FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Monogamy

Jump to newest
 

By *aturalMystic OP   Man
over a year ago

Leicester

Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Mayhap, t'is... mayhap, t'ain't... couldn't say f'sure...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obbytupperMan
over a year ago

Menston near Ilkley


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it? "

It's a type of tropical hardwood and to construct with it you need to ensure it's from a sustainable source.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes to both. Whatever makes you happy and however ypu want to live is your normal xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Its not for me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It works for sone people and not for others. I wouldn't defend it but nor would I criticise it. Neither choice is better or worse, just different and people shouldl live in a way thst makes them happy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well, it's clearly not an instinctive, natural state. If it was, we would never split up and find someone new. X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 28/07/16 18:14:16]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aturalMystic OP   Man
over a year ago

Leicester

Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do believe in it for myself.

I think a lot of people are comfortable with swining but it should not mean that monogamy is the wrong thing.

Personally, I would not be be comfortable watching my partner with another woman.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It works for sone people and not for others. I wouldn't defend it but nor would I criticise it. Neither choice is better or worse, just different and people shouldl live in a way thst makes them happy."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West. "

It works for a lot of humans.

I've been to three 50th wedding anniversaries this year and I have two next year.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it? "

Well if it wasn't a social construct; other societies (like the Islamic and sub-saharan African) wouldn't have come up with the idea of polygamy.

As far as I'm concerned (not that I'm knocking christianity)...but it's a bit of a left-over from our history as a christian society when we have clearly become a post-christian society. Concepts such as the chivalrous idea of romance and the idea that there is 'one out there for everyone' are to some extent rooted in that, when there is no real reason to believe that.

It's also a bit of a weird legal situation that we have in Britain today that if X person says to Y person 'I love you and want to spend the rest of my life with you...lets get hitched' and then also says to Z person 'I also love you and Y person is ok with that, lets also be together and get married'-and everyone is ok with that-that is totally illegal (bigamy), yet if X person says to Y person 'I love you and want to marry you'...then proceeds to deceive person Y and sleep with person Z behind their back; not only is that in a way (debatably) morally worse, as deceit is involbed-but it is also in no way illegal-that is; adultery is in no way against the law.

A curious state of affairs, surely?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

we are not programmed to be monogamous, that's only what society says we should be...

I tried it and didn't like it..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West. "

I wouldn't say 'it doesn't work for humans'; just that 'it doesn't work for most humans.

Not to say that there aren't any monogamous mammals-interestingly there's quite a few amongst primates, most monkeys-including marmosets are-as are (I think) gibbons. Gorillas are essentially polygamous, and then you have the exception-Chimps-who basically shag about with abandon.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'm assuming that for most of human existence, we've probably had some dominant males that have had their pick of whichever gender and partners they wanted and the rest made do with whatever and whoever they could get. If alpha male had most of the females then it would make sense for bisexuality to be a great trait to have, for a satisfying life.

I think we've had some sort of monogamous pairing for a relatively short amount of our time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How are we not programmed to be monogamous?

I was with my ex fiancé for 8years and I never stepped outside of the relationship because I didn't want to.

I didn't have to remind myself everyday that I wasn't allowed to.

There was no one nudging me in this direction.

And yes, we broke up but only because we wanted different things in our future.

For some it works, others it doesn't and I simply do not accept that people will use this reason of we're not wired that way.

If we believe that we're still programmed in exactly the same way as the begging of time then evolution would never have happened.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We have been together about 25 years and apart from our games of swapsies we are monogamous.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"we are not programmed to be monogamous, that's only what society says we should be...

I tried it and didn't like it.."

I think it was Friedrich Engels who basically put forward the idea that the only reason we developed the idea of monogamy was because we (Europeans ) tied the idea of family to that of property-a woman in western culture was considered until fairly recently the property of her husband, and before marriage her husband. He viewed this as a result of our development from a nomadic society to an urban one.

