Is Monogamy Natural? (rant)

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

I think if animals were given the choice, I'm not sure they would choose natural childbirth.

 

It's strange, but you rarely see an animal in pain during childbirth. Seems like they walk around (hooved mammals) and the offspring just plops out and the mommy goes on chewing her cud or whatever. We've had cats who have had litters...no caterwauls of pain. What is it about humans that we seem to be the only ones that have pain all the time?

 

Sorry...completely off topic, but had to say something.

[AtheistMommy]

Human monogamy is not natural, it is an intelligent choice made by a species capable of understanding the consequences of bad choices. I don't see the point in comparing human behavior to that of any species incapable of understanding long term consequences of choices.

 

Maybe I skimmed through this thread too quickly, but I did not see any references to STDs. IMHO, they represent the single most powerful reason for any human being to choose monogamy. Throughout most of human history STDs have been fatal, and the deaths they caused were horrifying. To make matters worse, you could give this horrible disease to your children and watch them die horrible deaths.

 

While we are on the subject, consider pre-marital sex in a primitive society where girls are married off as soon as they reach puberty. For the most part, fornication would have been committed only by pedophiles molesting pre-pubescent girls.

 

I would agree with those on this thread who say polygamy is fine as long as everyone is honest AND everyone takes appropriate precautions to prevent STDs.

 

You seriously think that most people who sleep around think about STDs? STDs were not a part of finding out if monogamy is natural. From everything I've read it is natural. If it is found in nature, it is deemed "natural."

 

According to definition, the mere fact that a man (human) is more known for staying and ensuring his offspring survives (no matter if he doesn't stay forever) makes it natural.

 

I've read quite a few people in her talk about how it is found in nature but not in humans. We are not immune to nature, we are animals just like all the other animals on earth. If the chemicals within the brain determine how monogamous an animal is (regardless of brain size, we do contain these same hormones in our brains) is it not possible for a small percentage of humans to be naturally monogamous?

 

I'm not saying that a human couldn't convice him/herself to act/behave in a different way, of course they can. However, I'm sure that in the end nature would rule them.

 

 

From what I've read (I believe it was in Dawkins "The Selfish Gene") the way to understand procreative choices is that our genes "want" to replicate themselves as much as possible, and historically this means that men have been naturally polygamous (promiscuous) -- they wish to spread their seed as much as possible. The woman, however, is naturally monogamous (actually - naturally loyal to one man, which could include polygamy) since perpetuating her genes requires a long period of care and protection for the young.

 

In other words, the promiscuous man's genes will be over-represented in the gene pool, as will the monogamous or polygamous (but not promiscuous) woman's. Over time nature has selected for men who are promiscuous and women who stay loyal to the father of their children.

 

 

Which also makes a lot of sense because women have more to lose and also become the primary care taker of the offspring. I own that book btw.

 

I think if animals were given the choice, I'm not sure they would choose natural childbirth.

 

It's strange, but you rarely see an animal in pain during childbirth. Seems like they walk around (hooved mammals) and the offspring just plops out and the mommy goes on chewing her cud or whatever. We've had cats who have had litters...no caterwauls of pain. What is it about humans that we seem to be the only ones that have pain all the time?

 

Sorry...completely off topic, but had to say something.

 

Maybe they don't have pain during the birth but they show signs of pain during the labor. I've seen a lot of "that's my baby" on one of the learning channels. They showed a cat who was in labor and sounded very much in pain. Of course, most animals don't have the problem of hips in their way like we do. A woman's hips actually separate a bit during labor and birth (I've been there twice, my hips pop now). I'm sure the pain is the difference of us walking upright.

[Joyous1]

You seriously think that most people who sleep around think about STDs?

um...no, my point was pretty much the opposite. People who think about the consequences of STDs are less likely to sleep around. Therefore, a species capable of thinking ahead and understanding the long term consequences of behavior will be inclined to choose monogamy even if it isn't "natural" for them to do so.

 

STDs were not a part of finding out if monogamy is natural. From everything I've read it is natural. If it is found in nature, it is deemed "natural."

According to definition, the mere fact that a man (human) is more known for staying and ensuring his offspring survives (no matter if he doesn't stay forever) makes it natural.

 

This has more to do with pack instinct than monogamy. Humans are "naturally" social animals.

A group of human beings who stay together as a tribe or clan or whatever have a better chance of survival than an individual trying to survive on his own, no matter what their sexual mores.

