Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I've heard a lot of people say that monogamy is unnatural, and I don't understand why people try to excuse promiscuity as "humans are animals and animals must follow their sexual impulses." Yes lots of animals are sexually promiscuous or only mate for a season/year or so, but several do mate for life and are (mostly) devoted to their mate. Animals that are monogamous do sometimes cheat but its rare, Sandhill Cranes mate for life and it's so rare for one to cheat that it was noteworthy when one (out of roughly 100,000 of the species population) was caught cheating in 2006. Then there's the counter to the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument, where it's pointed out that animals frequently do practice homosexuality thus making it natural. So if one sexual behavior is natural because it occurs in nature than why isn't another?

If anyone ever uses the argument that because animals do it we should do it would be the Appeal to nature fallacy. This is a heads up to anyone who is about to use this argument so don't.

Now onto the title "monogamy is unnatural?". Having multiple partners is a very bad relationship choice because initially you choose another partner focusing less of your attention from your original partner. It then persuades you to have another partner and the cycle repeats. It will get to the point when your original partner does not mean much to you when you start satisfying yourself with multiple partners. So when you start a relationship you either be monogamous or shamelessly take up multiple partners.

Coming from a muslim I know eyebrows will be raised when I say this. "Don't you support polygamy?" Well during 6th century arabia tribal war and conflict was very common. This meant men in general kept dying off leaving a disproportionate female/male ratio. That is why polygamy was common back then

Human monogamy is definitely not natural. Monogamy is a survival technique, true monogamous species are generally larger birds who don't flock together, it would be a waste of time and effort to find a new mate every year. Humans practice monogamy because that's what society decided is most morally correct at the moment, not because it's beneficial to our survival as a species.

Monogamy is also an evolutionary strategy. Sandhill cranes (most crane species actually) form partner bonds very early in life, most of them are very inexperienced and have quite a few unsuccessful mating seasons. Cranes most commonly "divorce" within the first three unsuccessful breeding seasons, if you can't figure out how to breed correctly your genes are simply not worth spreading.

Homosexual behavior is pretty common in nature, but thus far we've only seen a few instances in one or two species of birds where same-sex pairs actually partake in bonded couple displays.

Stay on topic, if you disagree with Lisa state why. Her arguments are about as insane as yours.

---

Personally I believe that monogamy is natural to a degree. But human sexuality is on a different level than other animals.

To me I can see that monogamy might be natural because of the foundation of human social groups. Humans initially were in small groups, similar to wolves, dogs, lions and more relably primates. Like a lot of these animals humans may have had monogamous pairs within the "packs".

That whole post was biology 101, how was any of it insane, or even an argument?

a discussion involving MULTIPLE VIEW POINTS on the internet?
What madness this is! Forums are meant to be an echo chamber for people to circle jerk, not to express different views!

To answer the question, some animals have one mate, others have more, so either way, yea, its natural.
Anyways, i get that its interesting to study other animals, but besides that, what does it matter what other animals mating patterns are like?

Homosexual behavior is pretty common in nature, but thus far we’ve only seen a few instances in one or two species of birds where same-sex pairs actually partake in bonded couple displays.
could you explain the difference?

I wasn't actually saying what you were saying was insane, I was saying that Eurofighter/Warriormans points were just as valid as yours. If your argument was insane than his is too.

And it kind of is an argument, you both have differing opinions and are discussing them, use the term debate or whatever if you want.

I'm having trouble making a judgement on this topic because the term "natural" is far too subjective and loaded in my opinion. For example, Carlin raised a valid point about humans being a part of nature; anything we do or create is arguably "natural".

A man leaving his wife and child for a mistress is being "unnatural" because he is not looking after his offspring (i.e. his genetic material), yet he is also being "natural" by allowing his hardwired desire to be promiscuous to overcome his conscience and what society has taught him.

Human monogamy is definitely not natural

Monogamy is also an evolutionary strategy.

Isn't it natural for an animal to pursue the most advantageous method of spreading (and protecting/securing, in the case of monogamy) its genetic material?

Wait are we debating the naturalness or the morality of monogamy?

I guess either or, at this point.

