RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

RRafe -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:12:25 AM)
Nodding... I'm not into being "owned" either. Especially by an incompetent. quote: ORIGINAL: Squeakers quote: ORIGINAL: RRafe The default for most women seems to be wanting love as security-and a steady male provider for the kids. I can see that as being genetic selection at work. Survivial traits. For me a survial trait has been getting rid of a male provider.

thetammyjo -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:16:06 AM)
I think in terms of survival of mother and offspring, it is more desirable to have a larger support system be that other women, a tribe or multiple husbands. A woman with multiple men to support her and her offspring will increase her and those offspring's chances of survival. Men "spreading their seed around" isn't about helping survival it's about playing odds. If he really wanted to be certain his genes survive wouldn't he put time and effort into making sure each offspring survives? Before that wouldn't he put time and effort into making sure the mother got enough food and protection during the periods when she may have lessened physical abilities and need more calories to produce then feed said offspring? Claims of "naturalness" or "nature" can easily but turned to make the opposite case. To make a silly one, why does the female require the male at then post conception if it's "natural" for him to "spread his seed around"? Why not kill him and eat him so that she can get some nutrition to help that offspring start growing right? He's just going to play a game of odds to spread his seed around wouldn't the greater society do better then to be founded on female and offspring groups with males just coming and out as they are needed and discarded when they no longer are? Note: I consider all discussion of "nature" and "naturalness" to have a high degree of BS in them especially when it comes to human beings. I'm just offering other "natural" examples and questions one could believe in.

TNstepsout -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:16:24 AM)
I believe that monogamy or non-monogamy is a natural tendency for both men AND women. I think some people have strong feelings of posessiveness with regard to their mate and simply can't "share" their significant other. Other people have a very different view. I think that our society for thousands of years has promoted the concept that monogamy is the right way and that it is so pervasive that people have a very hard time understanding anything different. I think there are many people who if relieved of this societal pressure, would feel much more comfortable in open/poly type relationships. Over the years men have been permitted more leeway in this regard. Since men were in a position of power they had the ability to require women to be monogamous while they did as they pleased. Now that men and women have begun to share power more equally many women are finding that monogamy doesn't suit them. In the long run, maybe it will shake out. Maybe the monogamous men and women can get together and the poly ones can find each other and everyone will be happier. In terms of raising children? Well again I think that's a societal ideal. There is a prevailing image of what a family should be and that includes a mother and a father who stay together and raise a family. Based purely on evolution I have no idea how prevalent this concept is. In our most primitive state was this how men and women lived? I don't think so. Many people still at tribal stages have much more open ideas of family. People lived together in large family units (tribes) and children belonged to the tribe and were raised by everyone. Children were the future existense of the tribe. A woman wanted strong healthy children so their tribe would survive and become stronger. It was active natural selection. So if a woman had a child by a strong member of the tribe but something happened and he lost his place would he still be seen as strong? What if he was replaced by a stronger younger male? It's instinct to choose the strongest so the children will be healthy and survive.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'm not going to resurrect an old thread just to add my opinion and see if anyone has any new perspectives so I guess if you don't care to discuss it feel free not to. I was reading the cuckolding thread in the poly forum and apparantly most people there believe monogamy isn't natural for women, but rather socially enforced. That really doesn't seem the case to me. First of all, thousands of years ago when people first started settling down, it was in the woman's advantage to be monogamous. A man could go spread his seed, procreate, then travel the world and die in battle without looking back. For a woman procreation was at least a 16 year commitment...for each child. Obviously men have an interest in women being faithful as well - they want to know they're the father of the child they're raising. But as a whole I can say that an argument can be made for men being naturally non-monogamous simply based on reproductive biology. I don't think that argument holds sway for women. I think if anything it's "societal conditioning" that is currently encouraging women to be non-monogamous. Now women are able to work and have a nanny raise kids - we're no longer influenced by our biology (which is where I think the "natural" desires stem from) to stay at home with our children. Rather we can have someone else do it, and now our focus is on reading Cosmo magazine and finding twenty three different ways to orgasm. STD's aside, there has never been a time where sexual promiscuity was so culturally supported (and in fact, expected) for women. Very few men will wait until marriage to have sex with a woman and most actually expect their partners to have had multiple partners before themselves. Anyway the question was if it was "natural" or "influenced by society" for women to be monogamous. For me the question of "natural" comes from the nature of the organism, it's biology and what would be beneficial for the species to survive. In that regard, I would say that it's far more likely for women to be naturally monogamous than polyamorous, given the nature of men. A woman naturally wants the father of her children to help her in raising them, both financially and providing a stable home. If (before DNA testing which is a technological development that frees us from the constraints of our biology and our 'nature') she was unable to convince him he even WAS the father, she might have a difficult time. Three things I should specify before this turns into a flame fest: 1. By 'natural' I mean what comes to a person's nature, and not influenced by society. 2. I think one's nature stems from biological and evolutionary tendencies and any technological advance that removes the limitations of biology (birth control, DNA testing) is not 'natural' but rather 'societal'. 3. I think men and women are biologically different. Equal, yes. Identical, fuck no. A man spends 20 minutes actively involved in the act of procreation. A woman spends 9 months. And then is the one who has the milk to feed the infant. If anyone is arguing from a stance that men and women are biologically identical they can save their breath. We aren't, and that is what influences our 'natures' rather than our learned behaviors. I think this is very cool. I think it is on the money. I think you make a lot of great points. Of course a lot of people will disagree cause they are of that fashionable mind set screw many and have ties to none concept. This only lands them alone in a nursing home somewhere in the end. I would rather have a constitent person who is faithful. Then a radical cause it just makes for drama which some people thrive on.. when we look at history there where tons of people that were monogamous. People always have to throw in the fashionable artsy fartsy crap which is not factual based concept.. But some cosmo or hollywood way of thinking If it was not true in what the op said why then are their marriages that last 50 years. There has to be something to it other wise we would have no marriages just swingers amuk yuck

