RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 8:58:53 AM

Missokyst

Posts: 6041
Joined: 9/9/2006
Status: offline

I have always been monogamous. Even when my ex husband was playing around I didn't feel the need to stray. Sociologically, in history there were logical reasons for monogamy, most of which you mentioned already. Of course, those reasons don't mean squat to women in modern society. Women work, raise kids on their own, and do very well without a man to "protect them". I did. However, I am still a monogamous type. For me it is neither nature (I may find some men very desirable), nor nurture (no one will shun me for taking the opportunity). What it is for me is my moral ground. Promiscuity does not make me feel good inside. These days you have to follow what works for you.
Kyst

_____________________________

pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding ~Gibran, Kahlil

“The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for.”
― Bob Marley

(in reply to Squeakers)

Post #: 41

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 9:13:54 AM

Maya2001

Posts: 1656
Joined: 8/22/2007
From: Woodstock ONT,CANADA
Status: offline

I believe societally we have gotten to the point where it can be viewed acceptable for a woman to have multiple partners if she chooses to, heck I have been divorced for the past 27 years with the exception of a 6 year common law relationship, I have had non monogamous relatiohships over that time but the desire is still to have a solid managamous relationship and I see the same in other single women as well. Even in BDSM relationships the majority of woman are not seeking multiple partners when they have the choice, they are seeking the one and only. This is not to say that people or some animal species that are basically monogamous will not stray, wolves are mostly monogamous, with mating normally only occuring amongst the alpha pair but ocassionally the female with mate with a lower ranking male, only 10% of monogamous species are truly faithful to one partner . Genetic brain chemistry may be a huge factor making it nature over nuture especially a hormone called vasopressin, in people that is severely lacking causes autism, those that have higher amounts tend to be highly monogamous , testosterone has some affect on vasopressin which is likely the reason men are less likely to be truly monogamous or faithful. This genetic research has only been found in the last 3 years so alot should be learned yet from

(in reply to xoxi)

Post #: 42

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 9:23:13 AM

sweetNsmartBBW

Posts: 167
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

According to recent science, human beings have been, for the most part, monogamous for about 3.5 million years. Unlike pack animals with an Alpha male- we have generally had one mate at a time. Anthropologists and psychologists believe this is because of the way our species have to raise their young. When people started walking upright, and infants had to be carried throughout their nursing years, it became the best interest of everyone for mating pairs to remain monogamous until the child was weaned. Why?

We are 'programmed' for certain behaviors by our very nature- the old adage that "sex makes the world go 'round" is much truer than most enlightened people would like to believe.  Almost everything we do is done with one goal- whether we realize it or not...and even if we make a conscious decision not to persue that goal- our very beings are programmed to send our DNA into the future. Sex, mating, dating...how we groom ourselves, our jobs, the pursuit of money and power- it all basically comes down to this: the more successful we are in life, the better we look, the more resources we have- helps us attract a better mate. Those that are more successful in accumulating those things get the choicest mates. That means that they tend to have the best offspring, too. Which is ~really~ what it's all about on the simplest level.

The argument that I have heard for a male having lots of females then (poly) is this:  that a male- especially a Dominant one, wants lots of women because it's bred into Him the need to propogate His seed. More women equates to more children (in theory) so it's completely natural for a male to seek this- one might even say it's His birthright. Any other course would be untrue to His nature...

Except...that because pregnant women and young infants are vulnerable creatures - males that had additional mates and children could not properly protect and care for them all at the same time. If a male was off copulating with another of his mates- or was tending to their other needs- when a predator, or even a competitor, came by- it left his remaining mates and offspring vulnerable. So, nature made monogamy, not necessarily mating for life, but mating long enough to see a single child through to age 4 or so, the norm.  Mostly, at that time, the partners were free to go their seperate ways....so serial monogamy was more the norm than what we see today.

The exception to this has generally been when a male is very successful- and has the means not only to attract additional mates on a concurrent basis- but could successfully provide for them, and any offspring produced from the union. In most societies where multiple wives are allowed- it's a status symbol for a man to have as many wives as he possibly can. It shows him to be a man of wealth, power and means.

Whether a woman realizes it or not, and whether or not there are children involved, females have basically evolved, over time, into creatures that equate survival and prosperity with having the attention and resources of her mate focused on ~her~ and her hypothetical offspring. To share the male, her man, is not only undesirable- it's dangerous. Finding a guy that will put all his eggs in her basket, so to speak, is a much better indicator that she will be adequately cared for, that she will get the time, and attention she needs from Him...because He will have it available to her without it being being divided amongst additional mates.

Now, I'm not saying this is true of everyone. It's just what I have concluded about how things have evolved after a lot of reading and research on the subject. Just like everything else- there are lots of variations out there- and no one way is better than any other.