{ could you explain the difference? }

Like being in a relationship vs. being friends with benefits. Animals don't have any concept of "morals" or "dating". We have tracked pairs of adolescent male dolphins who swim belly to belly and rub genitals to get each other off, but they always join a pod and pursue females eventually, that is, you wouldn't say they were gay. There have been a handful of black swans, though, that have made breeding attempts and displayed mating behaviors, they go through the courtship dance, they steal nests and eggs from other swans so they can have their own family, etc. Swans are one of the very few, mostly bird species where we consistently and reliably document this behavior.

{ Isn’t it natural for an animal to pursue the most advantageous method of spreading (and protecting/securing, in the case of monogamy) its genetic material? }

Yes, that's why I specifically said human monogamy is not natural. Humans are a social species that live in extremely close quarters and keep relatively loose territories. It's more advantageous for us to mix and mingle with as many attractive/strong/smart partners as possible, even within hours/days of each other to maximize the change of your offspring getting a good blend (like cuttlefish do), if you want to look at it from a purely natural point of view.

Most swans, however, fiercely defend incredibly large territories and lead solitary lives beside their mate. They are not social, they don't flock, they're very content to find one quality partner and never see another swan again. Swans are also huge, strong, and have few natural predators, they don't need to spread their genes around rapidly because they're more likely to survive to adulthood.

People say we are not Naturally monogamous because there are many, many scientific sources that say so. Have you Googled this first? Even my high school biology text book stated this as a fact.

This is not an appeal to nature. This is scientific finding. Human beings developed monogamy as our civilisation expanded. it was necessary during the development of civilised society and religion sealed it in with formal marriage.

In other words. Monogamy is the product of human cultural evolution. But not Natural evolution.

Before marriage. Human males would keep harems of females. Some still do. That nature is still in us

To this date the average human has multiple sexual partners even when married. and many don't like the idea of marriage at all

I can find sources but I'm on my phone right now. I'll grab some when I'm on my desktop. For now I suggest google

Monogamy is a product or ideal created by human culture through centuries. If Monogamy was natural, then both men and women would'nt be able to reproduce after having already giving birth to someone.

….But a lot of monogamous species can reproduce multiple times.

I worded bad. I meant to say that if one of the couple wanted to reproduce with another individual of the species she/he wouldn't because she/he can only do it with his original partner

Know what I say? Fuck this debate it's basically semantics anyways. Most people happen to prefer monogamy so they do that. Some people might like having one or two partners, one main romantic partner and multiple sex partners, just a bunch of sex partners, or whatever they desire. We're not primitive beasts arguing things in terms of genetics and off-spring disgusts me. We're human beings these things don't work the same for us. We don't exist just to fuck and throw around DNA we have emotions and live socially. I just find all of this a little silly and almost insulting to people. Sure in the end we are technically animals but we're not like the rest and some people should stop acting like it. Just do what you want with your romantic life don't let internet dimwits tell you what to do with it.

I'm glad my parents weren't that way when I was growing up. I always saw my friends being bounced around from house to house like property because their parents either broke up or were never together to begin with. Most of those kids grew up to be angst-filled jerks who always complained about their step-parents or lack of a stable family. Not that I blame them, but that's mostly why monogamy is widely accepted in today's society. It's a "think about the children" kind of thing.

Well said. I'm especially sick of people spouting about natural selection and survival of the fittest in today's society as if it applies to humans. Especially when most of the people who preach about it on the internet are unfit, misfit, and poorly adapted specimens in today's environment, aka basement dwellers/NEETs.

I worded bad. I meant to say that if one of the couple wanted to reproduce with another individual of the species she/he wouldn’t because she/he can only do it with his original partner

I think what Sonic is hinting at is; that in truly monogamous species including various species of avian (penguins, for example). They only pick one partner and stick with that partner even when said partner is dead (So says Wiki)

But humans don't do that at all. Even our form of marriage allows widows to remarry with someone else, again hinting that we don't follow an instinctual process of monogamy. We follow an idealized version built into our social structures

Maybe some penguins cheat, I don't know. But I'll wager such incidents are rare and not on the level that humans take it, where many humans are actually having open relationships (eg: love triangles). In some cases, humans let their partners have other sexual partners and don't call it cheating as long as all parties consent to it. Again this is more hinting that we're more naturally prone to explore polygamy than other naturally monogamous species. The prevalence of cheating in monogamous species doesn't really take away from the fact that we're readily more exploratory sexually and romantically with multiple partners.

