Are humans naturally monogamous?

Are humans naturally monogamous?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=b1I58ywHwog
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Not anymore than we naturally wear pants or read and write.

Monogamy is a social innovation required for large civilizations to function. Without it, males with the most social status accrue an excess of mates and create a crippling scarcity of women for most of the males. Which leads to extreme social tension, because history has shown men will fight wars just to get mates. Such large wars can be domestic or revolutionary. Rome probably outlawed having multiple wives as a product of the plebeian revolution that lead to the reforms in the early year of the republic, for instance.

No but it's nice to have a special someone out of 7 billion

is the pattern of Veeky Forums to ask really basic bitch fucking questions where teh OP seemingly has no modicum of education, so rather than actually asking an interesting question, he comes off as a child asking his parents where babies come from?

because that's what I'm seeing here.

that said, you're using the world naturally in a stupid fucking manner.

human evolutionary incentives incentivized monogamy heavily. a large part of our nature revolves around it, but at a base level we are inherently not.

Yes desu. People get jelly as fuck when there are 3+ way relationships. People expect lots of support from a lover and they dont get enough.

Fetlife houses end fast and poly christian women complain about jellousy.

Humans are neither "naturally" monogamous nor polygamous, they evolved in such a way that different societies have adopted different reproductive strategies. While some reproductive strategies are more common than others, it would be mistaken to think some are "natural" and others aren't.

I don't know, but the idea of "natural" is a stupid concept in general. Humans evolved to manipulate things in order to overcome obstacles. Creating unnatural things is the most natural thing a human can do.

Of course not

In most societies we can find men trying to keep control of their women and being unwilling to share. Women however are perfectly fine with sharing a man with multiple women as long as it doesn't come with repercussions. This makes sense since one man can get multiple women pregnant, while a woman can't become pregnant by multiple men and is essentially out of the reproductive game for multiple months when she's pregnant.

Most species are naturally monogamous for evolutionary purposes.

it would be too cluttered if too many parents raise one child but too difficult for one parent to do normally.

Define "naturally". We have plenty of mental adaptations to form long-lasting bonds with a partner, but we also have a few for cheating as well.

yes because who wants to deal with that many women and their stepmothers lol am i right

>Women however are perfectly fine with sharing a man with multiple women as long as it doesn't come with repercussions.
???
Has never had a gf confirmed.

No, and I believe it's mentally unhealthy to try and force monogamy in relationships.

I maintain an open relationship with my wife, with our only condition being that we're together when enjoying the company of another partner. I feel no shame in watching her be pleasured by another man in our bed because I understand that while she's sharing her body her heart is only mine. Yes, at least one of our children was fathered by another man. I still love her son and accept him as mine because I know she bore him for me and I'm his father. Explaining a "mixed race" child is difficult sometimes but that's only because the unrealistic expectations of our society arbitrarily make it so.

Before anyone decides to drop hot memes, don't bother being hypocrites. A lot of the angriest, woman-hating virgins here will spout "cuck" or call women "whores" while maintaining some unrealistic belief in monogamy. Well that's not how humans function. If you want a relationship you need to be grounded in reality. I let my wife achieve sexual satisfaction with other men because I know we're all animals and the baser part of her needs that release from more than just me. I watch because I want to be there and make sure she's safe, and I know she feels safer with me around. Afterwards when her partner leaves and we cuddle she tells me about it, how she felt, and how she can't wait for the next time we're intimate together. And that's both healthy and romantic, I believe.

Does she watch when you sleep with other women?

Your gf is not concerned about sharing you but about being replaced.

This is why Veeky Forums can't be good. All threads are either clueless people or people being intentionally retarded to trigger some pol-leftypol shitstorm.

What triggers me the most is the usage of "human nature" as an answer to anything.

t. Anthropologist

No but for Jesse I would.

the only question I want to ask is this:
does she watch you sleep around with another women, and have you fathered any children with other women? Because if not, then like it or not, you are an actual cuckold.