thetammyjo -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:30:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 I think this is very cool. I think it is on the money. I think you make a lot of great points. Of course a lot of people will disagree cause they are of that fashionable mind set screw many. and have ties to none concept. which only lands them alone in a nursing home somewhere in the end. I would rather have a constituent then a radical cause it just makes for drama some people thrive on.. when we look at history there where tons of people that were monogamous. People always have to through the fashionable artsy fartsy crap and it is not factual based concept.. If it was not true in what the op said why then are their marriages that last 50 years. There has to be something to it other wise we would have no marriages just swingers amuk yuck Wow you make a lot of assumptions above about people who aren't monogamous. Why is that?

xoxi -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:31:29 AM)
For everyone who replied that monogomy can't be natural because you chose it, that's not really what I was getting at, I was trying to look at it apart from 'social conditioning' which is what people see it as a result of. I guess though there aren't many records of primitive man, so it would be impossible to study this without simply speculating. But in no way am I saying "unnatural" is bad. Pink is an unnatural hair color, it looks great on some people. I'm not even going to get into whether I think homosexuality is natural or not because if people took this thread personally I can't even imagine the reaction to that one...but suffice it to say it's a valid lifestyle choice. All of you seem to think I'm advocating being slaves to your biology. Nothing is farther from the truth. I'm saying that we've advanced technologically to a point where we no longer have to be. However that doesn't stop my intellectual curiosity from wondering at the true nature of things. I guess man's true nature is to advance, and to evolve technologically rather than biologically. We are some strange creatures...we're the only ones that I can think of who revolutionize our morals and social structure every five generations or so. Squeakers: Actually I don't think it has anything to do with sex=love. Marriage had nothing to do with love until the Victorians and even they were sketchy on the concept. I think it has to do with sex=pregnant=babies=the survival of species. Before any of this technology was invented, when people were foraging in the woods for berries, raising a child was literally a full time job. A woman with an infant at her breast was a lot less valuable to the tribe, at least for a few years. This next part is pure speculation - but I imagine she would be better off appealing to the father of her child for protection and food than expecting the entire tribe to give a shit. ThinkingKitten - You said "Thus I tend to think that monogamy vs. polygamy is more of a cultural/social behaviour, than an inherent one. Especially as man advances in his societal forms." I think that is probably the best answer we can come to from this...besides simple speculation. EarthyCouple - That's entirely your right. It's also your thoughts, and your beliefs. There's absolutely no way to prove whether or not you would have those if raised in a different society. My question wasn't "is monogamy beneficial" or "should everyone practice monogamy" - it was "is monogamy natural from a biological standpoint." For everyone else who isn't monogamous or interested in having kids - that's totally cool. My OP had nothing to do with criticizing that. For everyone who replied that monogamy is a product of the Christian church because they think sex is evil - Are you fucking kidding me. No seriously. Are you fucking kidding me? Do you honestly believe monogamy did not exist before the Christian Church? Considering this post is about WOMEN being monogamous, that would pretty much include all of the Roman Republic, the Greeks, and the Israelite Jews...so that's a good 2000 years before Christ was even born. Seriously now if you're going to rail and rant against churches for causing all of what you perceive as evil in the world, can you at least make it remotely credible? (edited to change 'roman empire' to 'republic' - it's early and I'm getting my eras confused :P)