Which explains why in Islamic society ; rooted in a desert, nomadic society where cities were few, marriages were/are multiple and divorce has historically been much easier-meaning that one man can have many children and indeed often many (up to four at a time) wives and potentially many ex-wives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The bible do not agree with monogamy and sees it as adultery.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aturalMystic OP   Man
over a year ago

Leicester

I think Islam is more to my taste, where a man can have up to 4 wives of equal value. Or is it 5? Because the male of the species is made to have multiple females.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it? "

I would, it feels totally innate to me, hard wired, when I am in a relationship I have no interest in other men.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aturalMystic OP   Man
over a year ago

Leicester


"

I would, it feels totally innate to me, hard wired, when I am in a relationship I have no interest in other men. "

You weren't made to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"

I would, it feels totally innate to me, hard wired, when I am in a relationship I have no interest in other men.

You weren't made to.

"

No, and I prefer men who are not too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

It works for a lot of humans.

I've been to three 50th wedding anniversaries this year and I have two next year. "

You two celebrate your wedding anniversary like Colgate and Lickety celebrate their birthdays....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not for me"

This. I'm definitely not programmed to be with one person forever.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How are we not programmed to be monogamous?

I was with my ex fiancé for 8years and I never stepped outside of the relationship because I didn't want to.

I didn't have to remind myself everyday that I wasn't allowed to.

There was no one nudging me in this direction.

And yes, we broke up but only because we wanted different things in our future.

For some it works, others it doesn't and I simply do not accept that people will use this reason of we're not wired that way.

If we believe that we're still programmed in exactly the same way as the begging of time then evolution would never have happened.

"

Seems to just be a certain type of people that use it as an excuse.

"It's not my fault I cheated. The universe made me."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *randMrs Spanish BrunetteCouple
over a year ago

home sweet home


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

It works for a lot of humans.

I've been to three 50th wedding anniversaries this year and I have two next year. "

Im not saying is the case of these couples, but being married, even 50 years, doesn't mean someone is monogamous. Lots of people are married and cheating.

Monogamy and marriage not always go hand in hand. I'm married love my husband. I never cheated on him. But I sleep with other people.

MrsSB

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"It works for sone people and not for others. I wouldn't defend it but nor would I criticise it. Neither choice is better or worse, just different and people shouldl live in a way thst makes them happy."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allipygousMan
over a year ago

Leicester


"we are not programmed to be monogamous, that's only what society says we should be...

I tried it and didn't like it..

I think it was Friedrich Engels who basically put forward the idea that the only reason we developed the idea of monogamy was because we (Europeans ) tied the idea of family to that of property-a woman in western culture was considered until fairly recently the property of her husband, and before marriage her husband. He viewed this as a result of our development from a nomadic society to an urban one.

Which explains why in Islamic society ; rooted in a desert, nomadic society where cities were few, marriages were/are multiple and divorce has historically been much easier-meaning that one man can have many children and indeed often many (up to four at a time) wives and potentially many ex-wives."

These examples you keep citing, how many of them allowed the female to have multiple partners as well as the male?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"we are not programmed to be monogamous, that's only what society says we should be...

I tried it and didn't like it..

I think it was Friedrich Engels who basically put forward the idea that the only reason we developed the idea of monogamy was because we (Europeans ) tied the idea of family to that of property-a woman in western culture was considered until fairly recently the property of her husband, and before marriage her husband. He viewed this as a result of our development from a nomadic society to an urban one.

Which explains why in Islamic society ; rooted in a desert, nomadic society where cities were few, marriages were/are multiple and divorce has historically been much easier-meaning that one man can have many children and indeed often many (up to four at a time) wives and potentially many ex-wives.

These examples you keep citing, how many of them allowed the female to have multiple partners as well as the male?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aturalMystic OP   Man
over a year ago

Leicester

It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it?

I would, it feels totally innate to me, hard wired, when I am in a relationship I have no interest in other men. "

I defend it and believe in it fully, I miss my wife so much and even being on here I feel as if I am cheating

I so wish I could be with her again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm all for what ever makes someone happy, as long they are not hurting anyone in the process.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmmMaybeCouple
over a year ago

West Wales


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit. "

Nature had nothing to do with it, if it did the multi partner rule would apply to both sexes. Man nurtured the multi wives thing, no one else..

S

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit. "

Actually, both female chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives, have numerous partners. Of course bonobos have sex freely with any member of the group, but with chimps, even if there is an alpha male present, females will copulate with the beta males on the fringes of the group when alpha isn't looking. So it most definitely is 'nature's way'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

Nature had nothing to do with it, if it did the multi partner rule would apply to both sexes. Man nurtured the multi wives thing, no one else..

