincts are to shop around. Sexually most people probably want to have more than one partner. However, our consciousness and our emotional needs often lead to monogamous leanings. I can't really say "all people are X" or "all people are Y". So many variables are at work - biological, social, chemical, psychological, sociological...


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

@ManhattanINTP 

I've done so much research that what I know is a combination of everything. Just Googling Oxytocin/Oxytocin bond and doing some standard research will do fine. Sorry, I've done a lot and I've looked at tons of different articles.:frustrating:

In Islam, if a man can afford to support another wife, he can, however, it's nothing to do with love. 

When I speak of monogamy, I speak of feelings. I do not speak of superficial 'relationships' or platonic ones. I'm talking about actually wanting to be with someone.

When a man has many females or a woman is one of those females, I highly doubt it has to do with love. That's money, wealth and status and possibly reproduction(I see this more religion related).

I'm talking about love or that 'feeling' called love that's caused by a hormone. If you do research on your own, you'll find more than enough evidence to support we are biologically monogamous; we truly love one person.

As for 'loving two people', if you researched about oxytocin, the love hormone, you form a bond with one person. If you form a bond with another person, the previous bond 'cools off'.

Ahem, if I must drop my thinking briefly and speak of 'loving two people', let me quote Johnny Depp:

“If you love two people at the same time, choose the second one. Because if you truly loved the first one, you wouldn't love another."

I would like to see something that supports polygamy that did not reference animals or evolution. I don't care about animals and I don't care about what we were like thousands of years ago. I want to know about us right now.

And before people freak out, really, this is currently what I believe to be the truth because of the research I've done. I like to see evidence and proof. I would love to learn about other ideas as long there's evidence for it and everyone I've ever spoken to *could not provide me with evidence to disclaim what I've showed them*. Which is very disappointing as I am eager to learn more about ourselves.

Side note, I learnt so much through researching it and through this forum. One amazing article I read was 'Men deserve access to non-sexual love'. It opened my eyes and also adds to this 'one man, many women' thing. When a man loves only one woman and shows it, people mock him, call him 'whipped' and all this crap, but when he has many, he's praised. It's the exact opposite for a woman.
If anything, it's more of a society/gender influence that causes men to want many women.

My god, I've looked at so much stuff, I think I'm gonna maybe make a list of notable articles.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

@_Olena_ I've been in love with more than one person...for more than 6 years. (Open relationship) I don't need Johnny Cash's input on it, because it's a complex issue. Different people satisfied different needs. I've also known women who were in the same boat, though less so than men.The oxytocin argument just isn't a silver bullet.

It's a hormone anyway. So, it's associated with primal drives such as lust and infatuation way more than "love", which is more cognitive. Like in the Enneagram I think some people are more oriented to being head types. I believe these types are less susceptible to being controlled by hormones. I know that I form initial infatuation based on factors I think are important such as intelligence, progressive thinking, responsibility etc (Obviously they have to be at least average looking). I realize oxytocin isn't as much of a factor in men, but at the same time, like I said before, I know women who have been both sexually non-monogamous and emotionally. 

Infatuation dies down in long term relationships. I wouldn't say a couple that was together for 30 years isn't in love because their oxytocin bond has weakened. (Which I'm assuming it has, I don't know.)



> I would like to see something that supports polygamy that did not reference animals or evolution. I don't care about animals and I don't care about what we were like thousands of years ago. I want to know about us right now.


 You'll talk about oxytocin as if it's the crux of your argument, which is a biological function, but you disregard genetics? If the only reason we shifted behavior is religion, it means we're genetically still non-monogamous. So I would say it's very relevant to the question "Are humans naturally monogamous?" At least if you interpret the answer as "Religion forced us that way, for the most part, so no."


----------



## VanVinci (Dec 11, 2011)

The scientific and psychological evidence would suggest that human nature is generally non-monogamous, but also includes ephemeral periods of deep, romantic, pair bonding in order that our big-headed helpless infants can survive the first few years.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

From an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think humans are monogamous. But the current societal standpoint, both based on structure and values, is very monogamy-driven.

Ultimately though, it comes down to an individual's preference. I for one, prefer open relationships. Does that mean I can't love a person/people at full capacity? *No*. The real issue is time commitment, but a mutual understanding and honesty can keep any relationship strong. If someone can't be mature enough to discuss everything openly with me, then they aren't worth my time.


----------



## thor odinson (May 21, 2011)

If you cant be monogamous, dont be in a relationship. Simple.

Im highly skeptical of these so called "open minded" people.