(in reply to LATEXBABY64)

Post #: 43

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 9:25:23 AM

xoxi

Posts: 1066
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

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.

I totally see your point. Actually now that I think about it, I think it would probably be more beneficial for a child to be raised in a stable poly family when its a question of survival alone. That sort of communal atmosphere would ensure that even if the child were orphaned, it would still be loved, cared for, and nurtured.

So that begs the question then...why is monogamy for women so prevalent? Obviously you can say "its societal conditioning" but that still doesn't answer why throughout the past thousands of years, society has maintained that norm. We've gone through revolutions, and religions, among other things. We went from polytheistic empires run by despots to Christian feudal monarchies to Enlightenment-era democracies and protestant Christianity to atheistic communism, and yet monogamy has maintained its place.

Why?

(in reply to thetammyjo)

Post #: 44

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 9:31:42 AM

xoxi

Posts: 1066
Status: offline

sweetNsmartBBW - yes exactly! That's pretty much what I was getting at in my original post.

Thank you for explaining it far more coherently than I could have :)

(in reply to xoxi)

Post #: 45

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 9:41:44 AM

sweetNsmartBBW

Posts: 167
Joined: 5/16/2007
Status: offline

"So that begs the question then...why is monogamy for women so prevalent? Obviously you can say "its societal conditioning" but that still doesn't answer why throughout the past thousands of years, society has maintained that norm. We've gone through revolutions, and religions, among other things. We went from polytheistic empires run by despots to Christian feudal monarchies to Enlightenment-era democracies and protestant Christianity to atheistic communism, and yet monogamy has maintained its place.

Why? "

My guess is it's a combination of factors. Most societies only allowed for multiple wives- not for a woman to have multiple spouses. Men are not generally known for proclivity toward sharing their mates- because, from a bilogical point of view, if he did- he'd have never known if the offspring he was providing for was really his or not (pre paternity testing, of course).

That said- most of the 'average joe's' over the eons have not had the means available to them to make having multiple spouses a successful endeavor- especially in societies where women were not able to work outside of the home and could not bring in the resources to help make that happen.

Of course, there HAVE been societies that make it work- not just in other countries but right here. Look at the Mormon sect that still practices polygamy. They are out there, and have created an environment in which such relationships not only exist, but are the norm among them- and work very successfully at that.

(in reply to xoxi)

Post #: 46

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 9:51:18 AM

straykitten

Posts: 13
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Detroit, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

So that begs the question then...why is monogamy for women so prevalent? Obviously you can say "its societal conditioning" but that still doesn't answer why throughout the past thousands of years, society has maintained that norm. We've gone through revolutions, and religions, among other things. We went from polytheistic empires run by despots to Christian feudal monarchies to Enlightenment-era democracies and protestant Christianity to atheistic communism, and yet monogamy has maintained its place.

Why?

Disclaimer: I don't have any sort of evidentiary basis for this claim aside from it being discussed in a class I took ages ago.

Because most civilizations and cultures were patrilineal, it was important to know who your father was. Family names carry weight even today, made inheritances easier to figure out, etc. If women were monagamous, paternity would have been much easier to determine. This is no longer as much of an issue now, obvi, but I think it helps to explain the double standard as well.

< Message edited by straykitten -- 9/8/2007 9:52:26 AM >

_____________________________

~Bonnie

"Wind me up and make me crawl to you
Tie me up and make me call to you" - Louis XIV

"The color is black, the material is leather, the seduction is beauty, the justification is honesty, the aim is ecstasy" ~ Susan Sontag

(in reply to xoxi)

Post #: 47

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 9:54:26 AM

iammachine

Posts: 1549
Joined: 1/25/2006
Status: offline

Ah, good ole nature vs nurture. Sure, there are biological reasons for why women are more commitment oriented. I won't say monogamous, because that isn't necessarily true. The imperative is that your offspring be provided and cared for well enough to reach adulthood. If a partner can provide for you and your offspring just as well, and also be able to provide for another woman and hers (and however many), then in terms of what our nature's tell us, that's A-OK. Historically, hell, in some cultures currently, poly marriages are far from abnormal. Nevermind the fact that nowadays in our culture, women (and their children) aren't even neccessarily dependant on partners at all. If monogamy was very biologically ingrained, I'd think it would be seen much more uniformly across the [human] population.

There's also a funny thing about evolution. It's just about whatever happens to give a reproductive edge. If having a mole on your cheek became a very sexy trait (and continued to be for generations) to a population, eventually, you would see an increase of people with moles on their cheeks in that region. In regards to how I feel about nature vs nurture and behaviour - people change, societies change, cultures change. Humans are adaptable creatures, and regardless of what biology says, we are not 100% ruled by our "nature"; nor do I feel that we are entirely the product of nurture, either. I think it's some curious cocktail of both. In any case, given what you have said in regards to societal conditioning, maybe it's just a little bit of social evolution? Maybe some relationship models are becoming outdated. Personally, I don't give a damn. Nature, nurture, socially mainstream or not - bullocks to it all as long as I'm doing what's right for me, and anyone else has the freedom to as well regardless of whether I may agree with it or not.

_____________________________

I still hear you scream... in every breath, every single motion

(in reply to xoxi)

Post #: 48

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 10:46:02 AM

Grlwithboy

Posts: 655
Joined: 2/8/2005
Status: offline

This begs the question of whether something has to be natural to be valid.

I have no desire to have alien in my belly and then rugrat in my house. Never have. Find it repulsive for me, great for everyone who wants it.

I am not happy without multiple lovers. Never saw myself without.

I discovered I, in fact, have a disease that's often genetically carried (1 in 9 est chance) so maybe there IS method to the madness. As long as I don't have to change toward something someone else considers natural, I'll do what's natural for me.

< Message edited by Grlwithboy -- 9/8/2007 10:54:22 AM >

(in reply to iammachine)

Post #: 49

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 12:12:25 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, this "nature vs. nurture" bullshit is another way for people to worry about what they're SUPPOSED to do instead of just doing what they WANT to do. Some people look for it in Church, some people look for it in pop psychology, some people look for it in sociobiology...but EVERYONE seems hell-bent on figuring out what God or nature intended for them, instead of just stopping and thinking about what makes them happy.

The "nature vs. nurture" distinction is utterly specious. We evolved in societies, and social structures had an effect on our evolution. Nurture has affected nature as much as nature has affected nurture.

(in reply to Grlwithboy)

Post #: 50

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 1:02:38 PM

thetammyjo

Posts: 6322
Joined: 9/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

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.

I totally see your point. Actually now that I think about it, I think it would probably be more beneficial for a child to be raised in a stable poly family when its a question of survival alone. That sort of communal atmosphere would ensure that even if the child were orphaned, it would still be loved, cared for, and nurtured.

So that begs the question then...why is monogamy for women so prevalent? Obviously you can say "its societal conditioning" but that still doesn't answer why throughout the past thousands of years, society has maintained that norm. We've gone through revolutions, and religions, among other things. We went from polytheistic empires run by despots to Christian feudal monarchies to Enlightenment-era democracies and protestant Christianity to atheistic communism, and yet monogamy has maintained its place.

Why?

I'm not going to discuss biology because as I said I think such arguments are BS.

History though I know. ;-)

Historically speaking theoretical monogamy seems to develop in cultures where resources are rare. Theoretical because from written records we know that people did not remain with only one sexual partner, men or women.

When resources become less rare the standard of monogamy changes. If the society becomes patriarchal or patrialineal it is more likely to to urge monogamy for women than for men because in order for males to maintain higher status they must be certain of whom they have control over and relationship to.

Again this monogamy is only the theory not the fact. Written records again demonstrate that both men and women had multiple sexual partners. It tended to be more acceptable for men but even they had social rules they needed to follow or they would discover themselves on the bad side of their culture and losing financial or other ties.

I remember a science show last year I think where the scientists had discovered that sperm has a special chemical it releases to help destroy later sperm that is not from the same man. The speculation was that this evidenced that women are not by nature monogamous because why would this chemical be around if it were not needed to keep out other sperm that might prevent it from fertilizing an egg.

The period between when one can ejaculate/orgasm and have sex again is much longer for men that is the time between sexual encounters women can have. Therefore it is more biologically possible for a woman to have multiple sexual encounters in the same period of time as a man can have. Theoretically again there is no biological reason a woman couldn't have many more partners in a day than a man of equal health and sexual interest.

Doesn't mean that most people want to play this difference out but apparently the human body knows it is possible and thus sperm have developed a way to try and protect themselves if they are the first in a womb.

_____________________________

Love, Peace, Hugs, Kisses, Whips & Chains,

TammyJo

Check out my website at http://www.thetammyjo.com Or www.tammyjoeckhart.com

And my LJ where I post fiction in progress if you "friend" me at http://thetammyjo.livejournal.com/

(in reply to xoxi)

Post #: 51

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 1:26:43 PM

adaddysgirl

Posts: 1093
Joined: 3/2/2004
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline

Since these discussions began, i found myself just using the term "wired for monogamy" in regards to myself. i have never had a desire for multiple partners....one at a time has always been sufficient (and fulfilling) for me. So if being "wired for" is considered being "natural" then yes, i guess i am naturally monogamous. And that is what i look for in a partner as well.

Daddysgirl

(in reply to xoxi)

Post #: 52

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 2:27:58 PM

kiyari

Posts: 631
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy

This begs the question of whether something has to be natural to be valid.

