Are human beings meant to be monogamous?

LM wrote:It's never once bothered me. I trust her. Sex for pleasure if like any other fun thing whether that's going out for a hike, skydiving, or whatever. There are only two real concerns:

1) One of us doesn't abide by FB only and develops an emotional connection to someone else. If that happens you love toward polygamy, which I think is almost impossible to make work. Simple to handle though: find a woman you trust. On your end...keep FB and FB and don't do what most guys do.

How would you know if your wife developed an emotional connection? If she was able to develop an emotional connection but stay with you, would you care?

Would be interested to hear an anthropologist's opinion on this question. From what I have read/gathered, humans are simply meant to be "flexible" and able to adapt. I'm not sure it matters whether we are monogamous or polygamous. Whether we are one or the other is irrelevant. Speaking strictly in terms of evolution and survival of species, humans are "winning." There are 7billion+ of us on the planet, and I highly doubt it has anything to do with any sort of 'genetic intention' to have one or many sexual partners, or whether early hominids were monogamous.

However, we can all agree that jealousy and ego are human traits, and in large part define who we are as a species, so I am sure that monogamy has been a 'thing' from the very beginning...

Wow LM.

I would consider you an outlier. I don't think your situation speaks much, if at all, on whether humans are 'meant' to be monogamous.

Kudos to you, though. I wish everyone were as logical and understanding as you and your partner (including myself). The world would be a much better place!

L Swann wrote:

LM wrote:It's never once bothered me. I trust her. Sex for pleasure if like any other fun thing whether that's going out for a hike, skydiving, or whatever. There are only two real concerns:

1) One of us doesn't abide by FB only and develops an emotional connection to someone else. If that happens you love toward polygamy, which I think is almost impossible to make work. Simple to handle though: find a woman you trust. On your end...keep FB and FB and don't do what most guys do.

How would you know if your wife developed an emotional connection? If she was able to develop an emotional connection but stay with you, would you care?

Most likely there would be signs: e.g.: wanting to spend more time with that person, increased communication, or really any communication beyond the couple times a month "wanna hang out" text, possibly would mention that person more, taking interest in unexpected new hobbies, etc.

Would I care? Difficult question, but if you pegged me I would say yes. Our relationship is quite good (at least in my mind, you'd have to ask her side to know for sure), and definitely enriches my life. She is very low drama (we might fight/argue 3x-5x a year max), warm/kind, has fitness and health as a priority in her life, takes a genuine interest in my hobbies and I in hers, and though a bit rigid in certain politcal/ethical stances is generally a pretty darn good person to bounce ideas of and think through in a good way. Sex life was initially very good to great, but over the past 2 years has definitely slipped more towards "OK", primarily because of the inevitable sexual boredom that happens to most women. Used to be 3x-4x a week, is now more like 1x every week or a little less, like 3x-4x a month. Fortunately, this is not an issue and I'm never needy or upset about it because 1) I knew it would happen, 2) I have other women I can see for that.

In any event, yes, it would be unpleasant to lose that...and no matter what relationship format it's always going to sting, HARD, to lose someone that you care deeply about. Moreover, she has some wonderful qualities and is someone I could see having kids with a few years down the road.

That said, I have a much more relaxed attitude about these things. It would hurt to lose her, definitely, but I already have other women I can seeing and of course, given the relationship type have every incentive to stay looking sharp and my dating game never gets forgotten so I could jump back in very quickly, and I'm a big believer that there is no "one" woman out there for you. There are thousands, maybe close to millions, of great women to date.

My philosophy is more or less "All else equal I would be happy to have a single pair bonded open relationship that lasts until I die"...however in 2019 the odds are certainly against that. I'm not a big believer in "making it work". Yes, in my mind I should make whatever efforts I can to be a good partner, but if I have done that and aren't consistently happy in that relationship with the other party not changing...my take is to leave. I don't want to put up with decades of stuff/traits that I find to be a PITA on a regular basis. Ditto if the personality changes. I see the most likely course is that I will have 2x-4x 5-25+ year open long term relationships, with likely the one I get into or am in as I enter my sixties to be for the rest of my life(relationships with 60+ are generally much more stable for obvious reasons).