From what I've heard, sooner or later someone gets pissed off, and alas, the fighting inevitatbly starts.

I believe most can be monogamous with work, the ones that can't well, that's their business.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> @_Olena_ I've been in love with more than one person...for more than 6 years. (Open relationship) I don't need Johnny Cash's input on it, because it's a complex issue. Different people satisfied different needs. I've also known women who were in the same boat, though less so than men.The oxytocin argument just isn't a silver bullet.
> 
> It's a hormone anyway. So, it's associated with primal drives such as lust and infatuation way more than "love", which is more cognitive. Like in the Enneagram I think some people are more oriented to being head types. I believe these types are less susceptible to being controlled by hormones. I know that I form initial infatuation based on factors I think are important such as intelligence, progressive thinking, responsibility etc (Obviously they have to be at least average looking). I realize oxytocin isn't as much of a factor in men, but at the same time, like I said before, I know women who have been both sexually non-monogamous and emotionally.
> 
> ...


Before I even start, please refrain from using the word 'argument'. I don't like arguments, I like discussions. roud:Arguing is for children and the word 'argue' is just too negative. I'm interested in learning about where we stand.
Like I said, this is shit I've encountered with evidence to back it up. In no way is this 'my argument'. If you have worthwhile information for me so I can learn more, then by all means, tell me where to look and what topics specifically to look up. I want to learn more about humans and relationships, and so far, evidence I've encountered says the modern day man is monogamous. [and monogamy seems to be safer as well, and it's instinct to avoid danger]

So you can honestly say you do not favour one person? Do you spend equal amounts of time with everyone? I've never met anyone who pulled it off right, so I'm curious.

Women are capable of having open relationships as well, that's kind of a given. When you have constant multiple oxytocin bonds, it makes it harder to like strictly one person, unless you spend more time with them. It's why in open relationships, when people spend 'equal' time, there's not much favouritism.

I'm a head type as well and so was my partner. We had an open relationship, but he turned monogamous and then I followed. Oxytocin is a *bonding* hormone and causes us to bond. It's released a ton during orgasm, hence why sex is a good way to bond with someone. No, it doesn't mean you 'love' them, but you do 'bond' to them, and bonding is good for relationships. [although relationships built strictly on oxytocin/hormone bonding tend to be 'empty'. It's good for bonding but it can't be the foundation of a relationship. There's gotta be some mental love there too.]

And of course oxytocin does not affect men as much since *women release more oxytocin than men*. Why do you think women get more clingy after sex? haha, it's a little sad. In that sense, a woman is slightly more monogamous than a man. The difference between sexes is quite amazing.

I have to disagree about your 'infatuation dies down' as I have seen couples still very much in love and engaging in crazy wild sex. At the end of the day, how successful a relationship in the long run is depends on the attitude of the people involved. It's not genetics or biology, just good ol fashioned personalities in that case. 

Oxytocin is the biological baby that supports monogamy hence why it's a big deal. I always thought monogamy was the 'norm and religion-based-w/e' and all that jazz, but it there does seem to be a reason why we go crazy over one person.

Yeah, I disregard genetics, because let's face facts, in the thousands of years ago, what was the main point of relationships? Reproduction. Which is the same reason why animals have multiple partners. But today, we have other things driving us to acquire relationships, not just reproduction.

What is man 'naturally'? He's an animal. The thing is, if we had to strip man of everything and we were reduced to our animalistic nature animals; we did not have technology, articulate forms of communication, society, etc. We would be animals and we would definitely not be monogamous because our main point would be to reproduce.

It's tricky, because well, *what do you look at* to answer the question of 'naturally monogamous'? Do you strip our humanity and look at our instinct? or do you look at us when we're educated and possess thinking ability? 

Naturally, we want to fuck and make babies. As many as we can. If we just look at that, well then, man won't lean towards being monogamous.

I look at modern day man, since we think more and I guess I like thinking...

As for monogamy on it's own, all the negativity surrounding it makes people dread settling down and if I've learned anything, it's your attitude that determines the experience. 

It's the reason I find discussing this with people to be difficult because they tend to favour monogamy or they tend to favour 'not obeying the norm and society' to be different so they favour polygamy. I don't really care and I'm not biased, I would just like truth, not opinion. Talking to different people helps me understand how they react to love/relationships and... I'm thinking *man is just a complex animal*. *smokes pipe*

Maybe I should go with everyone is an individual and there is no real conclusion.
I don't want to have kids. Ever. That goes against my 'instinct', I guess. Idk. I just can't figure us out.