Now I know some scientist are saying that monogamy could have evolved naturally as well as monogamy has some very clear benefits to our evolution. In fact mankind benefited from dropping polygamy and adopting monogamy quite a lot.

Then again a lot of this is still up in the air. It does seem agree'd upon however that human polygamy came first and isn't fully replaced by monogamy which came about only to fix problems in our budding social structure

Polygamy still hangs around like most human instincts that wont go away. Despite being shed a long time ago (and even outlawed in several countries), it still crops up in our society in some form or another.

I think the strongest evidence for natural non-monogamy in humans can be observed just by looking at our schools where the hormones and instincts reveal themselves raw before being moderated by maturity:

Notice how all boys in school wanna be cool by scoring all the hot chicks in the cheerleaders team? And if a kid in school actually does score with all kinds of chicks, he'll think he's fucking hot shit, he'll be the coolest kid in town and all the other boys get jealous. Meanwhile if girl does the same thing, she's a "slut". That's native polygyny bubbling beneath the surface

No! Bad Coolface! Bad! [spanks]

Sigh…how many times do I have to do that?

Anyway, in the time I wrote that previous post, I see Sam's comment which seems to be less about the discussion of what is natural and more about the discussion about whats good or bad

I would like to remind everyone that this is not a debate over what's right. Just whether or not humans are originally a monogamous species or not

Whats right or wrong when it comes to using one or several partners at once comes down to what type of individual you are, who you find and what serves the current situation best.

Some people are more naturally monogamous and cant deal with someone they like seeking someone else. And that's okay!

Meanwhile there's other people who are more naturally poly-amorous* and can't really find satisfaction or sexual fullfillment in one person. That's also okay!

Both are fine as long as you manage it correctly. One can't simply say that mono or poly is better. There's pro's and cons of each and neither is for everybody.

*I say 'polyamory' rather than 'polygamy' because 'polygamy' has too many negative connotations to horrific cultish polygamist marraiges that work out in the worst way possible

Yeah blue that's what I'm saying if it's your life do what you want with this, I'm sick of euphoric youtube scum using "evolution" and "genes" or whatever as a basis for morality. And as I said in my post what's "natural" is just a semantics argument of who can use words better that has no correct conclusion. Like Part said the word natural is basically worthless. So yeah I just find this whole topic silly personally. Just leaving my views.

I pretty much agree with Sam's point, in that we're an advanced species and that we're able to control ourselves. My point of this wasn't to ask if it's natural or not but more wondering why so many people (both irl and online) are anti-monogamy, and the most common excuse I hear is that it's unnatural so open marriages and promiscuity are justified, and on the extreme cases I've heard people say marriage is an outdated/unhealthy concept.

Reminds me of this one time I had to do a report on an article that was just a lengthy rant about the dangers of monogamy. I disagreed of course, and needless to say, I didn't get the grade I though I deserved. When I went to talk to her about it she basically sea-lioned me and asked me to look up facts to support my claims and re-write the report even though I cited my essay.

lmao I hate hearing that POV from people in this day and age. We're special animals we're not lowly animal animals, we're humans and we're above everything else, nature does not apply to us!! What a very classically theological way of viewing the world.

You really want to say that all other animals have no purpose on this world except to fuck and throw DNA around? That our emotions and social lives are somehow inherently better/advanced/more special than those of other animals? Every day we learn something more about the complexities of other animal's emotions and how they express them, we've leaned that almost every social mammal has a mourning period and grieving ritual for lost relatives and close companions, scientists and psychologists across the world have said this idea that we're the only special snowflakes capable of feeling is both arrogant and just plain wrong.

@Starscream

My point of this wasn’t to ask if it’s natural or not but more wondering why so many people (both irl and online) are anti-monogamy, and the most common excuse I hear is that it’s unnatural so open marriages and promiscuity are justified

Maybe they are edgelords riffing on something for being an old tradition or something. There isn't really a huge reason to be anti-monogamy. Or at least I sure can't think of one. Historically speaking, it's turned out pretty well. Maybe some people are taking the 'nature' angle too seriously or are mad over a few relationships they couldn't work out

As been said; how natural it is is quite irrelevant and those using it to say monogamy is wrong or polygamy is better most likely don't know what they are talking about.