 

I've read quite a few people in her talk about how it is found in nature but not in humans. We are not immune to nature, we are animals just like all the other animals on earth. If the chemicals within the brain determine how monogamous an animal is (regardless of brain size, we do contain these same hormones in our brains) is it not possible for a small percentage of humans to be naturally monogamous?

 

I'm not saying that a human couldn't convice him/herself to act/behave in a different way, of course they can. However, I'm sure that in the end nature would rule them.

 

I think the only reason we are thriving as a species is because we do not let nature rule us. We find all kinds of clever ways of overcoming "natural" things like baldness, tooth decay, and cancer. I think the naturalness of any behavior is irrelevant at this point in our evolution, what matters are the choices we make. I personally think monogamy is the most reasonable choice, but as long as no one is hurting anyone else -- or driving up the cost of health insurance -- it's none of my business what others choose.

[greygirl]

Oh, and I made a comment about swinging and RJ said they don't swing. So this is a matter of being able to have sex with other people and it not matter. I guess in the way a married porn star would have sex with other people.

 

Sounds like they're polyamorous, which is very different from swinging. Polyamory is about having relationships with multiple people. Swinging is about having sex with multiple people. Polyamorous people tend not to take it well at all if you call what they're doing "swinging".

 

 

It's strange, but you rarely see an animal in pain during childbirth. Seems like they walk around (hooved mammals) and the offspring just plops out and the mommy goes on chewing her cud or whatever. We've had cats who have had litters...no caterwauls of pain. What is it about humans that we seem to be the only ones that have pain all the time?

 

If an animal were screaming in pain during birth, a predator would hear it and come pick off the mom and all the babies while she's incapable of defending them. This is not to say that birth doesn't hurt. I've witnessed enough animal births to know that it most certainly does hurt. Animals are just better able to hide their pain. Showing pain is a good way to get targeted by predators, so animals are really good at masking pain. That's the same reason a lot of people don't realize anything is wrong with their pets until the animal is really, seriously sick.

[kellyb]

Penguins are monogamous, too.

 

I think some people are monogamously inclined, some aren't.

Whatever your tendancy is is what's natural for you.

 

The nuclear family, though, is not so natural, in my opinion.

[AtheistMommy]

Sounds like they're polyamorous, which is very different from swinging. Polyamory is about having relationships with multiple people. Swinging is about having sex with multiple people. Polyamorous people tend not to take it well at all if you call what they're doing "swinging".

 

Yeah, I'm sure you're right.

 

 

um...no, my point was pretty much the opposite. People who think about the consequences of STDs are less likely to sleep around. Therefore, a species capable of thinking ahead and understanding the long term consequences of behavior will be inclined to choose monogamy even if it isn't "natural" for them to do so.

 

Well in that case, I'm sorry, I missread.

 

 

I think the only reason we are thriving as a species is because we do not let nature rule us. We find all kinds of clever ways of overcoming "natural" things like baldness, tooth decay, and cancer. I think the naturalness of any behavior is irrelevant at this point in our evolution, what matters are the choices we make. I personally think monogamy is the most reasonable choice, but as long as no one is hurting anyone else -- or driving up the cost of health insurance -- it's none of my business what others choose.

 

You're right, we do our best to combat nature (at least most of us do). However, like I said before, in the end, nature does rule us.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying monogamy is better or moral, I'm saying it's natural and nothing more. I'm very pro-choice on just about ever subject. It's not my place to tell you how to live your life. That isn't what I'm about.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Human monogamy is not natural, it is an intelligent choice made by a species capable of understanding the consequences of bad choices.

 

Actually, it is. Look at the definition:

 

nat·u·ral adj.

 

Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.

Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.

Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.

Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.

Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.

Faithfully representing nature or life.

Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).

Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.

Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.

Born of unwed parents: a natural child.

Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.

Music.

Not sharped or flatted.

Having no sharps or flats.

 

Humans cannot escape the fact that they are part of nature. If we can find humans practicing monogamy then it is natural for humans to do so. It is present in anture. It doesn't need to be conditioned, either. It just happens. You can find it in all cultures. On the other hand, polygamy can also be found in many places, just not as many. But it's just as "natural."

[kellyb]

I've been thinking about "serial monogamy", and I have a thought.

Evolution designed us to really only live to be 40ish, right?

After raising a few kids, we no longer serve an evolutionary purpose.

And I might very well be atypical, but between the ages of 14 through 20, I had a few mates, all of whom I was with for an extended period.

So maybe the serial monogamy is something that resolves in a lot of people at some age?

Just a thought...

 

I've also been thinking of the previous post about "Go for what you want! Don't settle for anything less!" and I totally agree.

The beauty of being such a highly intelligent animal is that we have our own ideas about what makes an alpha.