----------



## Ubuntu (Jun 17, 2011)

626Stitch said:


> What are your opinions on monogamy versus polyamory and open relationships?
> 
> All points of view welcome!!


Humans are not monogamous, 'naturally' or otherwise. Monogamous_ behavior_ is no more or less natural than polygamous behavior.


> Some people are, some people are not. It's not as simple as saying "No one was meant for it" or "Everyone was meant for it!"​



I don't think a monogamous animal (in terms of desire, not just behavior) is actually possible since all of the physical and personality traits that people find sexually and emotionally appealing are shared by more than one person. Nature selection has hardwired most men and women to prefer partners who appear healthy, fertile and/or as though they have the potential to be good parents, natural selection hasn't hardwired anyone with an attraction to any one specific individual, whatever characteristics that draw you toward someone are possessed by multiple people because they have evolutionary value. That doesn't mean that humans are 'meant' for polygamous behavior, but almost all of them are polygamous regardless of how they actually behave.


> From personal experience I would say open relationships only cause long drawn out pain.​


Your worldview plays a big role in how you interpret situations and events. If you are conditioned to view bananas as filthy, degrading, sinful etc., even if you eat one out of curiosity, as long as your worldview remains the same you will come to regret it as having been wrong or inappropriate. As long as people maintain the worldview that monogamy is normal, appropriate, moral etc. then they will have the conditioned responses (like jealousy) that come with a pro-monogamous world view, it would be pointless for such people to try to force themselves into open relationships if on a sub-conscious level the pro-monogamous view is still deeply embedded into their psyche.​
Olena,

oxytocin has nothing to do with monogamy or even romantic love in particular. Oxytocin is responsible for emotional attachment in general, as well as other social feelings like envy and schadenfreude. Humans are mammals and if virtually all other mammals are sexually promiscuous, we're probably hardwired in a similar way given our common ancestry. Scientists are constantly finding out that non-human animals who were presumed to be sexually monogamous just because they cohabited with only one partner and raised children together actually aren't, DNA tests of offspring often show that the biological father is not the social father/long-term partner. Men produce 4 or 5 types of sperm and only one kind is actually used to impregnate women, the other kinds either prevent the sperm of other men from penetrating the egg or actually go out and kill them. How could these warrior sperm cells have evolved if prehistoric women were typically monogamous? I don't understand the argument that maintaining more than one romantic relationship is difficult or time consuming if the same doesn't apply to maintaining more than one friendship.


----------



## Valdyr (May 25, 2010)

*Are humans "naturally" monogamous?* - No, whatever it would mean for us to be "unnaturally" something.
*Is this fact morally relevant?* - No.

Both are perfectly valid relationship preferences which work for different people. 

Personal anecdote: I've considered myself monogamous in a lukewarm sort of way up until recently, but after three monogamous relationships, I want to maybe try polygamy. Why not?

Also, I'm a bit disappointed to see all the attempts to misuse science to devalue the relationships of happy polygamists. I'm gay, and it reminds me of the natural law idiots who talk about how same-sex couples aren't _really_ happy, that all homosexual relationships are short-lived sex-driven flings which just end in hurt feelings, etc.


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

I'm not sure but I'm enjoying reading everyone's view point on this.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

626Stitch said:


> What are your opinions on monogamy versus polyamory and open relationships?
> 
> All points of view welcome!!


What to you mean by "naturally"?


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

I agree that's it's very important for us to define what "natural" is. Is it not natural to desire to hurt someone (sometimes) when we are mad? Sorry for the crappy example, I just can't think of a good one at the moment. Maybe a better question to ask is, which one is better (which has the most benefits etc.)? Some will say it depends on the people involved others will say it depends on what you define as "better." Both are true. Lust is natural, so is love. I believe it's just as possible to love multiple partners as it is for someone to love just one partner. Everyone is different. And everyone can come up with advantages and disadvantages to both. As for which one is better than the other - I think that's impossible to agree upon because everyone's definition of "good" is different. But that wasn't the question. My answer is both are natural (according to my definition of the word).


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

By 'your argument' I simply meant your point, but I will refrain from the word. =P



Olena said:


> So you can honestly say you do not favour one person? Do you spend equal amounts of time with everyone? I've never met anyone who pulled it off right, so I'm curious.


Well I tend to find good in everyone I'm with, and they satisfy different needs. The most partners I've ever had is three. In that relationship I had most of my intellectual stimulation from one partner, most of my emotional from another, and most of my sexual from a third. All three partners were good at each as well. All three traits are equally important to me. Very good equilibrium. Equal time was also a factor. 



