A few threads ago one of the posters made some comments about humans not being meant for monogamy, "... our natural state is not monogomous." and, "If we were created for monogomy, then we would be like swans, who die when their mate dies." (from another post). And yet the world over for centuries humans have tended towards monogamy.  

I know that there are cultures today where the man can have more than one wife. I have been to one and have first hand knowledge that it isn't like it was portrayed in "The King and I".  The wives hated eachother and were suspicious of the others, etc.  

Too, most societies are ruled by men with laws spawned from religion of the region. I find it interesting that so many religions are male ruled and in their teachings reject promiscuity and yet men tend to have the wandering eye.  

In my lifetime I have been exposed to the concept that we are not susposed to look elsewhere but that men can't be trusted not to roam.  Of late,I seem to hear of many women looking outside marriage too. I know how I feel and why I hobby.  But my wife?  

So, what are the thoughts of people here?  Are we meant to pair up with one partner for life or are we just taught that and are forever wondering how bad we are for having contrary feelings?  Are we in this hobby diffent in this aspect than the "normal" folks out there.  Or, as the poster I mentioned suggests, is this monogamy thing really an abnormal state and if so, why have we addopted it?

...serial monogamist.

Hilarious!

"Monogamous for life" or "pair-bonded" for life means something very different in the year 2003, as opposed to over most of our evolutionary history. Part of the reason is that our comparatively long lifespans are a new phenomenon in the developed world, the creation of good sanitation and nutrition, partial control of infectious diseases, and better medicines. Until approximately the 19th century, a really old man or woman was usually someone in their forties.

So historically, a lifelong monogamous relationship only had to last twenty years or so, long enough to raise the children. Probably the existence of this board is testimony to how hard it is to faithfully sustain those relationships beyond twenty years, at least for men.

In any event, I'm not too sure about your statement that humans have always tended to monogamy. Epidemiologists are always complaining how hard it is to track STD's, largely because people lie all the time about sex - to themselves as well as to others. And it is the STD's that tell you what people are really doing sexually.

I truly believe it can be done.  Although by my profession I am not monogamous per se...But I am monogamous when it comes to my partner, who knows what I do.  He rathers I do something else as a profession, but undertstands for the time being, that this is how I make my living.  But he also understands that besides my "profession", I am totally monogamous in our relationship.  I would have it no other way...I believe it is much better that way...Of course, that is my opinion and my personal stance on monogamy.  I never judge...how can I?  I do believe it can be done, though....At the end of the day, he knows he is the only one that makes me feel like no one else can, not only in body, but in my heart and mind...That to me, is what monogamy is all about.  I am because I want to be...And when I retire, I will continue to be monogamous...as I trust him to be.  If he can do it knowing what I do now, he deserves much more...

My .02

Sexy Sofia

I totally understand what you mean (and agree) but you have to admit, the idea of a "monogamous provider" is an oxymoron.  No offense intended, but why not declare yourself a virgin while you're at it! (LOL)

I'll see how my old lady feels about the concept.

Well, maybe not.

Personally I don't believe there's a "meant to be." Some people are monogamous and some are not - possibly just as some are blood type O and some are not. One size and one color doesn't fit all. Certainly those who aren't monogamous will then postulate that's monogamy isn't "natural." For me monogamy was the right thing (until my wife left after 24 years) but I realize it's not for everyone.

I find your thnking interesting.  Evolutionarily speaking I think what you are saying is that we have not developed all aspects of our beings to equal points and now out live what once was a monogamous lifetime.

By "tended to monogamy" I meant in outward social statement. That is why I put in the bit about religion and rules by men etc.  That our behavior may be at tip off to our true desires vs our stated desires is as you stated probably more telling of the real psyche both past and present.