This is weird to say, but I think part of my undying attraction to my husband is how he is what I consider to be an alpha.

And I think/hope the perception is mutual.

I've read a lot of studies on how women are attracted to wealth and power, and my husband is nothing like that. He was broke when we met.

But he IS an alpha in his own way. In the way that I respect over money and power in mainstream society.

 

So I personally think our biological drives can be subject to our mental predispositions.

[Joyous1]

Look at the definition:

 

good point, I was assuming Merriam Websters definition 11 a (unregenerate) but there are many other definitions of natural that would fit with what Atheistmommy has said.

[AtheistMommy]

Look at the definition:

 

good point, I was assuming Merriam Websters definition 11 a (unregenerate) but there are many other definitions of natural that would fit with what Atheistmommy has said.

 

 

Off topic, but who's the woman in your avatar?

[Joyous1]

Look at the definition:

 

good point, I was assuming Merriam Websters definition 11 a (unregenerate) but there are many other definitions of natural that would fit with what Atheistmommy has said.

 

 

Off topic, but who's the woman in your avatar?

 

Same woman quoted in my sig, Louisa May Alcott.

[ThePureOne]

I think the important point is that when someone says "monogamy isn't natural", they are often making excuses for their own selfishness and/or inability to control basic desires.

 

Apparently it is "natural" for human men to bonk women over the head and drag them back to their caves for sex, or kill when they get angry. So what? While evolutionary psychology and whatnot may be interesting and may explain our base desires, as intelligent, civilized beings it is encumbent upon us to rise above whatever our most basic animal programming may be. People can do whatever is mutually agreed, but please - no excuses or genetic rationalizations.

[AtheistMommy]

I think the important point is that when someone says "monogamy isn't natural", they are often making excuses for their own selfishness and/or inability to control basic desires.

 

Apparently it is "natural" for human men to bonk women over the head and drag them back to their caves for sex, or kill when they get angry. So what? While evolutionary psychology and whatnot may be interesting and may explain our base desires, as intelligent, civilized beings it is encumbent upon us to rise above whatever our most basic animal programming may be. People can do whatever is mutually agreed, but please - no excuses or genetic rationalizations.

 

Well put. This is the other issue with the whole "monogamy isn't natural" crap. It sounds a lot like this agreement is mostly there to justify cheating.

[LadyFeline]

It's strange, but you rarely see an animal in pain during childbirth. Seems like they walk around (hooved mammals) and the offspring just plops out and the mommy goes on chewing her cud or whatever. We've had cats who have had litters...no caterwauls of pain. What is it about humans that we seem to be the only ones that have pain all the time?

Because we're so poorly designed. That's why women experience agonizing pain during childbirth (and, also, why a baby's skull doesn't actually solidify entirely for several weeks after birth)

 

Because we walk upright, humans have had to make a lot of sacrifices - notably, less painful birthing of offspring. Our hips just aren't designed to allow something the size of a watermelon to pass through them (resulting in the aforementioned separation). Even with the newborn's soft skull, it it several magnitudes more painful than, say, a cat birthing a kitten.

 

It's even been theorized that, within a few more generations, human beings will not be capable of giving birth naturally due to this, and will have to resort to strictly C-sections in order to deliver their babies.

 

If an animal were screaming in pain during birth, a predator would hear it and come pick off the mom and all the babies while she's incapable of defending them. This is not to say that birth doesn't hurt. I've witnessed enough animal births to know that it most certainly does hurt. Animals are just better able to hide their pain. Showing pain is a good way to get targeted by predators, so animals are really good at masking pain. That's the same reason a lot of people don't realize anything is wrong with their pets until the animal is really, seriously sick.

Animals do feel pain during the birthing process, that's true (my roommate's cat was never vocal when she hurt, but she became VERY "personable" - snuggling against you, curling up in your lap, kneading excessively, etc. When she was going into labor, she did just that - got very, VERY friendly)

 

BUT, due to their anatomies, and biology, they feel less pain. There's less hemmoraghing (human birth is an incredibly bloody process, compared to others), the offspring tend to be, comparitively, smaller - for instance, I highly doubt that a tiger feels much pain when delivering her cubs - and the process is, by far, less exhausing for the animal. You won't see a horse collapsing after giving birth, and sleeping for several hours because the process took so much out of her - unless she's sick, of course.

 

It varies, I would imagine, though. Herbivores give birth to proportionally larger offspring than carnivores, and apes and monkeys vary widely. I won't even touch on marsupials, because their birthing habits are so far removed from other mammals...