> Oxytocin is a *bonding* hormone and causes us to bond. It's released a ton during orgasm, hence why sex is a good way to bond with someone. No, it doesn't mean you 'love' them, but you do 'bond' to them, and bonding is good for relationships. [although relationships built strictly on oxytocin/hormone bonding tend to be 'empty'. It's good for bonding but it can't be the foundation of a relationship. There's gotta be some mental love there too.]


It's also released during childbirth and breastfeeding for obvious reasons. I once saw something on TV about a gorilla that had to be put under for childbirth. When they introduced the child to the mother when she was awake, she didn't accept the baby as her own. It's likely because she wasn't there for the oxytocin bond. Very sad!

I associate the bond with infatuation. It's not a cognitive bond, but it serves a purpose; it keeps you together to develop a cognitive bond. It seems you agree, just clarifying my wording.



> And of course oxytocin does not affect men as much since *women release more oxytocin than men*. Why do you think women get more clingy after sex? haha, it's a little sad. In that sense, a woman is slightly more monogamous than a man. The difference between sexes is quite amazing.


Maybe slightly more monogamous, or maybe that their instincts are different. I made a post earlier about a flirting study at a club where women in long term relationships were more flirtatious than single or new relationships. That and other evidence I've seen paints a much more complicated picture for females than males. It would seem there's a primal female instinct to seek out genetic diversity, while using the support/love of a stable provider. Political disclaimer, it's just instinct not how we choose to act, blaa blaa. 

Say Susie the Cavewoman had several kids with a male that has what prove to be inferior genetics. That sucks! An epidemic could wipe out all of her little cavechildren, or they could have bad survival instincts. But if Susie stays with her stable provider while seeking out males with better genes, she could have a diverse gene pool. Ensuring if one of her children's fathers genes ends up with a genetic defect that results in losing that kid, she still has others. Don't put all your... sperm in one basket? Benefits? Her genes are carried on either way if any of her children survive AND she has the support and protection of a man who's proven to be stable in the past. 

Edit: I just realized @_Ubuntu_ said something supporting this toward the end of the post, about "monogamous animals" having children that often weren't the same DNA of the long-term partner. Female mate selection, and the long term partner is none-the-wiser. 



> I have to disagree about your 'infatuation dies down' as I have seen couples still very much in love and engaging in crazy wild sex. At the end of the day, how successful a relationship in the long run is depends on the attitude of the people involved. It's not genetics or biology, just good ol fashioned personalities in that case.


Exactly, it's personality, not infatuation. If they have a strong enough cognitive bond, then it's likely they'll jump each other any chance they get, hormones or not.



> Oxytocin is the biological baby that supports monogamy hence why it's a big deal. I always thought monogamy was the 'norm and religion-based-w/e' and all that jazz, but it there does seem to be a reason why we go crazy over one person.


Well, polygamy can still work even with incredibly strong, exclusive oxytocin bonds. Remember they're much stronger with women, so multiple women can be bonded with one man. Interesting that this is the configuration that you see mostly in nature. I believe men bond more with vasopressin? I wonder what the differences are. 



> It's tricky, because well, *what do you look at* to answer the question of 'naturally monogamous'? Do you strip our humanity and look at our instinct? or do you look at us when we're educated and possess thinking ability?


Since I attribute monogamy mostly to religion, I have to consider genetics to determine how we are naturally. We may be naturally religious, but religions we develop aren't naturally monogamous. 

As for higher cognition, if we all educated ourselves to walk on our hands, would that be natural simply because it's natural for us to educate ourselves and that was just an extension? What we indoctrinate ourselves with changes with the times. Genes stay more constant. Still, our higher cognition has to be counted, but not if I attribute it to an arbitrary religious decision. You're right, it is very tricky and hard to isolate, so I'm left with evolutionary psychology and what little I know about history and culture. Anyway, it's not like we had no education or thinking ability before Abrahamic religions.

Edit: @Olena I thought of this just now and figured you'd be interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect#Empirical_evidence


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

To everyone: please stop discussing oxytocin as "step 1". 

Social bonding and oxytocin are intertwined, and behavioral psychology will tell you that people can consciously, rationally decide to "generate oxytocin together" as their way of bonding after they've abstained from sex before marriage, just as you could have someone being promiscuous and "fooling around and falling in love". 

The point is that oxytocin is powerful, and its effects can be directed, but there are also other factors at work, including intentional, rational factors that affect peoples' decision making.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

My first step was admitting I was powerless over oxytocin.