>I maintain an open relationship with my wife
Had to stop reading there. Top cuck.

youtube.com/watch?v=b1I58ywHwog

Hahaha wut? Most species are asexual bacteria. Most mammals are very much not monogamous. Most human societies were polygynous. Even modern western society only pretends at monogamy, while condoning easy divorce and serial monogamy.

I think the defining aspect of the human condition is that we aren't naturally anything. We are the most malleable species on the planet.

>People in a system that only has legal monogomy and clearly incentivizes it get jelly as fuck, etc.
ftfy.

Humans are not 'naturally' monogamous, and certainly not for their entire lives. But the past 2000 years of western civilization has made monogamy rather an engrained cultural element. It is certainly possible to train yourself to be monogamous, or not.

Many 'primitive' hunter-gatherer groups are basically one big open relationship. You get a woman pregnant, you help her raise the baby until it's 3-5 years old or so, and then you're both free to fuck who you want again. Repeat as desired.

Yea, nah, cuck.

Eskimos are and were monogamous

This. Talking about the "natural" state of something that's entirely cultural is stupid and pointless. Monogamy is either how people are enculturated or it isn't.

this is so untrue it's laughable

This is one of the more clever bait I've seen here. Bravo.

This.
If anything the opposite is true.

Forgive me if I find your post not very convincing, let alone laughing at the post you linked to.

Well written bait

Good bait

>We are the most malleable species on the planet.

We change nature. We aren't changed much by it.

We're naturally jealous of cheating lovers - men at least for biological reasons.
Of course, we're also naturally hypocrites, most of us would be glad to fuck around (spreading genes is a biological imperative) but wouldn't welcome our partner doing the same thing (we don't want to waste resources supporting children that aren't ours).

Monogamy seems to be a sufficient compromise with our biology. I'd say it's "artificial" but only just.

>We change nature. We aren't changed much by it.

What a silly thing to say.
Yes we can alter our environment, that doesn't magically mean we aren't changed by our environment. Do you really think, for example, that a person raised on a farm in the country isn't influenced by that compared to a person raised in the city?

inb4 "human created environments aren't natural" if cities aren't natural neither are ant hills or beaver dams.

>if cities aren't natural neither are ant hills or beaver dams.

There's a difference between something constructed through complex industrial processes and a beaver dam.

11/10 bait

i believe communism is evil and an utter failure of an ideology but i cringe when people say it doesn't work because 'human nature'. what does that even mean? what part of human nature? its just an argument for retards desu

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

I'll put this on my fucking wall. Nice words user

cute

Best bait ever.

I think it's easy enough to assume that the "human nature" argument is baby's first synonym for egoism.

I want Jessie to hold me

Yup, at least while we are in love

Greed, competition, the desire to get an edge over their peers for social and sexual reasons that are part of everybody's psyche thanks to evolution

>being a cuckold

This b8 is very obvious and yet a ton idiots replied. Truly we live in sad times.

Once I realized I was gay, I realized there's something fucking wrong with people who can't into monogamy.

Literally hat is wrong with being a cuck

mostly. depends on culture too
muslims sometimes practice polygamy and some ancient slavs did as well

I don't know. One is enough for me though. To put her above all others just feels good for some reason. It's natural for me.

>muh social constructs

Fuck off back to tumblr tbqh.

how do you explain different practices around the globe you little edgelord?

Monogamy is the norm around the globe you cucklord.

see
cant forget about the chinese emperors too

Because the Emperor with his harem is representative of the norm right?

Back to tumblr please.

I certainly don't need any enticement to be loyal to my gf, and I certainly am extremely possessive of her.

yeah it is if he's screwing 1000 women
that's 1000 men who are now single
it was so common in persia that the lower class began following heretic preachers like mazdak and mani who denounced the practice

I don't think that's true. Humans can live in extremely different situations and have extremely different behavior, and they can all work in a materialistic sense where the culture survives and a bunch of people fuck and have children, but the sort of system that would make humans happy and content is a very specific one. For instance a single human could survive on his own but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be happier with a tribe.