I think Sofia, you are confusing monogamy with wanting someone special.Just because we care for someone and choose to share our lives with them doesn't mean we are dead or uninterested in others. To say we can only kiss, touch, smell and taste only one one person the rest of our lives is absured. As I've stated in other discussion groups, our most primal functions, including pro-creation, bear this out. As a therapist, I see daily, people stuggling against what they're taught and what they feel in their gut. You see, we as humans have some very basic needs....(touch, taste, smell..etc)if they are not met we seek out a "Bandaid" solution, thus addictions, our way of getting that "Warm-Fuzzy" we need for that moment. Our society teaches us that we should have ALL of those needs met by just one person and when their not, we get jealous, insecure, angry, depressed and ill among other things. Just our bodies way of communicating that something is wrong. Addictions can be Shopping,our business, eating, sex, working out, running,fast cars,etc. as well as Drugs. Religion ( Very different than Spirituality) is about power and control. So by keeping people afraid and apathetic they avoid the free thinkers pulling away from the herd. This isn't brain surgery folks, but some very basic stuff....The fact that you Sofia, can spend time with members of the opposite sex and still enjoy great together time with your boy-friend should be proof that your getting your basic needs met. I'm just wondering what your SO is doing to meet his. Watching porn, flirting at the gym, Starbucks, work...etc.? Because, even if you don't know it or he doesn't realize it, you will never be enough....If that's a blow to some folks ego...SORRY...but ego has no place here....Everyone here talks about love, but unless we allow one another the freedom to have a full, natural, pleasure filled life without feeling that you are reponsible for providing it for them, then your not loving them, your smothering them..remember, true love is unconditional.

For me, monogamy is not a natural state.  If it works for you then that's great but I prefer to have serial relationships and I'm usually faithful in those - well faithful till I can persuade my boyfriend of the moment how much more fun we could have if we had other guys or girls joining us )

The reasons are that males want lots of offspring, females want to ensure survival of all the offspring.  Those are the biological imperatives, with no regard for society, culture, religion, etc. That being said, we sure are way past just behaving according to programming.  Successful societies try to ensure quality child rearing environments, thus monogamy... which is undoubtedly a good way to make kids feel secure.  I know mine are pretty unhappy with having their Dad living in a different house than they are. So am I by the way.

So, as far as sex goes, a man who has a wife that enjoys sex, and even enjoys things like role playing, fantasies, lots of variety in positions, approaches, basically open minded, will probably have the best of both worlds, at least if he wants to raise happy kids.  if no kids are involved, then all bets are off.  And I guess a liberated woman wants all the same sexual excitement, so guys, we have to buy cowboy hats, boots, fireman outfits, the whole bit, if we want to be fair about this.  Hey if she's a fox and likes heels and stockings, why shouldn't I wear a football helmet or whatever the fuck her fantasy is, right?

I would like for everyone to not get confused and think that females are "monogamous" for security.  Anthropology(ist) will tell you that this is just not true.  Longitudinal studies have shown that as low as 17% and as high as 25% of all children born are not the biological offspring of the percieved father.  In other words, the woman has chosen someone to procreate with and someone to habitate with.  Women are not monogamous now and never will be..."Mama's baby, Papa's maybe"...has been going strong since the dawn of man and will continue until the end.

There was an interesting study done recently (don't worry I'll dig up the source with a little research), that tested women to discover if they could detect the most attractive males by only his scent.  It was constructed like this...
A group of men were instructed to wear a plain cotton t-shirt at night (they were not to add any additional scents, soap, cologne, etc), and present the t-shirts to the researchers.  These men were a normal group...some very attractive, some somewhat attractive and some not so attractive.  The women were then asked to smell the t-shirts and rank how attractive they were to each scent.  The outcome was over 50% of the women picked the men who had the most facial symmetry (the more attractive men) throughout the month with a whopping 85%+ picking the more attractive men during their time of ovulation.  

Women have the most to loose with regards to procreation.  They gestate for 9 months and have the responsibility to rear the offspring, therefore often they will maximize their chance for excellent offspring by mating with an attractive male while cohabitating with a provider male who will help with the responsibility of rasing that child.

I think beezlebub has a fair point. She's NOT monogamous if she's having sex with more than one person. That's the definition of the word.

She has a fair point, too. She FEELS monogamous and is EMOTIONALLY monogamous (so she claims) to her main partner, and only engages in PHYSICAL connections with her clients. In that sense, she's a monogamous provider. In her own mind, she's doing what she thinks she's doing.

Now, that's the end of the rephrase. I personally reject it.

Frankly, I think that is a female excuse, just plain hooey. The level of "emotional connection" that I have with any given sex partner is higher or lower depending on the chemistry I have WITH THAT PERSON and DURING THE TIME I SPEND WITH THAT PERSON. To claim somehow that it "doesn't count" because I have a prior commitment is just lying to myself.

