View Poll Results: Are humans monogamous by nature?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    10 45.45%
  • No

    7 31.82%
  • I am unsure, or we can't say for sure

    5 22.73%
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Are Humans Monogamous by Nature?

  1. #1

  2. #2
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    I would say that it's not possible to give a simple yes/no answer to that question. You often hear the argument that men are "natural" polygamists, but this argument overlooks the fact that men are actually capable of higher thinking that does not involve sex.

    I consider a long term, heterosexual, exclusive committment (marriage, if you will) the key to building a succesful society. And I believe that the historical records supports that; we in the Nordish areas favour such arrangements, and we haven't been doing too shabbily so far.

    On the hand, it is useless to pretend (or hope, or demand, or insist) that a married man's sex drive has disappeared -- this will only create problems in the long run. How to solve this dilemma is for each couple to arrange on their own.

  3. #3
    Senior Administrator
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Aeternitas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,562
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    68
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    571
    Thanked in
    183 Posts
    Both monogamy and polygamy can be observed in nature amongst other animals. Some mate for life while others have multiple partners. That said, sexual monogamy, i.e. being limited to a single mating partner for life/at a time, and what is mostly understood by monogamy in our society, is actually very rare in the animal kingdom. As far as I read, only between 3-9% of mammals form lifelong pair bonds; monogamy is also quite rare among fish and amphibians. Birds, on the other hand, generally practice social, though not necessarily genetic monogamy; they form pairs to mate and raise their offspring in, cohabit and cooperate in search of resources but sexual fidelity is not always present. As a matter of fact, cuckoldry, i.e. extra-pair paternity is found in the majority of known bird species.

    Another thing we could look at is biology. Polygamous species are usually dimorphic, the male being typically larger than the female. Men are taller, stronger, have more muscle mass and socially mature later, traits which are characteristic of an animal species in which one male competes with others to mate with multiple females. That said, the differences between human males and females of today are much less pronounced than they used to be millions of years ago. Body size differences are believed to have continuously shrunk beginning about 1.9 million years ago. So there might be something to that.

    Of course this is not to say that monogamy is not achievable, desirable or even necessary. In reality, there is no infallible connection between natural and good or beneficial. There are concepts that are natural which may not serve our best interests or viceversa, concepts that are considered cultural, artificial or social constructs which may nonetheless prove advantageous in the long run. While human is an animal in terms of taxonomy, one thing that differentiates him from other animals is abstract thinking, humans are said to be the “rational animals”. While they may still have biological urges, they also have the ability and choice to control them. Not to mention ethics and morals.

    Monogamy has gradually become a cultural ideal and particularly one amongst European and Germanic civilizations. Some theories say that it has become the norm due to the fact that human babies are more fragile than animal babies, cannot immediately walk or run and need to be reared and nurtured for a longer period of time. This requires not only the mother’s care, but also the father’s protection, so at the very least some form of social monogamy, ideally also genetic as it is biological fathers that are mostly inclined to develop this protective instinct towards their babies. Social norms, ethics, sexual morality and religion did the rest. A monogamous marriage ensures that husband and wife will together provide, care for, nurture, and educate their children until they fully mature.

    So to conclude and put it in short, what I think is that humans are possibly mostly polygamous by nature, while monogamy is rather related to culture and conscience. Contemporary human sexual behavior is shaped mostly by cultural evolution rather than darwinian, biological selection. Some people may still have such dormant behaviors ingrained deep within themselves but culture and ethics are the forces that count the most in human societies.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Member
    Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 01:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,406
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aeternitas
    So to conclude and put it in short, what I think is that humans are possibly mostly polygamous by nature, while monogamy is rather related to culture and conscience.
    Rather:

    http://www.theconversation.org/bigbrains.html
    "slavic" languages are absolutely arteficial (Read "slawenlegende"). The "glagolica", invented by a bunch of monks, is nothing but an ancient esperanto, creating new words, definitions and alphabet out of regional slangs.

    The craddle of European Civilization comes from the North. All blond people originate from the north. So if you see a blond-blue eyed Slovene, Russian, Czech, Polak ect., you can be 100% sure that his ancient ancestors originated from "Germanics" (Germanic = Nordic).
    "slovenja" was the settelment of the Langobards = Germanics/Teutons. "Poland" of the Goths and East-Vandals ect. ect. What do "slavs" tell us about their origin?
    Some silly story that they originate from some swamps in the east and popped out of no where into history.

    So you see my dear "Gorostan" [=Triglav], you are in reality a "Germanic" indoctrinated with panslav propaganda and historic fantasy stories. ~Dr. Brandt, former TNP and Skadi member

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Arcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Tuesday, February 20th, 2007 @ 09:27 PM
    Country
    Finland Finland
    Gender
    Family
    Having a longtime companion
    Occupation
    X-Rays & Uranium
    Religion
    I Exist.
    Posts
    1,458
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Are humans monogamous by nature?

    Hard to say until you isolate a group of humans to form some sort of primitive society, without knowledge of or tools from the outside world, and see what they do.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Erzherzog_Bernd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 14th, 2007 @ 11:07 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    80
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Ugh, disregard that vote on "Yes" I thought I selected No. :redface:

    I actually think that monogamous behavior came with the Christian religion, of course I have no proof for this, it's just a personal opinion. In that regard I agree with Aeternitas, that we're monogamous because of our Culture.

    I think it is or was at least natural for a man to want to promote his genes as much as he can. In most cases that'll be with more women. Speaking of today...Is monogamous behavior really that well suited? Taking into consideration that the females outnumber the males by at least 4 - 1(Rounded number). So for every White Man that has one White Woman there is 3 White woman lost, and they go with...? Just a thought, though I don't agree necessarily agree with such things.

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins
    Short-term genetic benefit is all that matters in a Darwinian world. Superficially, the values that will have been built into us will have been short-term values, not long-term ones.
    This is a completely absurd statement. Humans never would have evolved in the first place if this were true.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, October 6th, 2016, 12:32 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, 06:40 PM
  3. Humans Losing Touch with Nature
    By Verðandi in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, April 2nd, 2009, 04:54 PM
  4. Animals/Nature vs. Humans
    By Mistress Klaus in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 13th, 2005, 06:19 PM
  5. What of the polyphyletic nature of humans?
    By SouthernBoy in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 30th, 2005, 08:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •