Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?

[Sunstone]

Are humans naturally (i.e. biologically) monogamous? Why or why not?

Here's a related thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/74767-should-humans-monogamous.html#post1385736

 

[DallasApple]

I think they are.So they know whos kids are whos.

Who da daddy??

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

I think we're serial monogamists, biologically speaking. The hormone rush wears off after about four years.

 

[DallasApple]

Serial monogomy included..So I guess its more like "one at a time'.But I think its longer than 2-4 years..Thats not long enough to raise the kiddos.

Love

Dallas

 

[Sunstone]

I think we're serial monogamists, biologically speaking.

So far as I know, the notion we are serial monogamists came about from a study of about 2000 current societies. But any study of current societies is not entirely conclusive for how we spent most of our evolution, and for what we are biologically adapted.

 

[Dunemeister]

Biologically, I don't think there's an answer to this question. Most cultures have a strong bias toward monogamous lifetime fidelity, but as we all know, the practice falls well short of that much of the time. Relationships are difficult at best. I also wonder whether it's a good idea to reduce this question to biology. What if it turns out that we're not naturally monogamous? What does that entail for the way we ought to relate to each other sexually?

 

[DallasApple]

But I also think..Monogomy can be for life for two individuals.(and Im not talking about someone cheating either)..Because if we do it right..We have a deep bond ..and hormones by the way dont disapear..Niether does oxytocin.In fact you may grow to recognize or identify that person as the one who has repeatedly brought on the good feelings.Hence the bond.There is also the 'investment" factor.Im not talking about money either.As well as a sense of comfort and familiarity that bonds you..

JMHO

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Serial monogomy included..So I guess its more like "one at a time'.But I think its longer than 2-4 years..Thats not long enough to raise the kiddos.

Not to adulthood, but to the point that mama and the tribe can keep them alive.

I've also read an interesting theory that a woman's best strategy is to set herself up as the good provider's "wife," and then cheat on him with the devilishly handsome ne'er-do-well.

 

[Sunstone]

The hormone rush wears off after about four years.

You might be right, but my understanding is the hormone rush of new love wears off in six to 24 months. To be specific, the dopamine dominated system fades out in that time frame and is often replaced by the oxytocin dominated system.

 

[Storm]

So far as I know, the notion we are serial monogamists came about from a study of about 2000 current societies. But any study of current societies is not entirely conclusive for how we spent most of our evolution, and for what we are biologically adapted.

But it was a study of neurochemistry, which I rather doubt has changed all that much.

 

[Sunstone]

I've also read an interesting theory that a woman's best strategy is to set herself up as the good provider's "wife," and then cheat on him with the devilishly handsome ne'er-do-well.

Is there any one strategy that is "best"? And if so, how are you defining "best"?

 

[Father Heathen]

Not to adulthood, but to the point that mama and the tribe can keep them alive.

I've also read an interesting theory that a woman's best strategy is to set herself up as the good provider's "wife," and then cheat on him with the devilishly handsome ne'er-do-well.

Best strategy for tribal times or modern day?

 

[Dunemeister]

You might be right, but my understanding is the hormone rush of new love wears off in six to 24 months. To be specific, the dopamine dominated system fades out in that time frame and is often replaced by the oxytocin dominated system.

I've heard this as well. But if you talk to people who have stayed together a long time, you generally find that the hormones may have gotten them together to begin with, they stayed together for much different reasons, unrelated to biology. That's partly my point about reducing this to biology. We're not cats, which govern their mating practices exclusively through hormones. We can transcend that.

 

[Storm]

But I also think..Monogomy can be for life for two individuals.(and Im not talking about someone cheating either)..Because if we do it right..We have a deep bond ..and hormones by the way dont disapear..Niether does oxytocin.In fact you may grow to recognize or identify that person as the one who has repeatedly brought on the good feelings.Hence the bond.There is also the 'investment" factor.Im not talking about money either.As well as a sense of comfort and familiarity that bonds you..

Oh, without a doubt, lifelong monogamy is possible. I was just sharing what little I know of our "evolutionary programming."

 

[Sunstone]

I also wonder whether it's a good idea to reduce this question to biology. What if it turns out that we're not naturally monogamous? What does that entail for the way we ought to relate to each other sexually?

The question of whether we are naturally monogamous is logically separate from the question of whether we should or ought to be monogamous. According to some scientists, there is strong evidence that we are naturally rapists. Does that mean we should or ought to be rapists?

 

[Storm]

Best strategy for tribal times or modern day?

They were speaking of tribal, but strictly dealing with reproductive fitness, I suppose it would work equally well today. Of course, that's not taking into account the rather important cultural ramifications of getting caught.

 

[DallasApple]

Biologically, I don't think there's an answer to this question. Most cultures have a strong bias toward monogamous lifetime fidelity, but as we all know, the practice falls well short of that much of the time. Relationships are difficult at best. I also wonder whether it's a good idea to reduce this question to biology. What if it turns out that we're not naturally monogamous? What does that entail for the way we ought to relate to each other sexually?

As well as how do you explain couples who are still toghether and like love birds after 60 70 years? They are out there.

How do you explain couples that after long term togetherness flat out cant standn the thought of beign with someone else?..Or cant stand the thought of losing each other by whatever cause?

And sex?..How many couples out there in the twilight of there(long term) relationship are having the best sex ever?The most enjoyable sex of their lifetime? Are they the minority? the exception?

Love

Dallas

 

[Sunstone]

I've heard this as well. But if you talk to people who have stayed together a long time, you generally find that the hormones may have gotten them together to begin with, they stayed together for much different reasons, unrelated to biology. That's partly my point about reducing this to biology. We're not cats, which govern their mating practices exclusively through hormones. We can transcend that.

It is not necessary to conflate biology with morality.

 

[Sunstone]

As well as how do you explain couples who are still toghether and like love birds after 60 70 years? They are out there.

How do you explain couples that after long term togetherness flat out cant standn the thought of beign with someone else?..Or cant stand the thought of losing each other by whatever cause?

And sex?..How many couples out there in the twilight of there(long term) relationship are having the best sex ever?The most enjoyable sex of their lifetime? Are they the minority? the exception?

Love

Dallas

Once the dopamine dominated system fades out, it is often replaced by the oxytocin dominated system.

 

[Dunemeister]

The question of whether we are naturally monogamous is logically separate from the question of whether we should or ought to be monogamous. According to some scientists, there is strong evidence that we are naturally rapists. Does that mean we should or ought to be rapists?

I of course don't seriously think so, but we often hear of people justifying their actions because they were motivated by nature. One thinks of a man whose wife has a long-term illness which means sexual relations are out of the question for a long time. He's young, verile, and sexually lonely. At least, it starts as lonliness. But he nurtures and coddles that loneliness. As he rationalizes it, he "has needs." So he has an affair.

I'd say the man has betrayed his wife and committed an immoral act (and so did the woman he was with). He can't punt to nature to excuse himself.

And this goes to my central objection. What's the point of asking whether we are "naturally" monogamous? What matters is whether we should be.