Furthermore, the envelope of potential levels of connection (emotional or physical) that I get with a provider is EXACTLY THE SAME envelope as that which I get with a girlfriend. Being with either a provider or a girlfriend can move me to a desire of a longterm affair, or to a simple quickie-thank-you-ma'am-now-go-away. Consequently, for me at least (and I suspect for any other human who's genuinely honest with himself), the act of "saving" myself while also fucking other people, would simply be self-deluded fantasy.

On the other hand, if A PARTNER doesn't CARE (supposedly doesn't MIND) whether I'm engaging in extra-partnerial affairs, then there's no harm done. It's polygamy on my part, and happily done and responsibly, too.

But it's not monogamy, no matter how "true" my heart thinks it remains.

And, on to another point.

I frankly think no human culture ever in the history of mankind has been monogamous. The RULES have been, generally, that monogamy was what you were SUPPOSED to do. But cultures don't necessarily consist strictly of the rules. They consist as well of the real behaviors, the actual practice in the streets, not the theory as pronounced from the churches. Heck, the Catholic priests claimed to be celibate, what did THEY know about who was screwing whom?

So, in the long run, I think we're ALL polygamous in some way or other, perhaps serially monogamous. And in any case, even the most faithful of marriages must end some day, if only because one or the other partners dies. The way to reconcile all this with the "morality" of monogamy, is to simply recognize that we make temporal choices within the temporal plane, and that any selection to move to the next in a series of monogamies (or to remain faithful, and not move on) is a choice delimited by your time and space, and cannot EVER be made permanent. No human creates an eternal bond. Only super-glue does that, and even then you can remove it with that nail-polish stuff.

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

...

"...Everything has a shelf-life..." Jeff Stilson

There is a historical bend toward male possession of the famale... but a male would possess more than one if he could handle it.... right? Right.

I think Chris Rock nailed it "a man is as faithful as his options." LOL

wired for securtiy, hmmm I am in the security field and I haven't gotten any since August. I Know  would be monog if I got it every night.

If you believe in evolution humans and our ancestors have never been monogamous. Both male and female are not monogamous. Males have the instinct to have sex with as many women as possible, while women try and find the best male to be the father of their child and the best male to father their child. Not always the same person.

Examples of women not being monogamous are:
Studies have shown that 12-15% of children are not related to the male their mother has led them to believe is their father.

And

Studies also show that in modern western society young women tend to time their nights out away from their male partner, with when they are ovulating. i.e when she’s most likely to get pregnant.

We are not meant to have on partner for life, and if say, one hundred thousand years ago, all humans had only stuck to one partner, would any of us be here? Who knows maybe humans might not have survived? Maybe there have been human speices that did practice monogamy, and then became extinct?

Pat,
I tend to agree with you most, here. I don't know how anyone can scientifically say whether we are programmed to be monogamous, and we've fallen away from that due to our own, recognized selfish desires, or we've always been that way, and Monogamy was a 'rule' laid down for us that we only adhered to (or didn't) because we had to.
I still think we all desire to BE truly loved and cared for by one person - one singled out, special person, and I believe we desire to also LOVE one special person. When I am in a 'committed' relationship, I'm as faithful and true blue as they come - I could be in a room with naked men, and simply walk out (with a smile) if I'm completely in love, and, of course, have an 'understanding' in my relationship. I can't picture that now because a)I'm not in that situation, and b)I'm really enjoying where I'm at right now. When I was married, I wasn't frustrated at the lack of VARIETY, or knowing I 'couldn't' have anyone else if I wanted (I was simply miserable, period!), but I wonder how I would be now?
I can be completely monogamous with the right person, but, for now, I'm awfully glad to be right where I am!


-- Modified on 1/14/2003 7:02:38 PM

Bravo, Hard2no..!!! I love it when you guys do your homework...!! And you Hard2no, get to stay after class and clap erasers for me...*wink wink... You folks can try to justify buying into monogamy, but facts are facts...Yes Sodona, we all want to be loved....but as Providers isn't that what we get...in spades...? Remember, the propaganda has gone on since birth...just look at our Fairytales, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White,Rapunzel,Cinderella..etc. All waiting for their one Prince to live happily-ever-after with...It might make for good copy, but the reality is, taint so...

I would love to stay after class with you Silky for extra tutoring and clapping erasers and anything else we can find!  I hope we can also play a little hide-n-seek...