Question Monogomy: Nature or Nurture

[Yoni]

With the current threads of orgasms and freedom within long term relationships (although i am not sure what individuals consider to be long term.).. I thought it maybe fun to debate the above...

.......

 

[tris-]

i guess the ultimate aim of a man and woman being together is to piss out as many kids as they can handle.
so it makes sense to be monogomous as both parties can put their resources together to cater for the offspring.

my answer: due to nature.

 

[nath]

I think that's more of a society based thing actually. I think men have a natural need to shag as many women as possible to spread their genetic code around as much. Women need to be as selective as possible so as to produce the best offspring. Obviously this is completely incompatible with modern society though.

 

[tris-]

yes but what about the old days when a man had to go out to kill a dinosaur to feed his family? i would of thought he only had the capacity to give nourishment to x amount of people.

 

[DaGaffer]

yes but what about the old days when a man had to go out to kill a dinosaur to feed his family? i would of thought he only had the capacity to give nourishment to x amount of people.

Which is why we formed tribes. Solo humans were pretty ineffective hunters.

The "natural" order of things is not that different to the great apes; stable tribal groups with a dominant alpha male servicing a harem; this is certainly the pattern up until very recently from an evolutionary point of view. Fortunately for humans, the natural order of things is irrelevant because we shape our environment (and increasingly, ourselves) rather than the other way around. So to answer the question, monogomy is nurture, in fact its entirely a social convention, and a quite recent one.

 

[throdgrain]

Some animals mate for life.

 

[Ignition]

Nurture. I can't see any biological reason for monogamy, but many social ones.

As women are only capable of producing a child at most once every 9 months and the strongest biological instinct is to reproduce monogomy and biology are in my opinion at odds with one another.

 

[DaGaffer]

Some animals mate for life.

And your point is, caller?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Women.

The answer must be women.

'cause we all know, red meat, cake, having sex with many ladies, is killed by women

Social pressure really in my opinion.

 

[Yoni]

I feel that monogamy is definitely developed in humans via socialisation. However I am not sure what programmes a human to be more or less monogamous what drives the need for one particular human to desire / need more than one life partner compared with another... It has to be more than something in culture, although culture obviously has an influence.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I feel that monogamy is definitely developed in humans via socialisation. However I am not sure what programmes a human to be more or less monogamous what drives the need for one particular human to desire / need more than one life partner compared with another... It has to be more than something in culture, although culture obviously has an influence.

"BALB", aka, being a lazy bastard.

If you can find a person who makes you the best cake ever, or a cake you're very happy to eat, for the rest of your life, you jump at the chance like Hilton on a FOTM cock from hollywood.

You chase women for poon, when you get poon, you're happy, but then have to chase down another poon to be happy again. Sometimes the "BALB" switch flicks on and you go "f*ck it" and stay with the same poon until you don't even care about poon anymore.

Or cake.

Which is why relationships suck.

And cake rules.

*nods*

 

[Edmond]

If you are in a relationship just for sex, then, yes you are going to wander, because you will eventually want more sex than the other person wants to give or you want something different. If your aim in life is to shag as many women as you can then what you need are fuck buddies and not get involved in the emotional side of things

You should love a person for who they are, it shouldn't be won or lost just because of sex, some relationships survive with no sex at all. Its all about being true to the one you love and trust, and if the sex is great too, well then thats a bonus

 

[old.Tohtori]

You should love a person for who they are, it shouldn't be won or lost just because of sex, some relationships survive with no sex at all. Its all about being true to the one you love and trust, and if the sex is great too, well then thats a bonus

Sex has every right to be a deal breaker, just like socks on floor or "incompatible ways of the future"'n'such.

Even if you love the woman to bits, but can't get your bits to match her bits, it's as valid as a reason as any for the relationship to kick the bucket.

 

[rynnor]

I think its nature - its tied into the very long development time of a human child - thus the female needs the males help for much longer thus the need for a tight bonded relationship.

 

[elisera]

Personally I think it is more nurture than nature..

I think a certain amount of it can be put down to religion as well, which promoted the whole happy family, thou shall not commit adultery thing. Look at the few societies in the world where religion hasnt really took hold and you will see much more of the tribal polygamous relationships that we had in our past.

Another influence in my opinion is that people now don't necessarily have relationships purely to reproduce. They involve their feelings much more and most people tend to feel more wanted/loved or whatever way you want to put it when someone is solely dedicated to them.

 

[pez]

Its all in the genes, just ask the voles.