Why are you possessive? Because getting a gf is hard? Because you're afraid of losing her to someone else?

Because getting that particular girlfriend was unlikely and losing that particular woman to someone else would be unbearable as she is unique and unlike any other.

Seriously what the fuck is it with you cucks and your "open relationships"? How do you not understand basic human emotions?

Humans get turned on by group sex so no obviously. Why do we get turned on? Its just pleasure caused by our brain to encourage us to reproduce thus humans are polygamous if group breeding turns us on.

Then why does animal sex turn me on?

So you're possessive because you're afraid of losing her to someone else because she's unique? Basically you're possessive because you live in a monogamous society so if your gf was interested in someone else that would mean that you would no longer have her. That's the stupid thing, monogamy is creating artificial scarcity; humans can have feelings for two people without one set of feelings being lessened.

I believe in polyamory, not open relationships. And I understand human emotions, I just think that relationships shouldn't be based upon fear and jealousy nor should those emotions be accepted as something normal.

You disgust me. I'm glad nature's mistakes are self-correcting and people like you won't have kids.

You don't seem like a very philosophical person. Why are you on the humanities board if you're unwilling to discuss and contemplate other ideas?

Primitive genes that goes back to before you were human, animal fuckers are basically operating on 70 mya genes.

no . it was forced onto us by our enemies that don't want us to have large well built strong families. remember kids your enemies want you dead not making kids . blame christchan stains.

What exactly do you mean by "philosophical person"? I'm strongly influenced by Stoicism and Perennialism for what it's worth. I slightly drunk so I'm probably being more blunt than usual but I just can't help but have a visceral reaction to people like you.

I don't think you're capable of love in the way that most humans are. I can contemplate your ideas just fine and I've concluded that you're spiritually autistic. I would never "share" the woman I love with another and I'm glad your type will be bred out of existence. Take that however you will.

>Why are you possessive?
I don't know user, it's just a natural tendency of mine. You could probably psychanalyse me to get a better answer, but I can't think of one by myself.
>Because getting a gf is hard? Because you're afraid of losing her to someone else?
Getting a gf wasn't hard for me, and I'm not afraid that she might leave me. I'm just that kid that never ever let others play with his toys, and that just goes a thousand fold for my woman.

Also I should add that she actually enjoys my being possessive (because she thinks it means I care for her), and she's just as possessive of me (which I don't mind either). That said we both realize that feeling jealousy is rather unpleasant, so we both try to avoid causing it in each other. Our possessiveness is about keeping away others, not about not trusting each other.

>humans can have feelings for two people without one set of feelings being lessened
Says you. I certainly can't even imagine being in love with two women at the same time. When I hear people like you spout this bullshit I wonder if you've ever really had feelings other than lust and mild affection for your partners.

The only thing humans are socially "natural" at is adaptation to environment.

Sexual dimorphism in primates correlates with more skewed mating ratios. In gorillas the silverback male gorilla weighs twice as much as the female. Men don't weigh twice as much as women but we weigh a bit more which explains why some men are very successful while some men only have sex with one woman, or don't even have sex at all.

Try and read the replies you utter mongoloid.

You can be very succesful and prefer one partner out of choice.

>I can contemplate your ideas just fine and I've concluded that you're spiritually autistic
On contrary, it is because of my spirituality that I think this way. I think negative emotions should be excised as much as possible, which includes jealousy, fear, and possessiveness.
>I would never "share" the woman I love with another
She's not yours to share. You do not own each other and no matter what you do, you cannot control how she could feel towards another.
>I'm just that kid that never ever let others play with his toys, and that just goes a thousand fold for my woman.
That mindset typically comes from children who tried to enforce their will over their possessions and by being forced to let others play with their toys they in turn became more possessive. It comes from a lack of and desire for control over their life which transfers onto their things.
>enjoys my being possessive (because she thinks it means I care for her)
You can care about another without being possessive, all being possessive does is allow jealousy to come in.
>Our possessiveness is about keeping away others, not about not trusting each other.
That still ultimately comes from fear. There'd be no reason to keep others away if you didn't think they could change the relationship.
>Says you. I certainly can't even imagine being in love with two women at the same time.
Maybe not you, but it certainly does happen to others. If you mean the romantic, honeymood phase love that lasts a couple months, well, it probably couldn't apply to more than one person since you're incapable of seeing anyone else when you're in that phase. But genuine love cannot be conveniently confined to one person unless you force yourself to not develop feelings like that, which supposed monogamists do.

