Humans May be Monogamous on the Outside But We're Polygamous on the Inside

[miia389]

This is my personal belief and Im aware others will have theirs.

If giving an opinion try actually give a reason why you feel a certain way. Cursing or complaing about another's opinion without explaining yours is pointless.

I will start with this. The idea that you cannot love more than one person romantically is heavily flawed. People say that if you love this person you clearly don't love the other. This couldn't be more wrong. We prove this wrong each day of our lives. We can love our mom and our dad. We can love our brother and sister. We can love our dog or cat. We can love our friends. That already can add up to more than 10 people.

Now is this love different or lesser. Yes... But only to an extent. Romantic love and family love is different. Yet very similar. You care about this person. You wish no harm to come to them. You would protect them or give your life for there's. I feel that way about my family and some friends. Now people will contradict this by saying if you love more than one person romantically. You clearly don't care if you hurt the other person you loves feelings... Why would that ever be the case. You love both. You don't want harm to come to either. Just cause I love my dad doesn't mean I want my mom to get hurt.

I am in no way. Shape or form defending cheating. I find cheating a horrible thing and the person who cheats deserves the consequences. The issue I take is with telling or rather yelling at this person that they never loved their significant other. How does them falling for another impact the love they have for the original. Of course there times love lessens or it wasn't true love to begin with. But people have always been able to love more than one person. So hating on someone who has fallen trap to this instinct is pathetic and pretty judgmental.

Have we not had crushes that come and go. Do we stop finding others attractive once we with the person we love. Of course not. Which is why I believe in society it's seen as acceptable to be monogamous. But polygamous... That's just horrible. When in matter of fact. Our brains are wired to be polygamous. To have different levels of love for different people or things. I say again. This doesn't make cheating or lying okay. But it makes it so that people should get off their high horse when insulting someone who may of fallen for another.

They have a big decision to make. But that doesn't mean they hate or disliked the original person they loved. Assuming that is extremely cruel and unfair. Cheating is cruel and unfair. But that's my point. We may accept monogamy but in our hearts I believe we all have a level of polygamy inside us.

[Kiwedin]

I think polyamory is the specific term you're looking for since the 'gamy' part of it refers to marriage and not simply relationships. I agree though, I think polyamory is what's most natural for human beings, but I do have to admit that most people don't have the emotional maturity to deal with emotions stemming from the ego, like jealousy and insecurity. People fall in love with more than one person all the time, we're just forced to choose and try to bury the feelings we have for the first. Monogamy is just a choice, it doesn't mean we're monogamous by nature. Otherwise cheating and divorce wouldn't happen at the rate it does now.

[mystintri]

You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals, now lets do it like they do on the discovery channel.

[Logorithim]

Good points.

It's obvious why humans have the urge to be polygamous (e. g., "Selfish Gene"), but it's incompatible where legal and social structures that have been set up, i. e., marriage, inheritance, parenting your child in a nuclear family. Neverthless, many people still cheat unless something holds them back.

[hellionthesagereborn]

No. First and foremost you have to consider whether or not it matters, which it doesn't. Monogamy does what polygamy can never do and that is create a stable environment that is stable for the man woman and child, that allows a man to over produce (that's why every single major and most minor, civilizations are monogamous, because a man who is providing for his family produces more then a man who only produces for himself resulting in surplus which allows for specialized labor as you no longer need to forage for food if a man is over producing on his farm allowing you to focus on other things) while still staying invested within the system (if one man gets multiple women that means their are going to be men without mates, they become restless and either leave the group to find a mate or they give up trying and produce nothing (this is also where the misconception of women not earning as much as men came from. What they have found is that single women actually out earn men but married men out earn both single and married women because they now have a reason to focus their attention on work because they have a family to provide for). If they do leave that means you now have men ready and willing to upset the balance of power meaning that every single man is ready to fight and destroy what another creates in order to get his chance to reproduce. So it doesn't work in that sense. Further more its not beneficial to any but a few as for the men it means less likely to reproduce, greater competition if you have one woman and multiple men (which is why the only case of polyandry that we have is in various groups near the Himalayas (like Naples) where the terrain is so harsh that it takes multiple men to produce what one man could produce on his own in other terrain. Even in this case however the woman marries the brothers to ensure that their is no infighting as if one does not get to reproduce his bloodline still lives on through his brothers offspring. Even then its not ideal for the men) as the woman must dedicate substantial time and energy towards raising of a single child and in that time that man is losing opportunities to reproduce. Its also not beneficial to women as once they get older they are more likely to be replaced with younger women who are more capable of giving the man a child. So its highly destructive for all parties.