----------



## orphansparrow (Dec 10, 2011)

i'm not sure what i think human beings are naturally. maybe it varies. i don't judge whichever way people want to go though. as long as it's honest, i'm sure it can all be healthy.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

As is typically the case with non-linear human beings, there is no "yes" or "no" to be had here.

Biological sexual urges tend towards polygamy over the course of one's lifetime. 

OTOH, humans are social creatures who tend to organize themselves into societies with rules and norms, and those rules and norms have almost always, for myriad reasons, been based around monogomy, even going so far as to punish adultery. 

Hence my question - what do you mean by "naturally"?


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> My first step was admitting I was powerless over oxytocin.


Oxytocin is one hell of a drug.


----------



## 626Stitch (Oct 22, 2010)

> What to you mean by "naturally"?


I have to admit I have left things very open here.

The question which is interesting to me from a practical and moral standpoint is - What way of living is most conducive to human wellbeing?

I used the word "naturelly" because I think human wellbeing is determined by how well a persons way of life is adaptod to their inate unalterable nature. I guess the problem with my assumptions is that humans do not allways organise themselves socially in ways that promote wellbeing. The Abrahamic religions enforce strict monogomy so objectively one could argue that this is a naturel form of human society since it seems to be the norm which has occured historicly. But from my pov this is not the answer I am looking for.

Having said that I left the phrasing of the OP deliberately loose because I was looking for an open discussion rather than a dialectic one otherwise I would have posted in the debate forum.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

@ManhattanINTP 

Hearing about your successful relationship was interesting! Maybe I'm just a coward in the relationship-sense, but the idea of having many people satisfy many needs is pretty good because then if one of them fucks off, I can just replace. It's not like I've LOST EVERYTHING AND NOW I'M ALL ALONE.

 Although being with one person feels insanely more satisfying for me, it just ends up hurting more if they leave.

This thread is really getting me thinking about stuff. I love it.

aaah that Coolidge affect is fascinating. I see that urge as linked to reproduction. As in 'I better impregnate this female before anyone else does! Spread my genes!'

If you've mated with a female, she's pregnant so there's no need to mate anymore. That explains why 'instinctively/naturally' a male would lose interest in sleeping with the same females. Until they were ready for...impregnation...again...that was weird to type.

When you spoke about Suzie the cavewoman(haha), it's definitely instinct to choose a 'healthy' mate. But can we use this for modern man? We have adoption, surrogates, etc. So we can be monogamous without the intention of having kids. But oh yeah, in those days, it's better to pick many mates to have healthy offspring. Actually, I guess in general, if you were a guy who wanted to spread your seed, you'd just sleep with many women. Without protection. Not sure why I added the 'no protection part'...

If I had to look at multiple relationships and having random sex, the outcome seems to be a bunch of single parents so yes, very useful for reproduction haha.
At least in nature, the male sometimes stay with the females.:dry: It ensures safety of the offspring.

oh oh, I read wolves tend to have one 'partner' mate but they mate with others and sometimes the female will return pregnant with another's offspring and her and her partner will raise the cubs together. I don't see a man ever wanting to raise his woman's children from another man. Of course, I mean in the sense of they were together and she went and got pregnant by another guy. 
Even in nature, I'm surprised because it's not the male's offspring. I thought they'd kill them.



> even going so far as to punish adultery.


whoa whoa whoa, adultery is something different. Adultery is betrayal of trust. It's not just 'Hey, let me have sex with other women'. In nature, and polymary relationships, the females know about each other.

IMO, infidelity is a case of being dishonest, not 'urges'. If you had urges, man up and tell your woman. If you're not happy, just gtfo and fly solo and have many flings. Entering a monogamous relationship and then breaking it because of sex shows poor character and lack of self-control. It's very...animalistic really, and I thought we possessed thinking ability. [and besides, just having sex is sooo risky, with all the stds. If you lie to your wife about cheating, you put her health at risk. It's not just an emotional thing.]

Even in polyamorous relationships, you have to let your other partners know you want someone new. 

So IMO, infidelity is not just linked to 'monogamy'.

But I think that's a case of people entering monogamy because society expects it, even if they are not really into the idea of monogamy. If you dread or have doubts about being only with one person, just don't do it. Society has to stop pressuring people.

They pressure women to be loyal to their man and when a woman is unfaithful, she's seen as lowly scum. When a committed man sleeps with other women the response is 'a man will be a man'. What a load of crap. Women are sexual creatures as well, they're just led to believe only sluts embrace their sexuality.

I think I digressed into gender issues. Dammit. I can never discuss anything properly, I end up all over the place.:frustrating:


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Olena said:


> Although being with one person feels insanely more satisfying for me, it just ends up hurting more if they leave.