S"

Not to mention that the polygyny system results in huge numbers of lower social order males being excluded from having sexual relationships with women, which creates serious social problems. Great if you're one of those men who can bag 5 women, not so great for the other guys.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

It works for a lot of humans.

I've been to three 50th wedding anniversaries this year and I have two next year. "

.....but how do you know these couples are monogamous?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it?

I would, it feels totally innate to me, hard wired, when I am in a relationship I have no interest in other men.

I defend it and believe in it fully, I miss my wife so much and even being on here I feel as if I am cheating

I so wish I could be with her again."

I'm so sorry your heart aches.

x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

Actually, both female chimps and bonobos, our closest relatives, have numerous partners. Of course bonobos have sex freely with any member of the group, but with chimps, even if there is an alpha male present, females will copulate with the beta males on the fringes of the group when alpha isn't looking. So it most definitely is 'nature's way'."

*isn't nature's way* rather.

Also, scientists theorize that testicle size is a good indicator of how monogamous the female of the species is. Gorillas have relatively small testes for their size as they live in small groups of one male and a few females with little competition from outside males. Chimps have huge testes in comparison, as there is much more need to produce more sperm to make sure their DNA is passed on due to the amount of competition from other males. Humans are somewhere in between.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit. "

Just because something is 'nature's way', doesn't mean it has to be done-it's 'nature's way' to kill your young if you detect a foreign scent on them (rodents), or to kill the young of your new mate's previous mate (lions), that doesn't mean we have to do it.

What makes humans different from all other animals is our ability to use cognition to rise above our instincts. Now; I'm not using this as an argument against polyandry, just that the argument 'but other animals do it!' is a pretty weak one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

Just because something is 'nature's way', doesn't mean it has to be done-it's 'nature's way' to kill your young if you detect a foreign scent on them (rodents), or to kill the young of your new mate's previous mate (lions), that doesn't mean we have to do it.

What makes humans different from all other animals is our ability to use cognition to rise above our instincts. Now; I'm not using this as an argument against polyandry, just that the argument 'but other animals do it!' is a pretty weak one."

I'm just wondering if the surplus males should be cast out or simply culled....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

Nature had nothing to do with it, if it did the multi partner rule would apply to both sexes. Man nurtured the multi wives thing, no one else..

S"

It can be argued that females had something to do with it too; as it would make sense for weaker females to seek out the stronger males for protection.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iPeopleMan
over a year ago

London

If you are interested in nature's different ways check out bonobo apes

Fascinating

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

Just because something is 'nature's way', doesn't mean it has to be done-it's 'nature's way' to kill your young if you detect a foreign scent on them (rodents), or to kill the young of your new mate's previous mate (lions), that doesn't mean we have to do it.

What makes humans different from all other animals is our ability to use cognition to rise above our instincts. Now; I'm not using this as an argument against polyandry, just that the argument 'but other animals do it!' is a pretty weak one."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

Just because something is 'nature's way', doesn't mean it has to be done-it's 'nature's way' to kill your young if you detect a foreign scent on them (rodents), or to kill the young of your new mate's previous mate (lions), that doesn't mean we have to do it.

What makes humans different from all other animals is our ability to use cognition to rise above our instincts. Now; I'm not using this as an argument against polyandry, just that the argument 'but other animals do it!' is a pretty weak one.

"

Terribly sorry to lower the tone of the conversation FriskyMare; but that picture of you in the biker jacket is stunning x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a good question .

What is it that stops those in a monogamous relationship from fulfilling their natural desires ?

Guilt ?

Risk factors ?

Religion ?

Their idea of love for their partner ?

One thing is for sure though , anyone in a monogamous relationship is denying themselves every time they think about having a bit in the side . So it could be argued that it isn't natural to have just one sexual partner . I don't know a single person who hasn't lusted after someone else at some point .......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *risky_MareWoman
over a year ago

...Up on the Downs


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it?

I would, it feels totally innate to me, hard wired, when I am in a relationship I have no interest in other men.

I defend it and believe in it fully, I miss my wife so much and even being on here I feel as if I am cheating

I so wish I could be with her again."

Thank you for sharing. We don't often hear men state such but that is the nature of this site anyway, men who feel that way aren't on here much.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eavenscentitCouple
over a year ago

barnstaple

Fascinating stuff...as a 51yr old woman I no longer worry about social "norms". I check out other men constantly. I believe we all do, it's natural. Men who were in control of society wanted to know any children were theirs, women's sexuality was and still is controlled. I could choose to be monogamous and could do this happily with the right guy. Men are the same, they can choose as well. It is a social construct in answer to the question.

Right - who fancies a fuck

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's a good question .

What is it that stops those in a monogamous relationship from fulfilling their natural desires ?

Guilt ?

Risk factors ?

Religion ?

Their idea of love for their partner ?

One thing is for sure though , anyone in a monogamous relationship is denying themselves every time they think about having a bit in the side . So it could be argued that it isn't natural to have just one sexual partner . I don't know a single person who hasn't lusted after someone else at some point .......

"

I think lusting after someone is a fun game we all play.

Those of us in this game are lucky though as we can share this game with our partners.

Those in a "normal" relationship may not be able to be sat in a pub and turn to their partners and say "cor look at who just walked in, I'd love to be in the middle of you & them"

Before we started swinging we were always open about fancying others, it was a fun pastime we had.

I don't think us swinging has made us not monogamous, if that's the right way to say it, we don't see it as cheating on each other.

But I also know plenty of people who have no desire to be unfaithful to their partners.

I don't think it's a natural thing at all to want to spread your seed. It's just a choice people make.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Fascinating stuff...as a 51yr old woman I no longer worry about social "norms". I check out other men constantly. I believe we all do, it's natural. Men who were in control of society wanted to know any children were theirs, women's sexuality was and still is controlled. I could choose to be monogamous and could do this happily with the right guy. Men are the same, they can choose as well. It is a social construct in answer to the question.

Right - who fancies a fuck "

Not sure if I agree that being the reason for monogamy developing-if anything, I think polygamy-a la the way Gorillas do it-is the most 'natural' state for humans-which is why all pre/non industrial societies are polygamous.

And damn straight a silverback knows all the offspring in the group are his.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

It works for a lot of humans.

I've been to three 50th wedding anniversaries this year and I have two next year.

.....but how do you know these couples are monogamous? "

Of course I don't know 100% for sure if they are but I am very close to one of the couples and I am as certain as I can be.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I also think putting a 'blanket' view as regards monogamy is a bit well, of another weak argument. We are not a monolithic species-some people have higher libidos than others-so monogamy will work for some, and not for others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff

No, it's not even a human construct - monogamy is very, very natural.

Swans mate for life, as a romantic bird example.

Shingle black lizards.

Monogamy isn't exclusive to humans, nor primates, nor mammals, nor social types of animal.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit. "

I'm sorry to bring the conversation down but what a load of cobblers.

This just sounds like misogynistic claptrap.

You woman stay at home while I spread my seed.

This isn't natures way at all.

Many female creatures will court attention from multiple males in order to have the best seed implanted in her.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No, it's not even a human construct - monogamy is very, very natural.

Swans mate for life, as a romantic bird example.

Shingle black lizards.

Monogamy isn't exclusive to humans, nor primates, nor mammals, nor social types of animal. "

The process that creates and enforces life pairs in animals is the same that inspires migration etc. It's non negotiable for some. There simply is no choice.

When there is a choice, well, Bonobos.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

It works for a lot of humans.

I've been to three 50th wedding anniversaries this year and I have two next year.

Im not saying is the case of these couples, but being married, even 50 years, doesn't mean someone is monogamous. Lots of people are married and cheating.

Monogamy and marriage not always go hand in hand. I'm married love my husband. I never cheated on him. But I sleep with other people.

MrsSB "

I understand that.

We sleep with many people.

The point I was trying to make was monogamy works for many people and many people desire it.

Although we sleep with others we don't deem it to be cheating as we know what each other get up to.

I just don't believe the argument that men are hard wired to have multiple partners while women are programmed to have one partner for life.

It sounds like the rantings of a woman hating caveman.