>If you mean the romantic, honeymood phase love that lasts a couple months
>a couple months
It's been ongoing for the last 10 years. It's not going away user, no matter how badly it crushes your ideas.

yeah it's fuckin' bullshit.

I always wonder what kind of man would feel appealed to be open-minded about sharing his woman.

Tell me, do you have the following:
Short stature
Low amount of muscles
Premature balding
High pitched voice
Patchy facial hair
Glasses.

>On contrary, it is because of my spirituality that I think this way. I think negative emotions should be excised as much as possible, which includes jealousy, fear, and possessiveness.
So your idea of being polyamorous because it's natural is based on your unnatural desire to excise a part of your emotional spectrum? Yeah you're the one with problems here.

nice try

So you're been experiencing this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence
for 10 years? That doesn't sound healthy.
None of those are arguments and beyond glasses, none of them apply to me.
>natural is based on your unnatural desire to excise a part of your emotional spectrum? Yeah you're the one with problems here.
If you're the one saying your philosophy is based upon Stoicism, then you seem like a very poor Stoic and one who doesn't understand the philosophy. Saying that negative emotions are natural (which they are) so that means they're good and necessary (which they're not) is fallacious. Emotional healthiness is about minimizing and diminishing negative emotions; which does not mean hiding or suppressing, an angry man is still angry even if he never shows it.

and what is that difference other than anthropomorphism?

>If you're the one saying your philosophy is based upon Stoicism
I'm not,I'm a different user. However if you think that what is natural is not necessarily good for you, then you've destroyed your own argument by yourself.

>So you're been experiencing this
No. It doesn't fit in the least, and it's not related to the honeymoon phase either. Don't try to demonize my feelings user, it won't make you any less of a deviant.

When did I ever make an appeal to nature? Many things are natural but are not good, many things are natural which are. Something being natural is just an explanation, not an argument.
I'm not demonizing your feelings user. I think one of us is misunderstanding. What I am saying is that someone in the honeymood phase is so obsessed they not going to think about anyone else so being in two honeymood phases at once would be impossible. You feel whatever you feel and for some reason you don't feel that for a second person; your personal experience doesn't apply to everyone.

>When did I ever make an appeal to nature?
>forcing a monogamous relation
Implies you think polyamory is the natural status. You didn't really offer any other arguments.

Biologists differentiate between "monogamy" and "social monogamy." In the former, an animal mates for life and will never/rarely ever find another partner. The latter, which includes humans but also many other species, means that monogamy is the dominant model but individuals often stray from it.

So yes in the sense that monogamy is the norm, but no in the sense that humans aren't geared towards having only one lover throughout their whole life

K-selected humans are.

>You feel whatever you feel and for some reason you don't feel that for a second person; your personal experience doesn't apply to everyone.
The same goes for you user. Just because you can't love doesn't mean that someone who can should suffer to have to share his lover and being called weird for actually being in love.
>But genuine love cannot be conveniently confined to one person unless you force yourself to not develop feelings like that, which supposed monogamists do.
You're the one trying to fit others into a mold here user. You're the one here that thinks his very own experience is actually everyone's situation. Who are you to tell me that I'm forcing myself not to develop other feelings?

Monogamy is obviously natural, since it exists, the forcing parts comes into the fact that people tend to stray from it and prefer other partners.