Science Netlinks: Science Updates

 

[Maljonic]

I was going to say nurture, but the more I think about it it's most probably nature mainly. There is a natural urge for most hetrosexual men to want to have sex with as many women as possible, but at the same time they naturally don't want their 'woman' to be doing this and messing with their family prospects. As well as the sex-drive issue, there's the need in males to jealously guard their woman from other preying males and, for most of the cleverer males, that includes not pissing of their woman (who in turn needs the best male to protect her and her children, for whom she'll have to reconsider if the current male turns out to be spreading his protection amongst other females) so she actively seeks out other males on her own. I think there's a sort of battle going on, in men at least, between the instinctive imperitive to keep the family unit a unit, with no outside influence, and the sexual urges felt when seeing other attractive prospects. Neither of these are brought about by nurture, which I think is why they cause such a paradox for many people's minds, lusts and wants and needs.

 

[chipper]

some really good posts here

personally i think its a mix of both we as humans are a relatively new species, as such when a new species comes about the main aim is to reproduce and expand your population. early on the kind of social bonds we have now would have probably been fatalistic, when homo sapiens started to walk the earth we would have probably not survived as a species

the urge for men probably stems back to these early days have as many off spring as possible to as many different women as you can.
back in those days women had to pick the strongest man to go out and hunt and feed the family and of course raise strong children.
now its more a case of not so much strength and looks but who can provide not only the means to live comfortably but someone they feel they can emotionally attach themselves to which is quite good for skinny ugly fuckers like me lol
now x amount of years later we are at the top of the ladder on planet earth and we no longer need to sire as many offspring infact its now the flip side the planet is gettin crowded

we are much more socialy and emotionally evolved than we were back in the begining of mans reign, nature played its part in the early days of man but now its definately more on the side of nurture

 

[xane]

I think a certain amount of it can be put down to religion as well, which promoted the whole happy family, thou shall not commit adultery thing. Look at the few societies in the world where religion hasnt really took hold and you will see much more of the tribal polygamous relationships that we had in our past.

Then again, certain religions promote war against their religious enemies, then allow polygyny to subjugate their fallen enemy's womenfolk.

 

[russell]

I always throught the practise of monogomy came from the Romans. Didn't they make it the 'desired' practice to move away from Paganism?

The reason being to keep all the large estates and riches in one 'house' so that it could all be kept in the family and passed down. The legacy of monogamous relationships is power and wealth, huge families and heirs.

Nurture, I suppose maybe in terms of the mother and father protecting the child, but other members of the tribe would protect infants too?

It is also a great control of order in society. The traditional nucleur family. Less 'harlots' putting it about, and less destitute families where the Husbands/ Dads just kept seeding children and then moving on!

 

[DaGaffer]

Monogamy was definitely around before the Romans; the Greeks were generally monogamous (although sometimes with weird spins like the Thebans), and its actually a Greek word. It does seem to be loosely linked with the growth of cities.

 

[sayward]

Nurture! Wish I'd never listened to my mother, whose basic philosophy was don't sleep with anyone!

 

[sayward]

Not exactly true, she'd've been o.k. with the sleeping, the having sex would've been the problem.

 

[Bodhi]

I still dont have a fucking clue what this thread about. My guess is you're talking about some sort of wood they make big old style tables out of.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I still dont have a fucking clue what this thread about. My guess is you're talking about some sort of wood they make big old style tables out of.

No no, that's misogamy.

 

[Scouse]

No no, that's misogamy.

Sounds like an out of date Japanese soup to me.


Anyway. Nature (much more than nurture) IMHO. There's a load of reasons why it makes sense for a couple to stay together - not least the length of time it takes for a human child to be able to look after itself...

 

[DaGaffer]

- not least the length of time it takes for a human child to be able to look after itself...

Monogamy isn't necessary for that though; in fact the modern nuclear family is probably the most stressful for parents (only single parent families have it worse). In tribal societies kids have loads of aunties who share the child-rearing burden.

 

[TdC]

bahs, I have none. jebus help me if I ever find a child skulking about my house. I'll have to just get a PS/5 and hope for the best or something :/

 

[Scouse]

Monogamy isn't necessary for that though; in fact the modern nuclear family is probably the most stressful for parents (only single parent families have it worse). In tribal societies kids have loads of aunties who share the child-rearing burden.

I agree that bringing kids up in modern society is probably the most stressful situation that's been forced on families - but the situation itself is an artificial creation which is totally different to any that's preceeded it.

I think that, the last 150-200 years aside, monogamy has been practiced by homo sapiens since our great great ancestors first spunked a human child forth, and probably before that too

 

[DaGaffer]

I agree that bringing kids up in modern society is probably the most stressful situation that's been forced on families - but the situation itself is an artificial creation which is totally different to any that's preceeded it.

I think that, the last 150-200 years aside, monogamy has been practiced by homo sapiens since our great great ancestors first spunked a human child forth, and probably before that too

Nah, that's not even true now, there are various polygamous societies around(Arabs, Mormons, Borneo Headhunters?) and there used to be a lot more. Loads of polygamy in the Bible for instance, and most of Africa was polygamous until the we started going around Christianising the place.