Monogamy, Is it Unnatural ?

[JungleBoy]

Is monogamy unnatural and inherently monotonous that sexual boredom is inevitable in a long term relationship?
I have often wondered if this is not a plausible explanation for the reason why most married couples or long term partners are often “too tired” to have sex with each other, but not with anyone else.

A friend of mine once said he was at a stage whereby he was having sex with his long term girlfriend as a form of maintenance to the relationship. The excitement, the longing, the rush that one gets with a new partner was long gone. Have our morals got ahead of our natural evolutionary instincts? I would suppose for a strong and resilient genetic make-up, we have to cast the net as far and wide as it's humanly possible. Do you agree/disagree?

Incidentally, this phenomenon has been observed in most mammalian species and has been termed the Coolidge Effect. However, I could not find any scientific study done on humans.

[TheHiveMind]

Yes. Mongamy is unnatural. So is a scenario where almost all men get laid though. Those at the top get everything, those at the bottom get nothing. It's hierarchical. Females would submit themselves to that heirarchy, because it is competitive by nature, and it is a means of ensuring stronger traits in a mate, and also results in social capital for themselves and their offspring.

[Mike Hoxbig]

Depends which gender you ask. The average man will say yes, and the average woman will say no.

[ShaunSA]

Not sure about anyone else but for me it is

[STS]

Depends, you can still have the same partner and try different things, some people want to try new things, some partners want to try new partners, people differ

[astro250]

Yes

[Unhappy438]

Yes. Mongamy is unnatural. So is a scenario where almost all men get laid though. Those at the top get everything, those at the bottom get nothing. It's hierarchical. Females would submit themselves to that heirarchy, because it is competitive by nature, and it is a means of ensuring stronger traits in a mate, and also results in social capital.

Survival of the fittest

[ghoti]

Yup, its unnatural. AFAIK only two animals are truly monogamous. Vultures and tapeworms. A lot of animals might pair for life, but DNA tests of the offspring show multiple partners.

[Nerfherder]

Nothing is Natural.

There is no natural order of things. Both monogamy and polygamy are conducive to life and reproduction, so both work.

[JungleBoy]

Depends, you can still have the same partner and try different things, some people want to try new things, some partners want to try new partners, people differ

Isn't that like delaying the inevitable? You can keep eating at the same restaurant but you will soon run out of items in the menu.

[JungleBoy]

Nothing is Natural.

There is no natural order of things. Both monogamy and polygamy are conducive to life and reproduction, so both work.

But it is safe to assume that men with multiple sexual partners will have may more offspring than men with only one partner. Therefore, men who had sex with many women left the most descendants. Unfortunately most of us carry our polygamous ancestors genes with us.

[Mike Hoxbig]

But it is safe to assume that men with multiple sexual partners will have may more offspring than men with only one partner. Therefore, men who had sex with many women left the most descendants. Unfortunately most of us carry our polygamous ancestors genes with us.

Unfortunately women would want one man to look after her and her offspring, especially when she is vulnerable during pregnancy. Hence why they have the power of selecting the mate. And therefore the question is largely dependent on which gender you ask

[JungleBoy]

Unfortunately women would want one man to look after her and her offspring, especially when she is vulnerable during pregnancy. Hence why they have the power of selecting the mate. And therefore the question is largely dependent on which gender you ask

It's also true that women will compete for the strongest/richest/most powerful mate to look after them and their offspring. In that case then the alpha males would naturally end up with more females giving the alpha male more chances of spreading his polygamous genes.

[Nick333]

Unfortunately women would want one man to look after her and her offspring, especially when she is vulnerable during pregnancy. Hence why they have the power of selecting the mate. And therefore the question is largely dependent on which gender you ask

Which is why women do their fcking around once the kids have flown the coop.

[murraybiscuit]

imo there are two important factors which have changed sexual dynamics over the last 50 years:

1. female equality: suffrage, rights, financial emancipation and resultant gender roles;
2. overall longevity across the board.

the results:
1. female selection criteria for males is changing in heterosexual relationships
2. marriage is happening later (if at all) and children are being born later in life (approaching a decade after reproductive peak).

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1586/cha...erican-mothers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ily-later.html

what does this have to do with monogamy?
1. if you're horniest in your twenties, and aren't forced to marry at minimum age, and only want to settle down in your thirties, monogamy isn't necessary in the interim.
2. if you've learned to be self-sufficient in your twenties, is a lifelong partner really necessary for raising a child?

sure, it's reductionist. but i'm not really trying to make any value judgements here. i'm just trying to highlight nerfherder's earlier comment: what's "natural" / historical / normative isn't necessarily the best course forward. it seems to me that humans adapt to environmental pressure and then try to normalise the response. the problem is that external factors [population explosion / global competition / contraception / post-war depression / wealth / health / future scarcity etc] have changed so fast in the past 50 years, that norms are battling to catch up.