 I just haven't found someone who satisfied all my needs at once. Even if I did, I would still desire something sexually after a bit, just because I have a healthy drive and don't believe in suppressing our natural urges. 



> If you've mated with a female, she's pregnant so there's no need to mate anymore. That explains why 'instinctively/naturally' a male would lose interest in sleeping with the same females. Until they were ready for...impregnation...again...that was weird to type.


Though you'll notice many people, including males, instinctively act protective towards pregnant women. If our race wasn't protective towards pregnant woman, we wouldn't survive as well.

I do know several people who are sexually attracted to pregnant women, at least slightly before the point they're ready to burst. Personally, I think pregnant women are really cute. 



> When you spoke about Suzie the cavewoman(haha), it's definitely instinct to choose a 'healthy' mate. But can we use this for modern man? We have adoption, surrogates, etc. So we can be monogamous without the intention of having kids.


Sure, we don't have to do this in the present whatsoever. I'm just speaking to the evidence suggesting it's an instinct. Another thing about all that, do you recall the studies where relationships are most stable when the male perceives himself as less attractive than the female? That coupled with testosterone being linked to cheating paints a picture that alpha males aren't very stable. So then, Suzie may actually have a better shot getting a beta male to take care of her while she gets pregnant by the alpha male genes. 

Theory I haven't searched for info about yet: Women are more likely to get pregnant if they orgasm, too. I bet you there's some sort of correlation with aggressive/successful males and orgasm. She'd be less likely to get pregnant by the beta male that's taking care of her, and more likely to get pregnant by more attractive males. 




> I don't see a man ever wanting to raise his woman's children from another man. Of course, I mean in the sense of they were together and she went and got pregnant by another guy.


I don't believe the male knows about it. Sex with other males could have happened in secret, first off. Second off, I don't think they comprehend the idea of it being their child or not, just that it's their mate's child. 

I read somewhere that it was a mystery that sex actually caused childbirth for longer than you might think. I seriously doubt a caveman understood that the child a female gave birth to wasn't his own. They probably had sex constantly, forced or consensual, so the females were always pregnant and never made the link between sex and pregnancy.


----------



## ToiletWater13 (Jun 7, 2011)

Although I am monogamous, myself, I have to admit that polyamorous relationships make the most logical sense at a first glance. When watching an interview with the man who had multiple- I think four going on five-wives (a mormon family), it made sense; they can all fill in the blanks for the others. When partner #1 has a headache, you can go ahead with partner #2 who's been seriously in the mood for DAYS; if partner #3 isn't good at cooking, partner #4 can do it, and when partner #2 doesn't want to drive, partner #3 just happens to LOVE the car, so they'll take the kids to school. People in multi-partner relationships also make a pretty good argument that the idea of monogamy may mean putting all your eggs in one basket. One character on House MD, "Thirteen" (actually a female), actually once made the statement that "marriage is like promissing that you'll only have one kind of icecream for the rest of your life..." Although Christians condemn cheating and most find polyamorous relationships distasteful, it was very common in Biblical stories for the kings- who were divinely appointed by God, if you believe the stories (I make no stance either way, this is not a religion argument)- to have multiple wives. In fact, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. If you lean towards the evolutionary standpoint, the idea of mating with multiple people increases the chances that your genetics will survive, and so makes more sense than monogamy, especially for men. 

A lot of you seem to make arguments for monogamy by using oxytocin, the "bonding" hormone. I think that's all well and good, but isn't there a deeper element to this? Perhaps it's because I'm a one-woman girl (you looked at that twice, didn't you?), or perhaps because I don't understand it correctly (I'm not omniscient yet), the idea of polyamory seems kind of...well...shallow and self-involved. "My husband doesn't want to cuddle with me, so I'm going to leave and cuddle with my boyfriend," "My girlfriend's great, but she's terrible at sex, so I'm going to go consummate with someone else," "I wish my girlfriend was a better cook. Oh, I know, we'll stay at my boyfriend's house for the night so he can make us dinner tonight and breakfast tomorrow!" Forgive me for saying this, but it seems kind of like the child who doesn't get the answer he wants from one parent, so he goes to the other. 

I've been talking to someone who is in a "polyamorous" relationship, but I don't really think she understands the meaning of "polyamorous." She says she loves only him, and he loves only her, just that when he's gone she gets desperate, clingy, and lonely. I know I can't generalize from one person to the whole lot, but I wonder if maybe that is part of what spurrs the "all your eggs in one basket" argument. They make an apparently good defense that you can't expect one person to satisfy all your needs; the fact is that you CAN depend on one person to satisfy all your needs- that person is YOU. 