domiguy -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:37:38 AM)
I rather regard it as a "nature" kind of a deal...It seems it is how those damn critters are wired. Just because it's possible that the majority of women might be more geared towards having a stable monogamous relationship does not mean that it reflects poorly on you whores who have not taken this path.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:50:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BDsbabygirl ShiftedJewel, if you're gonna throw Christianity in there - "...But society, or to be more blunt, the Christians, saw that as sinful and pushed monogamy, as well as heterosexual relations only, on many societies", at least get your facts straight. If one believes in the Holy Bible and Christianity and all that - as I do - one has to start at the beginning, i.e. Genesis. According to such, there was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Julie and Stacy and Karen, nor Adam and Eve and Roger and Mario and Andre, JUST Adam and Eve. They were exclusive. You can say they kind'a didn't have a choice as it was only them two but their offspring were also monogamous as were theirs and so on for several generations. I'm not making assumptions, I'm basing it on fact given in the Word; when man became polygamous, the Word says so, it tells of David and his many wives and other Kings and their many wives. With this in mind, one would have to deduce that monogamy was the natural state of affairs until man and/or society made it otherwise. This is the position I personally hold but I will now be quiet for this is not a thread on Christianity nor its effects on this lifestyle or vice-versa. Sorry for the hijacking, xoxi..."And now back to your regulary scheduled thread..." Ok, "facts".... it was JUST Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. And they had two sons, Cain and Abel... according to the Bible. Then skip ahead some and do some assuming since there are no real "facts" concerning the issue... Cain and Abel took wives. Either there were more people there then just the Adam and Eve family or in the beginning incest was the going trend? Considering that the length of time that humans have inhabited the world is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the age of the earth, it really wasn't all that long before men started taking more then one wife. The main reason women didn't take more then one husband is because CHRISTIAN SOCIETY said it was a no-no. Note the book of Leviticus. It states that if a married womans husband dies she is allowed only to marry again if her husbands brother will have her. This debate does not have a happy ending... In Romans times there was all sorts of debauchery, they were a pansexual society until the CHURCH took over and forced everyone to live by their standards. (That IS a historical fact) Remember hearing about the Crusades? Holy warriors traveling all over the land forcing their beliefs on the rest of the known world? Conform or die?(Another historical fact) There have been many historical facts pointing directly to the Christian belief as the reason society is the way it is today. Just because I don't spout off about what the Bible has to say doesn't mean I don't know it. I've studied it extensively and I have discovered that many, many people have been tortured and killed in it's namesake. quote: Of course, that presumes that there was someone writing down what happened waaaaaaaay back then...in fact, that presumes that there was a written language. I'm not about to knock anyone's belief in anything. Belief and faith is an individual matter; however, to say you are basing it on fact is a bit of a stretch. You can be basing it on the Bible, but not necessarily on facts. *Especially when you consider that it was written hundreds of years after the fact. It's hearsay at best.* *Jewel* edited to add... quote: Considering this post is about WOMEN being monogamous, that would pretty much include all of the Roman Republic, the Greeks, and the Israelite Jews...so that's a good 2000 years before Christ was even born. As I already stated, and I am including women, a lot of the ancient civilizations were pansexual. The ones that weren't were based on Religious beliefs. The Bible isn't based on just Christ, it's a lot older then that... a lot older. The Roman church took over and with the help and blessings of the Emperor (I'm thinking it may have been because he found out his wife wasn't as "monogamous" as he was trying to be) and made everyone conform to the Churches beliefs. Before that there were many couplings of the same sex and many poly-type homes. Hell, there was even an Island were the women were called Lebians, not because they were what we would define as lesbians today, but because they were well known for their ability to please men in any way imaginable. (Another one of the dreaded historical facts) *Jewel*