It's his way of saying stay at home woman and care for my offspring while I go and further the species elsewhere.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

I'm sorry to bring the conversation down but what a load of cobblers.

This just sounds like misogynistic claptrap.

You woman stay at home while I spread my seed.

This isn't natures way at all.

Many female creatures will court attention from multiple males in order to have the best seed implanted in her."

Depends on the species. True of ducks, bonobos, and quite a few others, but theres plenty of monogamous animals-monkeys, most birds. The 'state of nature' is not neccesarily 'all other animals shag about'.

Mind you; I've already pointed this out.

Ever get the feeling no-one is listening to you?

Seems as good a time as any to swear off the forum.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"we are not programmed to be monogamous, that's only what society says we should be...

I tried it and didn't like it..

I think it was Friedrich Engels who basically put forward the idea that the only reason we developed the idea of monogamy was because we (Europeans ) tied the idea of family to that of property-a woman in western culture was considered until fairly recently the property of her husband, and before marriage her husband. He viewed this as a result of our development from a nomadic society to an urban one.

Which explains why in Islamic society ; rooted in a desert, nomadic society where cities were few, marriages were/are multiple and divorce has historically been much easier-meaning that one man can have many children and indeed often many (up to four at a time) wives and potentially many ex-wives.

These examples you keep citing, how many of them allowed the female to have multiple partners as well as the male?"

Historically,men would go off to fight and get killed,leaving behind wives and children who needed looking after. Brothers or relatives would take on the wives and children as second families so they didn't perish.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"No, it's not even a human construct - monogamy is very, very natural.

Swans mate for life, as a romantic bird example.

Shingle black lizards.

Monogamy isn't exclusive to humans, nor primates, nor mammals, nor social types of animal.

The process that creates and enforces life pairs in animals is the same that inspires migration etc. It's non negotiable for some. There simply is no choice.

When there is a choice, well, Bonobos. "

You say bonobo, I say gibbon. So like I said, monogamy is natural. Common even. It's not like a swan has no option other than to be monogamous - swans aren't particularly social, but they see lots of other swans. Their lives aren't as hard as say, penguins, they're considerably more mobile than lizards.

All the animal categories have species in them that are monogamous, polygamous, and everything in between.

Who knows what the 'natural' state of a human relationship is, considering we're a species that does everything it can to distance itself from natural behaviours.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"we are not programmed to be monogamous, that's only what society says we should be...

I tried it and didn't like it..

I think it was Friedrich Engels who basically put forward the idea that the only reason we developed the idea of monogamy was because we (Europeans ) tied the idea of family to that of property-a woman in western culture was considered until fairly recently the property of her husband, and before marriage her husband. He viewed this as a result of our development from a nomadic society to an urban one.

Which explains why in Islamic society ; rooted in a desert, nomadic society where cities were few, marriages were/are multiple and divorce has historically been much easier-meaning that one man can have many children and indeed often many (up to four at a time) wives and potentially many ex-wives.

These examples you keep citing, how many of them allowed the female to have multiple partners as well as the male?

Historically,men would go off to fight and get killed,leaving behind wives and children who needed looking after. Brothers or relatives would take on the wives and children as second families so they didn't perish. "

Historically, but where?

In Wales there are lots of accounts of women participating in wars with the Romans, obviously females defend offspring. And 'needed looking after'? What a major history and biology failure if women needed men to look after them, we'd all be dead. Single moms aren't a 21st century invention, and men 'historically' abandon families all the time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It isn't natures way for the female to have multiple partners. I didn't create the way, you will need to speak to the universe. Yes they can and do, but that isn't how mammals operate in a group context. I am a male of the species, my "job" is to further the species, so many partners.

I feel much calmer and peaceful with a polygyny relationship. BDSM communities touch on this, but even they get caught in monogamy. I like several females working and living together for the happiness and success of the unit.

I'm sorry to bring the conversation down but what a load of cobblers.

This just sounds like misogynistic claptrap.

You woman stay at home while I spread my seed.

This isn't natures way at all.

Many female creatures will court attention from multiple males in order to have the best seed implanted in her.

Depends on the species. True of ducks, bonobos, and quite a few others, but theres plenty of monogamous animals-monkeys, most birds. The 'state of nature' is not neccesarily 'all other animals shag about'.