I am not against people in polyamorous relationships, but for me- an introvert- it just seems like a lot of unneccessary busywork. If I'm so unhappy with my partner that I need to go elsewhere to get my feelings met, one of three things needs to happen:
-We need to discuss the problem and make a logical compromise
-I need to address whether or not my demands are logical and if they should be placed on her; for example, a lot of stress in relationships comes from places outside relationships, like stress from work.
-If it is something that my partner needs to offer me in order to keep me comfortable in a relationship, and it is not something she can offer or something I should be able to do for myself, we should probably end this. 

I recognize that this is just my personal opinion and I'm bound to be a tad egocentric. I probably seem hateful, but I'm not- polyamorite just isn't me.

Cheers~


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

maybe if I had two penises I'd date more than one woman at a time

as it is, it's just a hassle to juggle more than one woman, who wants their car windows broken out of revenge anyway?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

the only fair documentary i saw that talked about this concluded that: 
some humans are, some are not, and some are sometimes.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> I just haven't found someone who satisfied all my needs at once. Even if I did, I would still desire something sexually after a bit, just because I have a healthy drive and don't believe in suppressing our natural urges.
> 
> Though you'll notice many people, including males, instinctively act protective towards pregnant women. If our race wasn't protective towards pregnant woman, we wouldn't survive as well.
> 
> ...


Because you have a high sex drive? I have an insanely high sex drive and I find myself first making sure my partners are sexually compatible with me before anything else. It's so easy to fall apart when you aren't on the same wavelength sexually. having a natural sex drive shouldn't mean you need multiple partners. If you had a healthy sex drive and so did your partner, there should be no problems. But I came across this book that was written on why Three-somes are good for a monogamous relationship. lol I never read it, but it might be good.

Mmm, yes, you make perfect sense when it comes to pregnancy! They have no actual way of knowing if it's theirs or not.

So, with the beta/Alpha male, it was better for them to breed with the Alpha, but partner with a beta, for support, etc? Is it just me...or does this mimic modern day as well haha? How many women don't cheat on their husbands because they're not 'aggressive' enough? Well, not 'aggressive', but having backbone or dominance. Women don't often sexually like men they can step all over. Instead, there does seem to be a trend of 'stay with this guy for support but fuck other hotter guys'

I remember reading this post where the guy says you should engage with rough sex with your woman, because all women, at some stage, like it and if her man doesn't give it to her, she'll end up looking for it elsewhere. Idk how true this is, but it seems to be related to aggression.

I like aggression. A lot. And yet, I find it's true that sometimes aggressive men are just not good supporters. I don't think we should revert back to ancient times. I think men need a good balance. Tricky.

That last paragraph reminded me of a post I saw on here too, when people discovered sex causes pregnancy hahaha.

@ToiletWater13 

I really enjoyed reading your opinion and makes it a lot of sense to me. It's definitely linked to the fear of only depending on one person. It's why I think relationships are team work and require excellent communication and being open with your needs and wants. You shouldn't be afraid to say when you need more affection/more space, etc. You shouldn't be afraid to express any negative emotion.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Olena said:


> Because you have a high sex drive?


High sex drive, always wanting to try new things, etc. But more importantly than that, I'm always wanting to discuss something philosophical/political/psychological or relentlessly asking endless questions and such. My girlfriend says I don't have an off switch. I tire people out sometimes. It's hard to find a fit. 



> So, with the beta/Alpha male, it was better for them to breed with the Alpha, but partner with a beta, for support, etc? Is it just me...or does this mimic modern day as well haha?


The marriage thing sounds dead on. Personally, I always think about "nice-guys". There's plenty of nice-guys who are intelligent, considerate, and loyal that keep getting passed over. I think the thing to realize is that the women aren't going for "jerks", they're going for high testosterone markers, and that the "nice-guys" are just not sexually attractive to many.

Testosterone is pretty interesting. In a social psych class I heard that it's correlated with domestic abuse, until the males tested reach middle class. At middle class, the correlation completely disappears. It gives energy and competitiveness, for which the male has to have options/an outlet or it just turns into anti-social traits. 

Of course, a man can have the highest testosterone in the world and not be a jackass, depending on how classy he is. Nobody should ever settle for a jerk. And there's also no reason a man can't have the best traits of the aggressive archetype and the supporting archetype. 