If this one lasts my lifetime, as wonderful as it has been so far, I will consider myself very lucky to have found such a committed person that was well matched to me on my first try. And probably give myself a pat on the back for doing a good job not jumping into relationships are really looking hard and being patient and not being afraid to walk in the early or middle part of dating (first couple years or sooner) from relationships that I wasn't seeing the qualities I wanted.

Random Schmo wrote:

Wow LM.

I would consider you an outlier. I don't think your situation speaks much, if at all, on whether humans are 'meant' to be monogamous.

Kudos to you, though. I wish everyone were as logical and understanding as you and your partner (including myself). The world would be a much better place!

I'm not sure what humans are "meant" to be. I think, knowing what we know about evolutionary history it definitely isn't long term monogamy. Evolutionary, most humans were serial monogamists, having many monogamous relationships to bring kids to an age when they were more easily cared for by the group, perhaps age 5 or so.

Monogamy started with the rise of agriculture and society around 10k years ago, primarily because it established family units, and more importantly helped tie powerful political and social connections.

From what I know of the data, it's also the outcome that raises children the best. I could be wrong, but everything I have seen suggests that the family unit with a man and a wife who are pair bonded consistently has the best outcomes in kids, at least for western society.

I don't think this *HAS* to be monogamy, but it does have to be pair bonded family unit.

Which I guess brings me to the conclusion that there is no particularly great relationship option. In modern society, serial monogamy is not good for kids. That's likely to be 2-3 divorces in a kids lifetime, many of which involve animosity, anger, etc. Monogamy has it's own set of problems, namely that we are really, really, really bad at it; and generally speaking, very long term unhappy in it. Open relationships do alot right, but as you suggested, having the right temperament, outlook, and mental attitudes to make them work is hard. If you have jealousy mindsets, possessive mindsets, don't know how to have pure FBs without emotional attachment, etc. they can certainly open the can of worms to a different set of drama.

So yea, I guess in my opinion there is no "right" answer. Non monogamy is much better than most people give it credit for, but it's not superior to monogamy or any other system. That comes down to the person. If you have the temperment, I believe open relationship done right is massively better than any other option, but for many people going that route is either not a good choice, or one they can't do (e.g. get jealous)

LM wrote:

I'm not sure what humans are "meant" to be. I think, knowing what we know about evolutionary history it definitely isn't long term monogamy. Evolutionary, most humans were serial monogamists, having many monogamous relationships to bring kids to an age when they were more easily cared for by the group, perhaps age 5 or so.

. . .

This ^ is often stated as if it is fact. Is there anything beyond mere conjecture to back it up? Does anyone know how relationships worked 100,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? . . . ?

It's well accepted in anthropology and other scientific disciplines. Some links that ought to go in more detail:

A few things there. It's not established black and white, but that's the prevailing evidence at the moment. Historically, monogamy has been rare, with only 17% of cultures being strictly monogamous. Combine that with the general failure rate of monogamy in the modern world (monogamy worked 60 years ago in our heavily patriarchical society) and it's pretty hard to make the argument monogamy is intrinsic or natural. We shouldn't be failing at it 50-85% of the time, with 80% of people saying they would cheat on their partner if they knew they wouldn't be caught, if it was a natural, built in human pattern.

OK, so plenty of evidence that people were not primarily monogamous during the majority of human evolution. I think that is clear.

But zero evidence that: "Evolutionary, most humans were serial monogamists, having many monogamous relationships to bring kids to an age when they were more easily cared for by the group, perhaps age 5 or so. "

That's what I thought. There is nothing to support that statement. Just, other people have said the same statement, therefore it must be true. No scientific evidence whatsoever.

Obvi wrote:

It's well accepted in anthropology and other scientific disciplines. Some links that ought to go in more detail:

The modern monogamous culture has only been around for just 1,000 years," says Kit Opie, an evolutionary anthropologist from University College London.

you and your anthropologists are either confusing monogamy with monamory or never heard about the ancient greeks and romans.

Obvi wrote:

OK, so plenty of evidence that people were not primarily monogamous during the majority of human evolution. I think that is clear.

But zero evidence that: "Evolutionary, most humans were serial monogamists, having many monogamous relationships to bring kids to an age when they were more easily cared for by the group, perhaps age 5 or so. "

That's what I thought. There is nothing to support that statement. Just, other people have said the same statement, therefore it must be true. No scientific evidence whatsoever.