[hellionthesagereborn]

As for multiple partners, this is also destructive for women as child birth is dangerous so their is greater risk in it and thus greater incentive to be choosy and dedicate to only one man who has the ability to protect and provide. This is shown in the substantial data we have showing that women are far more likely to suffer negative consequences when promiscuous while men are only mildly affected. As for love, yes you can only love one person romantically because love is not a feeling, its an act. Their is not enough time in a day to dedicate yourself solely to multiple people. You have two partners, both partners MUST be treated equally meaning you need to spend the same amount of time with each, have sex the same amount and same amount of time, you cannot pick sides in a fight as that will cause rifts and friction, and you must be dedicated entirely to them. That's difficult to do even with one person let alone with multiple people.

[hellionthesagereborn]

You can absolutely be attracted to multiple people, you can even be infatuated with multiple people but you cannot dedicate yourself to multiple people and maintain it for long durations, its simply a matter of logistics, you spread yourself to thin and you no longer have a reason to work things out with one partner if your on good terms with the other. Why make up with some one if you can just replace them with some one else? She stops having sex with you because your not giving her enough affection? Well you can just go and have sex with the other partner, problem solved. For you at least, but that breeds resentment. You spend a more time with the new partner because, well their new and we always gravitate towards new, now the original partner is upset because they feel left out and excluded, they feel like they are not as loved as the new person is. That's why polygamy is something that cannot work (obviously your going to have exceptions, but lets be honest its not going to be you)

[taleswapper]

Wow... Everything you said is wrong. Amazing. First, it assumes that women do not ALSO produce. And that, in a stable polygamous union, that those same women (or men) are not equally more prodctive than thier singel counterparts. Oh, you didn't know about poyandry? That one woman can also have more than one husband? What a shock! Yeah, it's a thing. So, allowing polygamy DOESN'T mean that anyone has to be alone. It means that women can be married if their potential mate is dead, too, which is the original reason for the practice. After all, the mortality rate of young males is stupid high... Oh, you forgot about that part too? What a shame... And you only have to "replace" a wife if there's monogamy; so polygamy prevents that, too.

[taleswapper]

So, all those polyamourous families, that are made up of more than two adults living together in the same household for decades, are doing it wrong? Is that your answer? It's not possible?

[hellionthesagereborn]

@taleswapper No, it really doesn't because statistical data, economic data shows conclusively that men produce substantially more then women and that's in a society where we have technology that offsets physical weakness. Our entire infrastructure is built and maintained by men, we are far more likely to take on hard jobs then women hence mining, oil rig work, construction, police, military etc. are all predominantly male. Also statistically men produce 200x more in taxes then women. Statistically single women earn more then single men but married men out earn single women, and substantially out earn married women who actually take pay cuts and reduce their hours worked to nurture their families (data also shows women feel guilt for not being their with their families thus pushing them towards this as well). So that's not an assumption, that's an absolute undeniable fact even today, before you factor in that historically women where not physically strong enough to do the jobs men did.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@taleswapper I also brought up polyandry in statement actually, so I can presume that you just ignored what I said the moment you saw that it didn't coincide with your personal beliefs (or is that preferences?). I pointed out that it exists, but its under extreme circumstances and its very specific i. e. the woman marries males who are related to each other to reduce competition which would otherwise cause the men to fight for the right to reproduce and it only occurs in one area of the world (culturally speaking) and that's a region that is so difficult to farm that it requires multiple men to produce what one man could produces elsewhere. So again, clearly didn't read a thing I said and are just looking for a justification to get your jollies without having to acknowledge the consequences for it. So to clarify all the things you said I "forgot" I mentioned, as for "replacing" a wife, so your saying that you should marry more then two women incase one breaks? How very noble of you.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@taleswapper That in fact proves my point. Also yes the rates of death for men is generally high, which is why multiple partners is only practices in specific hunter gather tribes who have a mortality rate that is so high that they cannot have monogamous relationships as the in some tribe the probability of being killed by another human are as high as 90%. However they don't even practice polyamoury or polygamy, they procreate with several men and then once they become pregnant they don't interact with those men again. So its nothing like what polygamous claim. Also we know that thus far the best environment for children is a traditional house hold as they get what they need, and their is not competing parenting that undermines any one else. So again, you are incorrect and you just want to be able to do what you want when you want and not be told that their will be consequences to such a life style because that would be a buzz kill.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@taleswapper So my answer isn't that its not possible to be in a polygamous relationship, its that its not efficient and it is not over all healthy. Just like promiscuity, sure you can do it, people do it all the time but data shows that its horribly detrimental to your health, physical and mental, and it causes long term problems with socialization, specifically when it comes to long term relationships. So no I'm not saying its not possible, people do it, I'm saying its not ideal and its really inefficient and destructive based upon known facts. If you want to do it fine, I don't think any one has the right to stop you, I just also don't think you have the right to claim its something that its not. If your going to do it, don't lie about the consequences of it, don't pretend like its perfect because its not and its going to hurt people in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Humans are never monogamous and monogamy is a societal system that forces people into an unnatural system of control and repression. I understand this personally. Love and attraction is boundless, as marriage should be, yet society wants us to be bound to "norms" that actually are restrictive. Hence why we see so much infidelity, lies, cheating and divorces. Attraction and chemistry exists regardless of one's marital status, people simply repress their feelings to maintain the status of marriage. Today polyamory and open marriages have grown dramatically in popularity as many are coming to understand that boundless, honest love makes for stronger relationships. As times change, so should marriage Polygamy as a marital system, is more of an appropriate incorporation of this reality into a natural cooperative commitment among multiple partners rather then a forced system of commitment out of obligation. Nothing like old world biblical polygamy of the past. Of course not everybody will choose this and have no desire to have additional partners