Mind you; I've already pointed this out.

Ever get the feeling no-one is listening to you?

Seems as good a time as any to swear off the forum."

I am in agreement of most of what you have been posting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In times when war was a more frequent past time, famine, drought and pestilence where a constant threat. then poly was the best way to survive. Women would outnumber the men by a large margin, 150 years ago getting past 35 was an achievement for the aveerage person.

So from a species survival level then Poly makes sense. women with families that lost their male would have better survival chances by joining another family. On the flip side, if the woman died early then there where always plenty more due to the men dying at war.

I read something about the birth rate differences between male and female post WW2 and it was fascinating how nature stepped in to even the numbers over a generation or two.

Nature does interfere with us, i am sure most of you know someone that has had an affair for no apparent reason, usually boredom or 7 year itch.. why does it even happen?

I would argue if we were meant to be monogomous then the urge to cheat, have multiple partners or even just a bit of window shopping would never be part of our psyche.

Everyone window shops, end of argument.

So yup mono is a social construct.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I met my husband young and married him young. Before him I didn't play the field,during our 30 yr relationship I wasn't interested in other men; not until it was apparent that our relationship was over. I was happy with just one man,so some of us are made for monogamy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think monogamy is natural and most marital disputes are caused by failing at something we aren't even naturally programmed to do. We are setting ourselves up for failure from the start.

That's not to say that monogamy doesn't work for some people just that they are the rarity, not the norm. I know more unhappily married folk than I do happily married folk and the happy ones tend to steer towards the "alternative" way of looking at marriage and relationships.

Mrs x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"we are not programmed to be monogamous, that's only what society says we should be...

I tried it and didn't like it..

I think it was Friedrich Engels who basically put forward the idea that the only reason we developed the idea of monogamy was because we (Europeans ) tied the idea of family to that of property-a woman in western culture was considered until fairly recently the property of her husband, and before marriage her husband. He viewed this as a result of our development from a nomadic society to an urban one.

Which explains why in Islamic society ; rooted in a desert, nomadic society where cities were few, marriages were/are multiple and divorce has historically been much easier-meaning that one man can have many children and indeed often many (up to four at a time) wives and potentially many ex-wives.

These examples you keep citing, how many of them allowed the female to have multiple partners as well as the male?

Historically,men would go off to fight and get killed,leaving behind wives and children who needed looking after. Brothers or relatives would take on the wives and children as second families so they didn't perish.

Historically, but where?

In Wales there are lots of accounts of women participating in wars with the Romans, obviously females defend offspring. And 'needed looking after'? What a major history and biology failure if women needed men to look after them, we'd all be dead. Single moms aren't a 21st century invention, and men 'historically' abandon families all the time."

A Turkish man told me that,he was telling me about the Ottoman Empire. It may or may not have happened in other areas of the world,I haven't researched.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In times when war was a more frequent past time, famine, drought and pestilence where a constant threat. then poly was the best way to survive. Women would outnumber the men by a large margin, 150 years ago getting past 35 was an achievement for the aveerage person.

So from a species survival level then Poly makes sense. women with families that lost their male would have better survival chances by joining another family. On the flip side, if the woman died early then there where always plenty more due to the men dying at war.

I read something about the birth rate differences between male and female post WW2 and it was fascinating how nature stepped in to even the numbers over a generation or two.

Nature does interfere with us, i am sure most of you know someone that has had an affair for no apparent reason, usually boredom or 7 year itch.. why does it even happen?

I would argue if we were meant to be monogomous then the urge to cheat, have multiple partners or even just a bit of window shopping would never be part of our psyche.

Everyone window shops, end of argument.

So yup mono is a social construct. "

I would argue that sex itself is rarely the motivation for cheating.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In times when war was a more frequent past time, famine, drought and pestilence where a constant threat. then poly was the best way to survive. Women would outnumber the men by a large margin, 150 years ago getting past 35 was an achievement for the aveerage person.

So from a species survival level then Poly makes sense. women with families that lost their male would have better survival chances by joining another family. On the flip side, if the woman died early then there where always plenty more due to the men dying at war.

I read something about the birth rate differences between male and female post WW2 and it was fascinating how nature stepped in to even the numbers over a generation or two.