I have no desire to have alien in my belly and then rugrat in my house.
Never have. Find it repulsive for me, great for everyone who wants it.

<snippage>

Yeppers.

What is the difference between a foetus and a parasite?

[honest question, here]

_____________________________

Black Water Dragon

(in reply to Grlwithboy)

Post #: 53

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 2:29:39 PM

kiyari

Posts: 631
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adaddysgirl

Since these discussions began,
i found myself just using the term "wired for monogamy" in regards to myself.
i have never had a desire for multiple partners....
one at a time has always been sufficient (and fulfilling) for me.

So if being "wired for" is considered being "natural" then yes,
i guess i am naturally monogamous.

And that is what i look for in a partner as well.

Daddysgirl

Serially monogamous.

_____________________________

Black Water Dragon

(in reply to adaddysgirl)

Post #: 54

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 2:42:34 PM

kiyari

Posts: 631
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missokyst

I have always been monogamous.

Even when my ex husband was playing around I didn't feel the need to stray.

Sociologically, in history there were logical reasons for monogamy,
most of which you mentioned already.

Of course, those reasons don't mean squat to women in modern society.

Women work, raise kids on their own, and do very well
without a man to "protect them". I did.

However, I am still a monogamous type.

For me it is neither nature (I may find some men very desirable),
nor nurture (no one will shun me for taking the opportunity).

What it is for me is my moral ground.

Promiscuity does not make me feel good inside.

These days you have to follow what works for you.
Kyst

Greetings Lady

I would (humbly, and from genuine respect) suggest...

That the disjoint between thy better reason and thy morals
might well be from 'societal conditioning'.

(think upon.. redeeming aspects of current society....)
~~~

As well and in general,
a 'loser' is unlikely to be redeemed by a faithful 'follower/supplicant' aka 'enabler'.

Merely food for thought... no offense intended.

...just saying

_____________________________

Black Water Dragon

(in reply to Missokyst)

Post #: 55

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 2:52:55 PM

Missokyst

Posts: 6041
Joined: 9/9/2006
Status: offline

That is doubtful in my case. I never really cared what anyone thought of me. My own mother suggested that I should live with my ex, rather than marry him. I have always been mindful of what made me feel likeable to ME. The one thing I remember about the disco days of partying and bar hopping was that people seemed like sheep to me. Easy sex was not hard to find and everyone was doing it. I never aspired to sheepdom. So if anything it was ANTI conditioning that keeps me monogamous.
Kyst

_____________________________

pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding ~Gibran, Kahlil

“The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for.”
― Bob Marley

(in reply to kiyari)

Post #: 56

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 3:17:46 PM

DarkDaddyZ

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

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?

I was going to post the same thing, thank you for posting this TammyJo.

_____________________________

"Flirting is part of the job description." DJ Jesus (Lucy Daughter Of The Devil)

Vanilla Official Music Page http://www.myspace.com/djzulu

(in reply to thetammyjo)

Post #: 57

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 3:21:52 PM

DarkDaddyZ

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy

This begs the question of whether something has to be natural to be valid.

I have no desire to have alien in my belly and then rugrat in my house. Never have. Find it repulsive for me, great for everyone who wants it.

I am not happy without multiple lovers. Never saw myself without.

I discovered I, in fact, have a disease that's often genetically carried (1 in 9 est chance) so maybe there IS method to the madness. As long as I don't have to change toward something someone else considers natural, I'll do what's natural for me.

I'm not sure if this thread belongs here or in poly lifestyles but here's my stab:
Perhaps religions have told us to be monogamous, I'd argue that but perhaps.
natural to me are multiple lovers and relationships now I prefer to combine that in family as well with structure and making sure everyone is comfortable.

In my experience with several Het Dom males I've encountered, many "poly' (Dominant) men believe it's their right to have other partners but that the submissive female shouldn't. I disagree and think it's horsecrap, when I met potential partners my preference is that they are poly.

I still believe natural is a individual trait not all agree but hey that's what makes this fun and great!

Z-

_____________________________

"Flirting is part of the job description." DJ Jesus (Lucy Daughter Of The Devil)

Vanilla Official Music Page http://www.myspace.com/djzulu

(in reply to Grlwithboy)

Post #: 58

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 4:59:49 PM

Grlwithboy

Posts: 655
Joined: 2/8/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

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.

Bible = Fact.

How's that 780 year lifespan thing coming everyone?

(in reply to LATEXBABY64)

Post #: 59

RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture? - 9/8/2007 5:08:00 PM

LATEXBABY64

Posts: 2107
Joined: 4/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grlwithboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LATEXBABY64

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.

Bible = Fact.

How's that 780 year lifespan thing coming everyone?

History = fact

(in reply to Grlwithboy)

Post #: 60

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Women + Monogamy = nature or nurture?

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094