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:54:28 AM)
Well it's certainly natural to me. Why do you wonder about females and not males? It seems that given this data, it is as much a question for males as females. You'd have to point out a culture where there seriously was never any women who wanted more than one male to have sex with her at a time. I really doubt that existed- there have always been women who really wanted more than one sex partner at a time, no matter how much their society shunned it.

kiyari -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 7:55:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Women who do not have children are not evolutionarily fit. Women who do no not want kids weren't very likely to exist in the past. (Rape was likely to be very common. Who cared if she consents or not?) (There was no birth control via "safe sex" or pills. Abortions were even more dangerous. Having sex in life meant pregnancy under normal conditions (i.e., not all male partners nor female impotent).) Google "emmenagogues" Killing or maiming one's aggressor might also have been more... 'societally acceptable'. Albeit, may have been one's 'extended family' who facilitated this latter. ...but what do I know, wasn't there...

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:11:46 AM)
why just have a king and a queen what does this represent. one man one woman interesting that is all through out history.. again when does the minority thought take over the majority rule In the fact that this is your concept not the worlds. History teaches us what works and what does not so we do not have to go through stupidity again.. if you want facts in the bible read a lot of the new testiment about what being faithful to your wife or husband.

kiyari -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:13:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi <snippage> Thoughts, such as 'I don't want to have children' only come about when a person has been around society enough to learn the language, at bare minimum. OR to have figured out the Cause and Effect, maybe So thoughts can't be used to determine nature vs. societal conditioning - it's all speculation whether or not one would have those thoughts if raised in a different society. <more snippage> Throughout all that time, monogamy for [poor as vs Titled/royals and other such Ilk] women has been the norm, and I feel it comes from an inherent biological advantage in being able to settle down and raise a child in a safe area with protection from the father. single moms existed, only their spawn were 'legally' labelled "Bastard" Not because "men want to keep women down" or "women aren't supposed to enjoy sex" or other arguments I've heard, but simply because for thousands of years it has been the best way to provide a stable home. As if women had choice in this. If the sperm donor chose to support their brood female(s), his decision held little of the woman's preferences as consideration. <and etcetera> Our technological advances are freeing us from our nature. One might hope, but we do squander opportunity, methinks (and for NONE of the 'better' reasons) <et al> A woman who had no desire to have children is not biologically fit by definition. 'K. Whose definition? Those with a child-rearing talent and affinity ought be the child-bearers. There are other 'tasks' which those so lacking, might excel at. Without those 'others', those 'Biologically Unfit' others... the world might be EVEN DULLER than it presently appears to be. And it's only technology (birth control) that even allows her to make that decision without becoming completely celibate. Meh. Only because the hearth wisdoms regarding birth control have been intentionally 'lost' or outlawed.

chellekitty -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:17:25 AM)
umm i say that its both like anything else - social standards and desire to reproduce with the biggest/strongest and when you add /est to a word that means there is only one.. but personally, for me i consider monogamy unnatural

kiyari -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:22:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy I rather regard it as a "nature" kind of a deal...It seems it is how those damn critters are wired. Just because it's possible that the majority of women might be more geared towards having a stable monogamous relationship does not mean that it reflects poorly on you whores who have not taken this path. [sm=biggrin.gif] Damn Domi! This would be a poorer place Indeed, without you and ole' Ron [:D]