Nature does interfere with us, i am sure most of you know someone that has had an affair for no apparent reason, usually boredom or 7 year itch.. why does it even happen?

I would argue if we were meant to be monogomous then the urge to cheat, have multiple partners or even just a bit of window shopping would never be part of our psyche.

Everyone window shops, end of argument.

So yup mono is a social construct.

I would argue that sex itself is rarely the motivation for cheating."

I agree, it becomes cheating when lies and deceit come come into play.

I dont think there has to be sex for it to be cheating. In my past experience the moment the thought of wanting to be with someone else entered my head i knew that relationship was doomed.

Currently, we actually rarely swap these days, but knowing that we can, and be open with eachother about window shopping and who we fancy is enough to scratch the itch, so the question at least for us is, not about saying mono is a social construct, but more have social/mental/emotional constructs killed the art of communication between couples?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think Islam is more to my taste, where a man can have up to 4 wives of equal value. Or is it 5? Because the male of the species is made to have multiple females. "

Four.

And divorce has always been a thing in islamic society, and it has always been fairly easy for both men and women to get, unlike the west. For example, in Britain until fairly recently (mid to late nineteenth century) you could only get a divorce via act of parliament.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And in answer to the guy who asked how many 'examples I keep citing', how many have women with multiple partners; they're few. There is a tradition in parts of Nepal and Tibet for women to have multiple husbands, but the husbands are usually brothers. There is also examples in rural parts of Burma and parts of sub-saharan Africa, but they are rare. All are, again, in nomadic, non-agrarian societies.

I don't think its neccesarily a leftover-from-christianity thing either on reflection. The Romans, before they became christian, were monogamous, although divorce was easier in Roman society. Which points to monogamy being tied more to ownership than anything else.

Don't forget, marriage in the pre-industrial age was as much a contract as anything else, and usually to do with land. So a man marries a woman in order to have a claim on the lands of her father. Which makes sense in a culture based on cities and farms. Hence why 'civilised' Europeans (by which I mean non-nomadic ones) tended to be monogamous (the Ancient Greeks were too)

Which, in turn, explains why the cultures of the middle east-where men didn't tend to own land or live in cities-and where it was more about how many camels or horses a man owned that determined his status rather than how much land he owned.

It also goes some way to explaining why the world record for number of offspring (about 5,000) goes to a Moroccan sultan.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

*I should have put in that last post 'tend to be polygamous' after 'middle east'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West. "

Totally agree! Watched a program about this once about mammals not being monogamous and it's natural to be attracted to others. Was fascinating x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it? "

I believe most of the time it is a forced thing just because we have met someone we like...but I have met two men in my life that made me become uninterested in playing with other people...so I am not only with one guy because I feel I should be but because I am only interested sexually in him...the first I spent 12 years with until he died and the second I am with now...even tho we aren't in a proper, full on relationship...but I only want to play with him so...I do

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

Totally agree! Watched a program about this once about mammals not being monogamous and it's natural to be attracted to others. Was fascinating x"

Well its news to marmosets and gibbons.

'Ere, Mr. Marmoset, those funny humans think we're not monogamous'

'Bloody hell Mr. Gibbon, with all this being the only one who looks after the babies thing, when the hell do I have time to look at another woman??'

'Oh I agree Mr. Marmoset, those silly humans with their opposable thumbs.'

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Contraception ain't "natural" either, ya know.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

On another note; there is a large bird called a Rhea where the adults meet up, the females lay the eggs, then they bugger off so they can look for new mates, and let the fathers look after the nest single-handedly. The males are then aggressively protective of the eggs and subsequently the babies, which they look after single-handedly.

Not that this has any bearing on this discussion, but seeing such dedicated dads in the animal kingdom is kind of...nice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On another note; there is a large bird called a Rhea where the adults meet up, the females lay the eggs, then they bugger off so they can look for new mates, and let the fathers look after the nest single-handedly. The males are then aggressively protective of the eggs and subsequently the babies, which they look after single-handedly.

Not that this has any bearing on this discussion, but seeing such dedicated dads in the animal kingdom is kind of...nice."