Polyamory isn't the natural state, since it's pretty rare, but having feelings for others is common so polyamory is the system that accommodates that.
>The same goes for you user. Just because you can't love doesn't mean that someone who can should suffer to have to share his lover and being called weird for actually being in love.
Nice strawman. And there is no sharing involved because your partner isn't your property. They're not weird, simply unrealistic and delusional in thinking that everyone can only love one (1) person at a time and then they try to get around that idea with serial monogamy. I guess they really never loved anyone because how else could they develop feelings for more than one person?
>Who are you to tell me that I'm forcing myself not to develop other feelings?
I'm not saying you specifically, I don't know your situation. I'm saying that's what many do in general.

>I'm saying that's what many do in general.
How do you know that? I quite doubt you've met people telling you "I'm forcing myself not to feel for others". You're the only one you can be sure about, and you certainly don't, since you consider yourself polyamorous (and as such don't actually try). You're the one being delusional here, looking at what the majority does as an attempt to circumvent normality, and what the minority does as the obviously rational behaviour without any real reason to think so. You're confirmation bias personified.

>Monogamy is a social innovation required for large civilizations to function.
Maybe you're a kissless virgin and have never heard of
-jealousy
-studies confirming multiple relationships have a negative impact on the human mind,less happiness,more divorces,less love,less fulfilment,etc
-offspring needing both parents(biological) for healthy development
-humans showing every sign that they are a monogamous species(unlike other species that are not)
-basic human biology
-basic human psychology
-etc

>muh monogamy is a social meme invention for muh civilizations
Look at muslim societies,low in genetic diversity and inbred from having too many wives.
Look at polyamorous societies,they're dead or in tribes.
Look at whatever animal species you want.

This meme topic needs to stop,we've had this thread for 409225th times.

>t. Anthropologist
>in 2016
So what kind of sociology theories about the impact of lesbian sexualism in the 17th century have you learned?
>when you miss anthropology being a serious field it was 50 years ago
>now its washed down cookie-cutter bullshit inclusive of retards that wouldn't have been accepted in the past

H Y P E R G A M Y

>serial monogamy
>cheating
>high divorce rates
There's evidence right there. There's also the logical reasoning in that there's no reason why having a gf would suddenly make you incapable of develop similar feelings for another girl. Or the fact that love isn't a finite resource. Or simply that humans haven't been monogamist for most of their existence.
>-jealousy
A negative emotion that leads to unhappiness. The thing that causes it is the jealous person.
>-studies confirming multiple relationships have a negative impact on the human mind,less happiness,more divorces,less love,less fulfilment,etc
Correlation isn't causation. It's much easier and sensible to blame less happiness and fulfillment causing multiple relationships and divorce.
>-offspring needing both parents(biological) for healthy development
That's true, they also need much more than that. The nuclear family is a relatively recent invention that is fantastical and harmful to the family. A child needs more than just two adults, especially when one adult is rarely around.
>-humans showing every sign that they are a monogamous species(unlike other species that are not)
Patently false. There's the current evidence of the failing of monogamy and also the fact that humans weren't monogamist for most of their history.
>-basic human biology
>-basic human psychology
>-etc
Not an argument and is as fallacious as saying "muh human nature"
>Look at muslim societies,low in genetic diversity and inbred from having too many wives.
Many Muslims don't even live in countries where polygamy is allowed, not the mention most Muslims don't have multiple wives.
>Look at polyamorous societies,they're dead or in tribes.
Not an argument as to their validity.
>Look at whatever animal species you want.
Chickens are monogamous in the wild and they're not particularly smart. While bonobos and chimps are humans' closest relatives and are both non-monogamist, with bonobos being polyamourous and peaceful.

>studies confirming multiple relationships have a negative impact on the human mind,less happiness,more divorces,less love,less fulfilment,etc

>Correlation isn't causation

How can you say that if you haven't seen the study? No one said that "correlation is causation".

Probably not, but what a lot of people miss or somehow have a hard time grasping is that its mutual.
lets say two people who are already in a relationship start crushing on other people. Most people will see this as a sign of disloyalty. What if instead the couple acted on these crushes together? How would that be cheating if both did the act on the same person willingly together? How is that disloyal?
The joke with cuck is that the man is passive while his wife has all the fun, but if the man is also acting how is this cuckolding?