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:27:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty umm i say that its both like anything else - social standards and desire to reproduce with the biggest/strongest and when you add /est to a word that means there is only one.. but personally, for me i consider monogamy unnatural I think it is natural. I think as Human beings we can think or have a higher form of thinking to be what ever we want. saying this or that is unnatural is like saying we have no self control. it is natural to kill. It is Natural to eat sleep. It is natural to be aggressive even a cave man can do it. I am not ape I am human being with a higher thought process. If you want to be like and ape then go live in caves and eat berries and be like every other environmentalist wacko lol

Squeakers -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:31:28 AM)
quote: Ok, "facts".... it was JUST Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. And they had two sons, Cain and Abel... according to the Bible. Then skip ahead some and do some assuming since there are no real "facts" concerning the issue... Cain and Abel took wives. Either there were more people there then just the Adam and Eve family or in the beginning incest was the going trend? Not to get off topic but I always wondered that myself---I have asked where did these others come from and was told they were just there. Could they (the others) have been the first? Because it was explained to me that incest did not happen.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:34:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Squeakers quote: Ok, "facts".... it was JUST Adam and Eve, according to the Bible. And they had two sons, Cain and Abel... according to the Bible. Then skip ahead some and do some assuming since there are no real "facts" concerning the issue... Cain and Abel took wives. Either there were more people there then just the Adam and Eve family or in the beginning incest was the going trend? Not to get off topic but I always wondered that myself---I have asked where did these others come from and was told they were just there. Could they (the others) have been the first? Because it was explained to me that incest did not happen. My theory is that perhaps Adam and Eve were the only two in the garden of Eden? And when they were cast out they met the others that had not been so "blessed"? Or maybe people just don't like to think about the incest thing. *Jewel*

chellekitty -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:38:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64 I think it is natural. I think as Human beings we can think or have a higher form of thinking to be what ever we want. saying this or that is unnatural is like saying we have no self control. it is natural to kill. It is Natural to eat sleep. It is natural to be aggressive even a cave man can do it. I am not ape I am human being with a higher thought process. If you want to be like and ape then go live in caves and eat berries and be like every other environmentalist wacko lol i am a human being with a higher thought process...i am also bisexual...and i choose to have long term committed relationships with more than one person so that i may have a relationship with a male and a female, and possibly more if they want to have a relationship with more than one person and if they want to have a relationship with more than one person and we all get along, whether that relationship is sexual or not depends on each individual situation...i could certainly be monogamous...but in order to have my needs fufilled it would be a series of serial monogomous relationships and i don't see that as healthy for me...so why am i being ape like when i want to be poly? i am not saying i am gonna fuck everything that doesn't move fast enough - animal, vegtable or mineral....i am saying that i will have long term committed relationships with more than one person...perhaps you should read over the jumping to conclusions thread....

Perplex -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:49:14 AM)
it all has to do with babies and time. women are biologocially programmed to be in a monogmous relationship for four year increments, time for a child to be born and grow to where it can move with the clan on its own, during which time the woman needs a full time provider/hunter for herself and her child. Men have a similar four year cycle which grows longer as they age, and back when biology was a factor in welfare, as they went from young hunter on long hunts to eldership/teacher/craft maker our civilized selves has out paced our biological selves this four-year cycle got corrupted by all the factors you can name, and along the way women became property along with goats and horses. As women are regaining thier status by owning thier own damned goats & horses we'll see a return to the biological cycle, where relationships last 4 years and then it will be up to the invidiuals if they part or if they take ten more years to drag it all out For myself I'd rather follow Mamma Maureen and Lazurus into a place where we all do our bit for the next generation and are no longer constricted by our biology because we have demanded of our hearts and trained our souls loyalty and fideltity are not the same words in meaning to men and women.

LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? (9/8/2007 8:57:01 AM)
death to flower power as one who is hard core wired one on one thank you but no thank you for drama chaos in trenchment. those who choose to be swingers go for it I hope you find what you seek. I for one do not care for it will not support it or those that want it. in other words your on your own have a nice day ..

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125