[HereIbe]

As has been said, infidelity is not polygamy. Infidelity is polyfuckery. Polygamy is having multiple SPOUSES, not multiple fuck partners. That people cheat does not prove that we are innately polygamous. Alcoholism and tobacco use do not prove we are all innately addicts, even though they are very common. Fickleness does not prove that fidelity is "unnatural". Anger does not prove we are all murderers.

I don't question your conclusions, I point out the very weak arguments you made for them.

You would make a much better case were you to look at anthropology and history. Polygyny is within the normal range of human behavior. Polygyny, of course, is the taking of multiple female spouses by a male. However, it is invariably restricted to cultures that have 1) ample resources and 2) great inequity of access to those resources. The majority of males in polygynous societies have only one wife. Polygyny is a sign of status and wealth. Polyandry is extremely rare among humans. I can only think of one or maybe two cultures that practice it.

Western polygamy is entirely its own creature, a novel construct.

[Anonymous]

Choosing to be monogamous vs. choosing to have multiple mates is exactly that. . . a choice. If we choose to spend our effort and energy growing multiple relationships then that will be our life, if we choose to spend our efforts and energy growing a monogamous relationship, then that relationship can be fulfilling and rewarding and our life. Either life you choose there will be challenges and imperfections but it does all come down to choice within a natural instinct towards connection. How many, whom, or how/in what form we choose to connect (emotionally, physically, sexually) is all choice. We are not animals lacking in self-control. We teach our young children to think first before they act. The same life lesson is true of adults, is it not? The moment we do not believe this philosophical belief system of choice and self-control and rather choose to compare ourselves to animals by suggesting we lack in impulse control and/or suggesting that we are built to be with many mates, (suggests a lack of control), we are just offering an excuse for disloyalty and offering an excuse for a lack of control. To suggest it is impulse and we cannot control our impulses is of a deep concern to me as the moment we offer the notion that humans are built lacking in controlling an impulse any impulse (e. g., multiple mates) then we offer permission for a wide range of other behaviors that will take us down.

[bang678]

All religious bull shit aside, monogamy has given the humam population an advantage. It lessens the chances and spreading of stds and stis and from an evolutionary perspective is just safer. I understand in modern day of course we have ways of avoiding stds/stis reguardless of number of sexual partners. But as far as what is instinctual, we protect ourselves and one of those ways is monogamy or rather exclusive polygamy (meaning its polygamous but in more of a "going in as a virgin and death do us part"kinda situation)

[DaniJ]

First of all, cheating and polygamy aren't the same thing. I don't personally like either one though, and polygamy or polyamory is often used as an excuse to cheat.

Personally, I have an extremely loyal heart. When I care about someone, I put my all into them. I place my trust in them, (which is difficult for me as an autistic person with limited self awareness and extreme social anxiety) and I invest a lot of time and energy into them, whether it's being an emotional support, or making time to get to know their interests, or their family... I think that should really be the foundation of a healthy relationship, and I don't know of anyone who has enough in them to give the right amount of support and love to more than one person at a time. If someone can be with more than one person, then it's not love, it's for sex. No ifs, ands or buts.

[Klara-Hitler]

Sexual monogamy =/= Social monogamy

Most humans aren't sexually monogamous. The need to be in such sexual relationship doesn't naturally appear in most people and it's okay if they are sexually attracted to other people while they are in a socially monogamous relationship.

