Are humans supposed to be monogamous naturally, or is that just social convention?

Question

Are humans really supposed to mate for life? According to the kaws of nature, the male of the species is supposed to procreate, but he can't fulfil that obligation with just one woman. Or can he?

Answer 1

What a good question! I am not trying to fudge, but I think its both. A lot is determined by biology, so its natural. Females tend to want a monogamous relationship because they will be deeply involved in raising offspring. Males have a biological need to spread the DNA far and wide to keep the gene pool healthy. There is no doubt that a child has a far better chance of living to maturity, and reproducing, if it has both a mother and a father to provide food and shelter and education. And at the same time, humans are social creatures, so we evolve as a species in societies, and they have values that either contribute to survival or detract from it. So even those who do not produce children fit in, they are needed, too, whether they are gay or heterosexuals just not interested in raising children--a lot of the work that it takes to keep a society healthy is best done by people who do not need to devote attention to raising children.

Answer 2

There is no certain answer to your question. However, science indicates that humans are monogamous for evolutionary reasons. Or, more exactly, are monogamous for much, if not all of their lives.

Animals that have long gestation and whose young mature slowly tend to be monogamous. This is because immature animals (that is, animals before they can reproduce) need a great deal more protection than mature animals. Some animals, insects typically, can mature extremely fast. Sometimes in only a single day. In animals like this, there is no need for parental care.

In humans, maturity isn't reached until the early teens. Thus, humans need parental care for more than a decade. When animals couple, or act in groups, they are better able to protect their young. Thus, monogamy helped protect and raise children in an evolutionary sense. However, after one child reaches maturity, there is less evolutionary reason to remain monogamous and, theoretically, a couple could split up and begin the cycle again with two other individuals.

Of course, all of this is merely conjecture and certainly does not apply in the modern world. Monogamy is not crucial to raising children in the way that it once was. The religious right might try to convince you otherwise, but to use this argument in that way would be accepting of evolution, so I don't expect too much debate from them.

Answer 3

As far as naturally, mating for life or at least through the formative years of the offspring makes a great deal of sense. Children need a male role model as well as a female role model. Let alone the sense of attachment that is felt for one's offspring. I can see the reason for the question, which I assume comes from a person's desire for more than one partner, which is natural as well. That desire, I believe, originates in seeing traits in that person that are desired, or are believed to produce the most "fit" offspring - in a darwinian sense.

Answer 4

Monogamy enhances social stability. While some humans are naturally monogomous, others are not so inclined. It varies with individuals and societies but in the big picture monogamy is a favorable social convention that allows stability and strength of unity in human families.

Answer 5

In nature, the woman is a nester, and the man sows his seed in many fields. That was important to the survival of the race, in ancient times, but its still part of the human makeup.

Answer 6

i think it is natural to be monogomous....if it wasn't, than relatinships would be completely out of wack for humans and wouldn't be the core of humanity as we know it now