However, deferring marriage isn't always the same as panning monogamy

I mean I know a lot of people that do not want to get married. I myself don't really see myself getting married either, I feel the concept doesn't fit with me. But that's just because it doesn't match my lifestyle. That's not to say its bad at all, and while I've seen marriage wreck some people's shit, I've also seen other marriages work out perfectly for those involved

So I wouldn't confuse people saying no to marriage for people saying monogamy is bad, just in case you are factoring them into your statistics.

Natural human polyamory does explain why promiscuity and open marriages exist. But those things shouldn't be justified by nature but rather by merit.

---

Personally I'd love to have a 3-way open romantic bisexual love triangle with two people at once. If it can be made to work through a good mutual understanding of each other it would be so damn hot.

But would I recommend a relationship like that to normal people? Course not.

We’re human beings these things don’t work the same for us.

Yeah they do

Sure in the end we are technically animals but we’re not like the rest and some people should stop acting like it.

Based on what? What makes us so damn special? It's just human egotism that sets us apart. We may be better at certain things but we're not inherently worth more or above them just cause we're human.

You answer your question, Starscream, humans are naturally very promiscuous animals. There's a reason why men's penises are shaped like shovels, to scoop the semen of a rival male out of the vagina of a potential mate. Moreover, the male's pre-semen contains a chemical that kills the sperm of a rival male in the vagina while chemicals his post-semen protects his sperm from another rival male.

Monogamy came about during the rise of civilization. From a purely biological standpoint, I say it is unnatural. However, looking at it from a social and cultural standpoint, monogamy has evolved with humanity. So in a way, I say monogamy is natural.

Mangy Black Sheep wrote:

You answer your question, Starscream, humans are naturally very promiscuous animals. There’s a reason why men’s penises are shaped like shovels, to scoop the semen of a rival male out of the vagina of a potential mate. Moreover, the male’s pre-semen contains a chemical that kills the sperm of a rival male in the vagina while chemicals his post-semen protects his sperm from another rival male.

Not only that, but women moan loudly during sex basically to announce it to men in the surrounding area and attract them to her. More sex means more likelihood of getting pregnant. We started as polygamous animals. These tendencies and impulses did not disappear when we became a monogamous species. Does that mean monogamy is bad or unnatural? Not necessarily. We as a population have benefited from both monogamy and polygamy. Arguing over which one is better or moral or more natural is the most asinine and pointless argument ever.

@Lisa & T-bon

What makes us different from other animals is that we have self control. We understand right and wrong and have the ability to act accordingly. If I'm horny and see a woman I'm attracted to that doesn't mean I can just go and kill her boyfriend and rape her because "that's just how humans would act in nature."

and T-bon are you seriously saying that the life of an animal is worth that of a human?

{ If I’m horny and see a woman I’m attracted to that doesn’t mean I can just go and kill her boyfriend and rape her because “that’s just how humans would act in nature.” }

That is sure as fuck not how it works in nature, so that argument doesn't work anyway. In almost every single species, even among polygamous animals, females have total control. Males gather and display and females can freely walk through them, inspecting them and their display and even physical offerings and dowries, and not a single male dare approach her until she finds one she approves of and signals her consent. Non-consensual sex is almost purely a human concept, there are very few animals on this planet that will "gang rape" and it's almost always a result of an evolutionary need, not a desire for sex.

Even male dominance fights rarely escalate to severe physical injury and even more rarely death. "Taking" another male's mate is always the result of the second male proving himself more worthy of breeding, the females are more than willing to go along with such a change.

---

Edit because I am genuinely confused about this supposed argument.
On what basis are people able to say "killing other males and raping their mate" is how humans would act in nature?

We understand right and wrong and have the ability to act accordingly.

So we're better than animals because only we understand a concept that we invented and haven't found a way to communicate to them?

and T-bon are you seriously saying that the life of an animal is worth that of a human?

Nothing, life or otherwise, is worth anything outside of a mind. There is no external quality of worth. It's all our interpretation. I'm sure animals view their life as worth more than ours.