At the same time, most people idealize social monogamy. There's both biological and cultural arguments why humans do that. Our civilization prioritized this need of ours to our sexual urges and temporary infatuations and at a point in history, made monogamy a requirement.

On the whole, the fact that we aren't all sexually monogamous shouldn't be used as a tool to fight marital monogamy.

We are humans. We have a thing called civilization that's an achievement of our rebellion against nature. Marital monogamy is just one of the many necessary unnatural things we have, because we concluded it improves our lives as a society.

[samhradh_leannan]

I believe that some people are naturally more monogamous and some people are naturally more polyamorous/polygamous. Personally, I'm monogamous through and through. I prefer having a unique bond with one partner- that is what I crave, what makes me happy, and what feels natural to me. I disagree that humans are "wired" to be polygamous- that is a vast oversimplification. Who forced us to be monogamous? Who created that notion on our behalf and shoved it down our throats? Nobody, that's who. It is as "natural" to us as anything else is. But that doesn't mean it's right for every person- I agree with you there. It is ultimately a matter of personal preference, in my opinion.

[clampfan101]

I’m going to have to respectfully disagree.

I have always done everything in my power,(and greatly wanted), to seek just one girl and to settle with her literally “til death do us part”.

I wanted just one girl without thinking of dating another from when we fell in love together in kindergarten to the day she died a while ago... I swore never to look for another girl until I saw her grave with my own eyes. (We had to go back and forth between short and long distance.)

I saw her grave a few years later bringing and spreading flowers. Only then was I willing to look for someone else as I kept her deep in my heart.

Not everyone is a player.

[lumos]

I can agree and acknowledge that this is the case for *some* people. But for me, it isn't. Sure, I love my parents and I love my friends, but that type of love doesn't even come close to the type of love I feel for a partner. I very rarely fall for people. I can count the people I've crushed on or loved romantically on one hand. Monogamy is wired into me, just like polygamy might be wired into someone else.
The reason why it would hurt if my partner fell for someone else is because I wouldn't feel good enough. Even if they're fully capable of both loving me and the other person, I simply wouldn't want to compete. I wouldn't want my partner to prioritize us both. I wouldn't want to share my partner with anyone else. This is why it's easy for many people to lash out on those who are polygamous, because there are literally some very intense hurt feelings there.

[miia389]

I agree. I should of made it more clear that Im only refering to in our minds and hearts. Im not refering to being polygamous in real life. Im refering to if someone in a relationship falls for someone else. It shouldn't suddenly diminish all love they had for the original person as if it didn't exist.

I believe it is a horrible situation. With the chance to hurt a lot of people. But the main point of the myTake is that we have the ability to love many different people. In different levels. Such as friends or family. We don't just love one family member. So if you share Hobbies with someone and have good chemistry and fall in love. Why would it be impossible to happen twice or again with another.

Like I said. I don't agree with cheating and find it horrible. But the idea that falling for another person means you hate or never loved the other isn't true to me.. Of course it can hurt them. But you dont WANT to hurt them. It's just a result of falling for someone else.

[haniee]

There is a difference between wanting to eat junk every day and being someone "really predisposed to eat junk food - on the inside". Humans need monogamous relationships in order to raise their children, create fulfilling emotional and as stable as possible bonds, and from a simple building block, build highly complex social structures.

We have other arrangements that are a reflection of times of crisis needed to maintain our numbers, not a reflection of the ideal and proper manifestation of our nature.

Polyamory, unless properly observed as a marginal fetish that it is and you have every right to enjoy... Is just immature hedonism, or hipster need to seem "more in touch with yourself than all the plebs" by spouting irrational nonsense.

[MacViking]

Monogamy is the biggest scam (aside from religion) ever perpetuated on the human race. It's the most unnatural thing, which is why they have to brainwash us from an early age with cartoons, movies, media, music (99% of songs on the radio are about romantic love), and religion (threatening us with hell-fire for wanting promiscuous sex). The divorce rates and infidelity rates are right there for everyone to see. Look at the ASHLEY MADISON hack a few years ago. MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of married people were busted on there. Monogamy was meant to fail. But people love their fairytale bullshit, so they'll keep being led into that slaughterhouse for as long as humanity exists.

[J4Zzi3]

... too all people who say they're monogamous on the inside this is sad fact:
1. imagining having sex with other than your SO even in your dream = Polygamous
2. getting a boner on others = Polygamous
3. become a fans of a movie star other than SO = Polygamous
4. have hobby that's as important as your SO = Polygamous

you can ask any good couple who have been married 50 years+ and monogamous on the outside. do they really monogamous on the inside that 3 question.
no one is perfect. they only appear perfect on the outside.
well i think tarzan and jane = Monogamous
if they live in the forest all their life.