Sea horses the male carry the eggs x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allipygousMan
over a year ago

Leicester

If having multiple partners is natural, and monogamy so unnatural, why has nature given us so many sexually related diseases that would effectively be irradiated if we didn't fuck around?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ohnaronMan
over a year ago

london


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it? "

You can construct lovely furniture from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *allipygousMan
over a year ago

Leicester


"If having multiple partners is natural, and monogamy so unnatural, why has nature given us so many sexually related diseases that would effectively be irradiated if we didn't fuck around?"

Ha...eradicated, not irradiated

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Who feels that monogamy is a social construct? And who would defend it? "

Why is it a social construct?

It's a way of life for many species.

As for our species, we use arguments for and against it as to how we see it on an individual basis.

Or as an excuse?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Its not natural, no. Mammals generally aren't monogamous, and it doesn't work for humans. Yet its so engrained into the culture of the West.

It works for a lot of humans.

I've been to three 50th wedding anniversaries this year and I have two next year.

Im not saying is the case of these couples, but being married, even 50 years, doesn't mean someone is monogamous. Lots of people are married and cheating.

Monogamy and marriage not always go hand in hand. I'm married love my husband. I never cheated on him. But I sleep with other people.

MrsSB

I understand that.

We sleep with many people.

The point I was trying to make was monogamy works for many people and many people desire it.

Although we sleep with others we don't deem it to be cheating as we know what each other get up to.

I just don't believe the argument that men are hard wired to have multiple partners while women are programmed to have one partner for life.

It sounds like the rantings of a woman hating caveman.

It's his way of saying stay at home woman and care for my offspring while I go and further the species elsewhere. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I would, it feels totally innate to me, hard wired, when I am in a relationship I have no interest in other men.

You weren't made to.

"

Simply not true and shows complete ignorance of evolutionary biology.

In simple terms it's not or the other. People not evolve in exactly the same way because that would create intense competition for the same things which reduces survival prospects.

There's adaptive evolution which basically means if the majority of the population are doing one thing then a minority will something different.

Therefore, approximately 30% of the population are hardwired to be monogamous and approximately 70% aren't.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aturalMystic OP   Man
over a year ago

Leicester


"

Simply not true and shows complete ignorance of evolutionary biology.

In simple terms it's not or the other. People not evolve in exactly the same way because that would create intense competition for the same things which reduces survival prospects.

There's adaptive evolution which basically means if the majority of the population are doing one thing then a minority will something different.

Therefore, approximately 30% of the population are hardwired to be monogamous and approximately 70% aren't. "

I welcome differences of opinion, but giving "adaptive evolution" as the driver regarding monogamy or poly couplings isn't relevant. In fact the argument is pointless. A species will adapt regarding food and habit, but not sexuality. And what's this about intense competition? We are talking sex not food sources.

What drives monogamy is society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Simply not true and shows complete ignorance of evolutionary biology.

In simple terms it's not or the other. People not evolve in exactly the same way because that would create intense competition for the same things which reduces survival prospects.

There's adaptive evolution which basically means if the majority of the population are doing one thing then a minority will something different.

Therefore, approximately 30% of the population are hardwired to be monogamous and approximately 70% aren't.

I welcome differences of opinion, but giving "adaptive evolution" as the driver regarding monogamy or poly couplings isn't relevant. In fact the argument is pointless. A species will adapt regarding food and habit, but not sexuality. And what's this about intense competition? We are talking sex not food sources.

What drives monogamy is society. "

Your conflating things. Adaptive preferences were just an example to show that humans don't all develop in exactly the same way. My reference to adaptive preferences was about who you want to fuck. There's competition for mates as well as food!

Just like there's no a single human preference for large or small women, there's not a single preference for monogamy or polygamy. So you're wrong to say the lady wasn't born that way, chances are that she was but her preferences are just different to the majority of the population. That's still natural. Natural isn't defined by what the majority does.

You're trying to simplify the answer into one or the other but that's not what the evidence shows. A mixture of both are naturally expected, albeit weighted towards polygamy. Allen MacNeill provides an nice overview of the relevant studies in "evolutionary psychology" otherwise I'd like to hear your evidence that non-mongamy is the only natural state for humans?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah I believe in it, I've always been monogamous, both in relationships and marriage. It's a beautiful thing in my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top