There are animals that are also intelligent and can feel like elephants, dolphins, and whales, all of which could be found to equal or even beat humans in intellect, and apes that come close, but the vast majority of animals on the Earth are below us. As Scream said we've created societies, we cover the planet, we've created the sciences and philosophy and reasons to live other than throwing babies everywhere. At this point everyone's main goal isn't to reproduce. Since you two are arguing this on a meme-site I'm guessing you appreciate that we don't exist to eat and fuck. Since we already cover he Earth not everyone needs to reproduce. The society and the morals we've created make us above using "what's evolutionarily better" and "what we'd do in the wild". In fact you could say some people not having kids is "evolutionarily better" because if everyone reproduces like in the wild we'd implode our species from lack of resources.

So yes, I think humans have grown past "survival of the fittest" and reproduction being our reason to exist. If you think that's the way to go have fun living in the woods I'm not going to stop you. And yes I think the life of a human is worth more than that of a chicken or a lizard.

Why are you basing the worth of a species on intellect alone?

I don't think you understand how closely we're still connected with nature. Do you know that honeybees are solely responsible for pollinating 70 of the 100 crops that feed 90% of the world? If honeybees went extinct this planet would be fucked, they're considered critical pollinators, a large majority of herbivores depend on them (thus the carnivores who eat those herbivores depend on them as well). But obviously their lives are less important than ours, they can't even play Xbox for fucks sake.

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean we go around in anarchy killing whatever we want for whatever we want and churning out babies until we die, it means you're successful within your species, you've taken care of yourself and made it to the end of your natural lifespan, you didn't get eaten or have an obesity induced heart attack, you spread your genes or you led a great career and retired peacefully with no children, it's not a one size fits all definition for any species of animal.

Nothing on this planet exists simply to reproduce. One thing influences five other things which influence ten other things and so on. We reproduce to continue that balance and keep the planet going.

This thread is a sad display of how out of touch we are with the processes that allow us to exist in the first place.

"Why are you basing the worth of a species on intellect alone?"
Because… well… what the hell else is there to judge? You didn't actually provide another standard in this post.
"Do you know that honeybees are solely responsible for pollinating 70 of the 100 crops that feed 90% of the world? If honeybees went extinct this planet would be fucked, they’re considered critical pollinators, a large majority of herbivores depend on them (thus the carnivores who eat those herbivores depend on them as well)."
Alright, I can hardly believe I have to explain this, but nevertheless here we go:
Bees aren't actually aware that's what they're doing. All they "know" (and that's not even really the appropriate word to use) is that they need some stuff to make honey and feed their colony. The reason their actions are so essential is because bees and plants co-evolved, not because the bees decided to assume the awesome responsibility. Only humans (and arguably a couple other species, but to a much lesser extent) are capable of doing that, all because of… wait for it… our intellect.
"But obviously their lives are less important than ours, they can’t even play Xbox for fucks sake."
Holy strawman building, Batman!

{ You didn’t actually provide another standard in this post. }

The bees! Hello!? We need honeybees to survive on this planet (edit: the standard is not "how intelligent is this animal" but "how ecologically necessary to our survival is this animal"), if they went extinct we would have to hand-pollinate every single crop that they're currently responsible for. Bee colonies are suddenly dying off for no reason all over the world, it's called Colony Collapse Disorder, and the USDA-EPA joint study estimates a third of all US bee colonies have perished within the last decade, which already costs us ~$30,000,000,000 a year. Despite this, they have given a mere $3,000,000 grant to researchers studying and trying to end this problem.

It could not be less relevant that they're doing it out of instinct, we require them to exist on this planet, do you understand that? They don't have the same intellect as us or whales or elephants, but without them we would face a massive population crash, yet according to Sam their lives are inherently worth less than ours, we're special compared to the honey bees. We're so special with our advanced intellect that we are consciously aware of the damage our current actions do to our long term ability to exist on this planet and use its resources, but we keep on doing them. So superior.

Give me a break with this ego-madness bullshit already.

I was told to not go off topic.

You should all do the same.

"ego"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Look, I'll make this real simple for you: The very existence of life, and in fact the entire universe, is completely pointless without beings that can truly comprehend and appreciate that existence. That's us, and that's why we're more important. Other species are only capable of surviving- go back to Sam's post to find a pretty solid list of the things we can do. Yes, we all act stupid at times and make horrible decisions, but how is that relevant to this question at all?