[Shutupman]

Love and sex are different.
She wrote about loving multiple partners and having multiple spouses = polygamy.

Those things you mentioned have nothing to do with polygamy.

[CHARismatic110]

It's 2018 and people still don't understand that what works for some, may not work for others. You can be into polygamy all you want, but I don't feel like everyone is wired that way. And I do feel like if you're in "love" with someone yet find yourself falling for someone else, you didn't love the first person as much as you think. Because if so there wouldn't have been room to fall for anyone else.

[Goochbreaker]

Yes, we all have an animal side that would like to fuck anything and everything. I'd also like to rip people's throats out sometimes, well, often, but I control myself. We must rise above our animal self if we are to enjoy civilization and it's benefits

[taleswapper]

Care to make a wager?

[Goochbreaker]

@taleswapper that sounds sketchy as fuck man what are you talking about

[taleswapper]

Wow, someone has a potty mouth AND a suspicious nature. The simple fact is that "civilization" sprung from polygamous societies, NOT monogamous ones. And, there are civilizations today that are polygamous. So, demonstrably, monogamy isn't a requirement of civilization, as you suggest.

[Goochbreaker]

@taleswapper which civilizations today are polygamous? I'm curious how they are doing. Civilization didn't spring from polygamous societies, societies stopped being polygamous, then civilization began to form. If everyone had remained polygamous, we'd still be a bunch of hunter gatherers roaming around aimlessly, never setting up permanent structures. Potty mouth and suspicious nature eh? Someone sounds like a fucking tool lol, what makes my nature suspicious exactly? Suspicious how? It's a very interesting observation, what could it mean?

[taleswapper]

"Civilization didn't spring from polygamous societies, societies stopped being polygamous, then civilization began to form. " *snicker* I hope to all get out that you don't actually believe that. Because it show a truly appalling lack of knowledge of history.

[Goochbreaker]

@taleswapper why don't you enlighten me with your 'superior' knowledge of history. Polygamy was practiced in some great civilizations at large DURING THEIR FALL, tell me which great civilization was polygamous from it's inception and remained that way all the way to it's peak of prosperity?

[taleswapper]

Sure. Because your ignorance is somehow my fault. Let me point out a few...
Babylon. Damascus. Aleppo. Jerusalem.

[Goochbreaker]

@taleswapper polygamy has been practiced everywhere, I'm talking about a society where polygamy is the norm and monogamy is not. You are really going to tell me that jerusalem, the same jerusalem that followed the religion of judaism, was polygamous? If a man could afford more than one wife he may have them, sure, but the vast majority of people were monogamous and a women never had two husbands.

[taleswapper]

LOL! So to you, it doesn't count unless everyone is doing it? Thanks for the clarification. Yesm by your own unique definition of the word, it was not common. Luckily, the rest of us have a common, more rational definition. Cheers!

[Goochbreaker]

@taleswapper I didn't say everyone had to be doing it, I said that for you to call a society polygamous, polygamy must be more popular than monogamy. that is not unreasonable

[DocilexElle]

That's why I think friends with benefits is the way to go!! :) We are currently trying to find a girl to play with! He is very lax... but I know he cares about me. It's more than just sex!

Plus... being bisexual, two years ago I do feel like I loved my ex boyfriend and this female co-worker at the same time... but I had to let her go!

[miia389]

Im available :p... Im kidding XD i am bi though lol so the coincidence is funny lol

[DocilexElle]

Hehe!! :)

[cherryphi82]

When I was seven years into my marriage, I fell for another man. It was probably the most difficult thing I had ever went through. I wouldn't wish this kind of agony on anyone. I literally loved two guys at once and yes, it is very possible and much more prevalent than we want to think.

[grimtigress]

might not find them in your lifetime, but it's possible to have that monogamous, i guess true love. i have, and the idea of it being anyone else is disgusting and impossible for me, since it really can only be him. i trust him and know him enough to know the it's the same vice versa. so i mean it's to each their own, but i don't believe in that at all

[cavmanier]

No one really knows for sure how we'd be in nature without society. There is some current evidence that women with certain genes are likely to cheat. That isn't all women (you can google it if interested). You may be speaking from your urges and perspective and assume we are all like you.

[Shutupman]

You're conclusion is false. Paternal love cannot be seen as polygamy lol. And I certainly could not fall in love with another human unless my love for my partner faded. Like most people I know.

There is plenty of biological proof to believe humans evolved to favor monogamy.