are we, humans, truly monogamous?

Question

or is it just a moral invention?
Do we really have to stay together "til death do us part, or face the consequences?

Answer 1

imo

a few are

most are not - some more, some less

there is a natural range from monogamous [one partner per life] to polygamous [many partners]

marriage is a foolish convention forced by the patriarchal society, and by female desire for support

it seems to me the natural way is matriarchy - the females in the centre support one another, and so the females are free to take partners as they wish, from one partner per life to many, with complete freedom - and the males, protectively on the outside, are free to dip in and out of the females as they wish, thus causing maximum ease of sexual release

the patriarchy made a giant blunder - it got possessive, and not only introduced hindrances to the female freedom, but also to the male freedom

sexual release was dammed [and damned] and found outlet in war, which is an alternative sexuality - with alternative shots and explosions - obviously the gun is phallic, the bomb is orgasmic - it is natural to avoid an enemy, but war is a meeting with the enemy, which shows that there is love, attraction, sexuality in it

the more macho the man, the more warlike - ie, the energy for war is a sexual imperative

it is madness to dam sexuality - mother nature is far too powerful to take on head on, or take on in any way - sense is to bow to her imperatives [hunger, sex]

marriage and monogamy and jealousy are selfdestructive, prudish - i suspect its source is a sort of sour grapes - poisoning the well of sexuality, repressing the freedom, the right [and duty] to freedom of sex - to doing something natural about the feeling whenever it occurs

prudery is a mystery - how did we manage to criticise and negate our own nature? - how did we get a nature to repress our own nature? - all i can think of is that when you start judging and criticising and assuming to know what is bad and what is good, we inevitably get it wrong - we are not so smart

we are certain death is bad, although there is not the slightest evidence of its badness

we are certain public sex is bad, without any good reason - the repression of sex seems to be just meanness - and apparently the mean ones generally get into power and intimidate the rest into submission to prudery - which makes sense: they are repressing their own sexuality and so their sexual energy comes out sideways as powerhunger, as greed

and greed is about to murder us all - greed produces overpay, overpay causes underpay, overpay causes overpower, which oppresses the underpowered - underpay [theft] and oppression cause violence - violence is endlessly escalative as both sides [the wrong overpaid and the right underpaid] try to win - brings us in time to bombs able to destroy all life [the present time]

morality as obeying an external rule is immoral - it is abandoning selfhood - it is spiritual and moral suicide - it is abandoning thinking for oneself - without thinking for oneself, there is no pursuit of your own happiness - and pursuit of your own happiness is your first and last duty - that follows from the fact that you are you, and that happiness is everybody's everything, by definition - happiness means: everything and anything that makes the person fulfilled and happy - as happy as can be - which is infinitely fulfilled and happy - true ethics is pursuit of happiness, which is impossible if you abandon your own thinking for obedience to some arbitrary code made by others

the americans [rightly] did not accept obedience as an excuse at nuremburg, but they teach obedience at home

obedience is selfcontradictory - it makes no sense - if a is to obey b, who is b to obey? - if b is entitled to obey b, then a is entitled to obey a - the whole obedience thing is just the wish for slaves, is just the ethic of control perverts - and submission to obedience is just the perverted desire to be adult babies - obviously maturity is responsibility, freedom for yourself: my own decisions, my own mistakes, my own triumphs, my own life - not the robotism of obedience, which is necessarily mindless and totally irresponsible and immoral and selfdestructive - to put your own future into the hands of another - it is like handing over the driving of the car you are driving to someone in their own car

fortunately there are signs of emerging return to matriarchy which may be the saving of the world - if women get their act together, and become leaders of culture, which so far they show very little sign of doing - feminism has become sidetracked into vanity issues, not the real, hardcore issues of poverty [theft], injustice and violence

Answer 2

no you do not have to stay with anyone. But there are consequences; law wise, you will have to pay, you will find that there will be difficulties with some of your friends, for those that will side with the other, you will find that your relationships in the years to come will meet the same challenges that you refused to over come in the first place, commitment, fidelity, and keeping your word. These consequences are not just religious as so many people think, they are the regulators of a society. It is the glue that keeps a society together, a culture in tack, when there is everyone man for himself, wandering like a bee from flower to flower, the society breaks apart and you have chaos.

Most likely man was not meant to be monogamous in the beginning but like everything there is an evolution, a newer truer sense of life and respect for it that must adjust itself as it progresses from one stage to another.

It is your choice to be part of the progression or you may regress and remain in the past and not move forward as part of the enlightenment of humanity.

Free will again...its a tricky thing, you must take what you have learned, heard or know to be true and apply it as you see it, but you must also suffer the consequences of which you many not even understand at the moment and their full penalty of your actions.

Good luck see ya long the long path to understanding.

Answer 3

its a cultural invention. humans are not naturally monogamous.

Roadkill: if humans are not naturally monogamous, how can monogamy be fundamental to society? the nuclear, monogamous family is a western invention. societies in which women can have multiple husbands or men multiple wives do not fall apart. sexually humans are pretty diverse, and there are many "family" organizations other than monogamy that work. in fact, a polygamous society has the benefit of there being mutliple care-takers for the children. often in our society the parents are too rushed to care for them properly and communities are too fragmented for there to be a decent social network for children to develop in. so polygamy in a tight-knit community might actually be psychologically better for the children than the nuclear family in a fragmented individualistic society.

Answer 4

Remember that it's only in the past century that people have started living past the age of 30 or 40. So marriage only lasted 20 or 25 years. Having said that, I think humans do better in all aspects of physcial and emotional growth and longevity if they are monogamous.

Answer 5

We are animals. Born to breed and make more just like us. We have to work at being monogamous. That is what the spirit and soul are about. Bringing us above the level of the common animal. Of course it doesn't work for some.

Answer 6

no, i don't think so. A new study came out about a month ago that stated that women get bored on the average of two years into a relationship. Who knew? Everyone always says it's the man !

Answer 7

Only lazy people that are satisfied with the everyday monotony of their miserable lives are monogamous. Explorers, lovers, and the adventurous are delighted with the wonders of their existence and taste the delights of this world.

Answer 8

It depends on what you mean by truly. I think all humans are either selfish or martyristic when it comes down to bare truth. Preference of love relationship is a luxury, or a survival tactic.

Answer 9

I think it is best when we are. It is easy not to be. But when it becomes to chaotic the family will crumble and so will civilization. The family is the fundemental building block of civilization and it requires a commitment by all its members.

Answer 10

Our species of primate, is mostly monogamous, though slightly polygamous. Polyandry is there, but generally for convenience.