{ You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. }

{ The very existence of life, and in fact the entire universe, is completely pointless without beings that can truly comprehend and appreciate that existence. That’s us, }

r u srs.

This universe would not give a nanosecond's worth of fucks if humans suddenly disappeared, just like every other species that dominated the planet previously and ultimately met their demise. The world will go on spinning and the animals and plants left will continue to adapt and evolve and some other species will rise up and give it a go.

{ we’ve created societies, we cover the planet, we’ve created the sciences and philosophy and reasons to live other than throwing babies everywhere. }

WE created societies? What are the society and animal communities that existed for millions of years before us then?? We're not the first species to form familial groups, we're not the first species to form cliques, we're not the first species to establish our own territories and keep everybody else out.

WE cover the planet? What are you basing that on? Population? There are tens of thousands of species that consist of more than our measly 7 billion. Spread? Ocean species alone cover a far vaster area. Maybe impact? Mosquitoes are annually responsible for 207 million cases of illness or disease and over 1 million deaths per year, the deadliest of any species on the planet.

What are our reasons to live? What are we doing, exactly, as a species, that's worth all this praise, beside destroying the planet's natural resources on our mission to… idk, what are you gonna say, make cheap computers?

Look, I’ll make this real simple for you: The very existence of life, and in fact the entire universe, is completely pointless without beings that can truly comprehend and appreciate that existence. That’s us, and that’s why we’re more important.

Now that's the very pinnacle of egotism. Do you really think that the universe exists just for humanity?
Edit: And even if your premise was true that understanding of life actually makes a difference, do you really think humans are the only animals that are self aware?

This thread is not about our worth to the rest of the planet nor about our egos as humans. If you're not talking about how many bitches people fuck or don't fuck then you're off topic. If you want to discuss something else make your own thread.

I'd also like to remind everyone that the downvote button is not an "I disagree" button. Downvotes are meant to dissuade people from making posts that break rules or derail threads and hide posts that do this. Lisa and Tchefuncte Bonaparte's posts were perfectly fine for the conversation at hand with their only offense being they got a little off topic (which half of this thread is guilty of anyway). Play nice.

oh

It's irrelevant. What is or what isn't natural has no bearing on human life.

/thread

This is basically what I've been trying to say this whole time. Thanks for summing it up in a sentence. I'm too wordy.

By the way this also sums up my views on if something's natural or not or whatever:

"Life isn't just about passing on your genes. We can leave behind much more than just DNA. Through speech, music, literature and movies…what we've seen, heard, felt…anger, joy and sorrow…these are the things I will pass on. That's what I live for. We need to pass the torch, and let our children read our messy and sad history by its light.We have all the magic of the digital age to do that with. The human race will probably come to an end some time, and new species may rule over this planet. Earth may not be forever, but we still have the responsibility to leave what traces of life we can. Building the future and keeping the past alive are one and the same thing."

~Solid Snake

As a justification to cheat on significant others and avoid feeling like an asshole

Technically it is not really reflective of what humans did in the past – it's most likely that humans were highly polygamous/polyamarous – however since human societies have grown more stable and its far more likely that people will survive, monogamy becomes more helpful socially, because it comes with more stability within a family unit. This isn't to say that non-monogamous relationships can't work, this only really reflects trends.

Not sure what any of this has to do with homosexuality. Human homosexuality probably has a social role – homosexuals won't likely reproduce but can provide rearing to those who do, to help reduce the workload for others. Regardless of monogamy or not, homosexuality will still serve a social role. I think it's a fairly poor excuse to look at other animals to justify or condemn homosexuality just because the social structures between us and different species is very different.

The problem with cheating fundamentally lies not in multiple spouses but rather the dishonesty that comes with it. Having multiple partners does not necessarily imply cheating, and as long as all partners are consensual with each other there's no real "cheating" involved. Cheating hurts people because you put trust in an individual and they betray that trust.

However, as others pointed out in this thread, simply because it's not "natural" doesn't make it bad. Hell, many so-called unnatural things improve the quality of life for people greatly – such as glasses, cars, medicine, phones ect.. It's an appeal to nature and frankly nature isn't really a good qualifier to whether something is "right" or not.