That is quite the stretch from that comment. If one person fails to, or perhaps misunderstands, what evidence you're looking for that doesn't mean said evidence does not exist.

Logically, I'm not sure what's left if you take away monogamy and serial monogamy. Either polygamy, which seems unlikely, or just sex with zero pair bonding leaving the females entirely to raise the kid. Also seems unlikely, and would suggest that monogamy is even MORE unatural for humans if our biological hard-wiring is for sex with no pair bonding at all.

Here is at least one suggesting that even very early humans were pair bonding:

Since we know they weren't likely monogamous, as has already been discussed, that really only leaves serial pair bonding as an alternative.

Another one here is a good treatment of the issue, main takeaway is it's not clear. Evidence points in a few different directions, most of which start with promiscuity and move towards pair-bonding. Exactly when, or how, is debated, but certainly long enough to be affected by evolution, since even 10k years is long enough, and we already know humans were pair-bonding by then. Lots of evidence from that era on.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Obvi wrote:

It's well accepted in anthropology and other scientific disciplines. Some links that ought to go in more detail:

you and your anthropologists are either confusing monogamy with monamory or never heard about the ancient greeks and romans.

That seems incorrect, monogamy or serial monogamy has certainly been around for more than 1,000 yrs. Maybe as long as 10,000 years. Not long enough to be deeply evolutionary hard wired, but it's been a cultural thing, in at least some cultures, for most of the development of civilization.

I don't really agree you with you LM. I think most people don't and could never have the mindset you have. I see one partner consistently thinking they got the raw end of the deal. And I think most people can't handle the jealously aspect.

That said, I have a ton of respect for you. You have to be the most civil, open minded person I've seen discussing things. Its a genuine pleasure, but almost bizarre seeing a poster like you on LRC.

Reasoner wrote:

I don't really agree you with you LM. I think most people don't and could never have the mindset you have. I see one partner consistently thinking they got the raw end of the deal. And I think most people can't handle the jealously aspect.

That said, I have a ton of respect for you. You have to be the most civil, open minded person I've seen discussing things. Its a genuine pleasure, but almost bizarre seeing a poster like you on LRC.

^This. Really sexy brain, LM !

Listen I get the whole 'open minded' shtick and what not but i feel these poly amorous types just need to accept they are freaks and do freaky things. Don't try and pawn it off as some post-modern enlightenment. Freaks gon' freak.

Random Schmo wrote:

Speaking strictly in terms of evolution and survival of species, humans are "winning." There are 7billion+ of us on the planet...

Humans are nothing more than sentient bacteria incubators. The bacteria are winning.

The existence of STDs is a perfect example of this. One of the activities that humans enjoy doing helps spread bacteria.

HOOWIE wrote:

Listen I get the whole 'open minded' shtick and what not but i feel these poly amorous types just need to accept they are freaks and do freaky things. Don't try and pawn it off as some post-modern enlightenment. Freaks gon' freak.

I think it is dirty. This is a running site. There are certain sites where you can go and discuss this crap. I can't stand post-modern new age made up spirituality crap. These people are just using fancy words to describe nasty behaviour to make it sound normal. I know God is meant to be forgiving and loving but I find it hard to agree with the post modern liberal millennials which have taken over society with their radical anarchist ideas.

That's what i'm talking about. Also; I spent a fair amount of my twenties meditating, attending yoga classes and taking tai chi lessons when I walked away from distance running. At the essence of all these enlightened schools of thought they teach things that parallel distance running. Accept the uncomfortable and give up desires. I don't understand why I need to accept that my local barista is schlonging 3 girls all at once. Good for that dude but don't try and make me feel inferior because I decided to marry my girlfriend of 7+ years.

+1. I hate the word parallel. I also hate the use of the words "vibrations" and "energy" by these people. They are just making up crap. Another thing I hate about these places where people go to practice the teachings is the crappy food they sell. If you go to the coffee shop of one of these yoga type places they sell crappy "paleo" slices of cake. They are so tiny and so overpriced and advertised as so good but you can go somewhere else and get a slice of cake much bigger for much less and it isn't going to be that bad quality. What idiot is going to spend $5 on a paleo brownie that you can finish in 3 bites?

The animal comparison is stupid. If we lived my animal rules most men would just kill the dude their woman cheated with.