Anyway back to the marriage thing. I once knew a borderline that's been married 3 times so far. She cheated on her 2nd nice-guy husband constantly. (And every other guy she's dated) Their relationship ended, and she ended up married to another nice-guy. The difference? A complete change in personality after she had 3 kids (From 2 separate dads we know of) and a stable provider. She's completely loyal for the first time in her life. I attribute it to her now having what her instincts tell her to have: A stable provider and several children. Since she has this, why cheat? 

I like her as an example because she's pure instinct. She just does whatever her urges tell her, and her urges are now suddenly not telling her to cheat.



> I remember reading this post where the guy says you should engage with rough sex with your woman, because all women, at some stage, like it and if her man doesn't give it to her, she'll end up looking for it elsewhere. Idk how true this is, but it seems to be related to aggression.


That's been my experience.

Sorry for the long post (again). I have a lot of info and ideas floating around my head about this.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

ManhattanINTP said:


> High sex drive, always wanting to try new things, etc. But more importantly than that, I'm always wanting to discuss something philosophical/political/psychological or relentlessly asking endless questions and such. My girlfriend says I don't have an off switch. I tire people out sometimes. It's hard to find a fit.
> 
> The marriage thing sounds dead on. Personally, I always think about "nice-guys". There's plenty of nice-guys who are intelligent, considerate, and loyal that keep getting passed over. I think the thing to realize is that the women aren't going for "jerks", they're going for high testosterone markers, and that the "nice-guys" are just not sexually attractive to many.
> 
> ...


I actually know how you feel. Finding the right person is tough, so in the meantime, having many that satisfy needs individually definitely is the next best thing. Also, when you're very logical, it seems a good choice to _at least_ satisfy your needs.

I must confess...I found my ex very sexually attractive when he started being an asshole to me. When he started being all jerky and arrogant, Idk what happened but my libido activated. It's definitely because he seemed dominant and aggressive and I just find that so sexually attractive. I am weak to it. But he could alternate between being sweet and a jerk so it was quite nice. 
That balance is very enjoyable. I feel a bit bad though, does this mean most nice guys, in nature, would be beta males? hahaha, they're always complaining how the women flock to jerks and assholes so it seems we're just being our typical natural selves.

That marriage story is very very interesting. I mean, in my mind, it just links multiple sexual partners with reproduction once again. Do you think if she never had kids, she wouldn't be loyal? Just thinking about her instincts telling her: "Okay, you have kids and a stable provider now. Time to stop humping everything. We've won."

We've seen what women want, but what do men want? Just a healthy partner who is capable of reproducing? It would explain why all men like young supple females.

hell...I'd like a young supple female myself...


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Olena said:


> I actually know how you feel. Finding the right person is tough, so in the meantime, having many that satisfy needs individually definitely is the next best thing. Also, when you're very logical, it seems a good choice to _at least_ satisfy your needs.


Even then, more "right people" would probably be better than one! If only I were that lucky. 



> I feel a bit bad though, does this mean most nice guys, in nature, would be beta males?


If so, it's a sad comment on humanity. That would most of the "nice" people are only nice because they don't have the power to blow people off that don't satisfy their needs. It's been shown that richer people are generally less empathetic and such. I guess the only way you can tell if someone is truly a good person is if they act kind, but are also confident in themselves and have at least a normal amount of any kind of power. 



> Do you think if she never had kids, she wouldn't be loyal?


 Since she wasn't to her last two husbands or any of her boyfriends, I think she would have stayed disloyal. 

This guy isn't exactly sexually appealing either. I know from his ex wife that he has around a 3" penis, and used to have her wrap him up naked in cyran wrap and leave him alone for hours to struggle in his own sweat trying to get free. He also constantly tried to get her to lock him in a chastity device. (I don't share this forum with most of the people I know so I can use hilarious examples like that without them getting upset.)



> We've seen what women want, but what do men want? Just a healthy partner who is capable of reproducing? It would explain why all men like young supple females.
> 
> *hell...I'd like a young supple female myself...*


It's always nice to find common ground.

Study: Curvy hips lure men to smart women 
iTWire - Curvy women smarter and give birth to higher-IQ children 
(Curvy women have more intelligent children. Ouch.)
Curvy women activate reward centre in men's brains | Mail Online 

Apparently men want curvy women! I know the hourglass thing definitely works for me.


----------



## Zster (Mar 7, 2011)

Some are some are not. Some science argues that it benefits women to be monogamous but not men. It's more choice than programming, I think, given the benefits of our culture in terms of enhanced survival and quality of life.

I strongly favor monogamy personally, but do not judge those who have a more free attitude about such things, so long as their liasons are not hurtful (when all parties involved understand up front and agree).

Pretty much a non-answer, huh?


----------

