What do you think is our "natural" relationship st - Love and Dating

cakey Deinonychus Joined: Nov 30, 2012 Age: 21 Posts: 369	Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:46 pm?? ?Post subject: What do you think is our "natural" relationship st As humans. I watched a documentary about the fact that a traditional family style(mother, father, children) was "man-made" and has only recently existed. I personally prefer this type of relationship monogamous and such. But yet, I do know in nature a lot of animals are polygamous, but I think back in time, human relationships have mostly been when a dominant man has many or more than 1 woman. I know chimps dominate the women and only want the women to have their babies and they even go as far as to kill baby chimps that are from another male gorilla. Despite the polygamous past and inclinaions, people can't deny that some feel "jealousy" for their partner or even feel more special knowing they are the only one as the partner. For example, why do the males always want to have the women and don't want other males to interfere? Yet, bonobos are not jealous animals at all and share women and men alike. Therefore, nature kind of has this mix of relationships between man and women. I think I heard a certain type of monkey is the only monogamous type. Yes, they are called Owl Monkeys. I wonder if humans are just a mix of all the different preferences or if we were "made" to be a certain type. What do you guys think? I honestly think we humans are a mix of all these preferences while some might think that we are "meant" to be polygamous. _________________ Neurotypical. I'm very friendly; feel free to message me. Last edited by cakey on Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
meems Overlord of Entropy Joined: Dec 02, 2010 Posts: 1788
Back to top
aspiemike Phoenix Joined: Jul 09, 2012 Posts: 920 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Back to top
Troy_Guther Snowy Owl Joined: Mar 21, 2011 Age: 21 Posts: 148 Location: Deep in the Desert
Back to top
AardvarkGoodSwimmer Phoenix Joined: Apr 27, 2009 Age: 50 Posts: 4983 Location: Houston, Texas
Back to top
cakey Deinonychus Joined: Nov 30, 2012 Age: 21 Posts: 369
Back to top
AardvarkGoodSwimmer Phoenix Joined: Apr 27, 2009 Age: 50 Posts: 4983 Location: Houston, Texas
Back to top
auntblabby Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Joined: Feb 13, 2010 Posts: 18716 Location: the island of loveable toy humans	Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:28 am?? ?Post subject: Re: What do you think is our "natural" relationshi cakey wrote: As humans. I watched a documentary about the fact that a traditional family style(mother, father, children) was "man-made" and has only recently existed. I personally prefer this type of relationship monogamous and such. But yet, I do know in nature a lot of animals are polygamous, but I think back in time, human relationships have mostly been when a dominant man has many or more than 1 woman. I know chimps dominate the women and only want the women to have their babies and they even go as far as to kill baby chimps that are from another male gorilla. Despite the polygamous past and inclinaions, people can't deny that some feel "jealousy" for their partner or even feel more special knowing they are the only one as the partner. For example, why do the males always want to have the women and don't want other males to interfere? Yet, bonobos are not jealous animals at all and share women and men alike. Therefore, nature kind of has this mix of relationships between man and women. I think I heard a certain type of monkey is the only monogamous type. Yes, they are called Owl Monkeys. I wonder if humans are just a mix of all the different preferences or if we were "made" to be a certain type. What do you guys think? I honestly think we humans are a mix of all these preferences while some might think that we are "meant" to be polygamous. it is an age-old winner-take-all competition of the genes, to be passed down in posterity.
Back to top
Stalk vegetating Joined: Jul 20, 2012 Age: 34 Posts: 1495 Location: Cape Town, South Africa	Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:55 am?? ?Post subject: I think animals are social creatures too, and in their social structure they tend to adhere what the majority allows/tolerates. So if you are going to mention certain type of monogamous animal, I will bring up a reference to the Gentoo penguin. They are monogamous by the majority. But they aren't closed off to being monogamous, like built-in. I think it is learned either through social ways or trial and error. Here is a link to the Gentoo penguin http://www.grida.no/photolib/detail/gentoo-penguin-pygoscelis-papua-antarctic-peninsula_bf00 There is a story in Cape Town, about a Gentoo ship that stranded with women that provided services that society in general frowns upon. So when people talk about Gentoo it doesn't have the same meaning as monogamous here, quite the opposite. Now mentioning these "services", they have always been there, it never goes away. I'm not going to talk about the background on how they got themselves there but, it is there. Part of a monogamous life. Uhm, I'm just going to make a generalised statement here. But my thinking is, and that I have heard from woman too, is that men tend to be with a partner, the one that feeds him, takes care of him. So if a woman allows a domestic to prepare food for her husband, one might find he is having an affair with the domestic in some way. How the original partner deals with this, is not my point of discussion, because it will just open up a can of worms.
Back to top
WildTaltos Deinonychus Joined: Apr 18, 2013 Posts: 349 Location: ?ire	Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:29 pm?? ?Post subject: Humans aer extremly impresionable to culture - so at this phase of evolutionn, I dont thnk they are really "meant" to behaev any particulur way in terms of mating, it depnds on the culture one is rearedd in. I was raisd in a cultuer where monogamy is advocatd for the rearin of children, but tahts about all its for - it is seen as normmal for the man and woman of th relationship to haev sex with othres outside of the child-rearing unit, but its meannt to be recreationall and not for reproductin; basicaly the monogamous mariage is only for the cuople to maek a contract insuring taht they will both reproduce togethre and pool their resuorces to raise said children, while sexual pleasuer of one anothre and love is secondary to the caer of children (thuogh it is extremely helpful to be on at least good terms wth the partner and even moer ideally love them). The parents aernt the only ones responsibl for raising children - we have a system of "fostering" wher othre adults in the comunity invest soem time by permision of the parents in raising the children as well, soemtimes investing as much time as th actual parents, so that a child can haev multple "fathers" or multuple "mothers" within the community. None of this creates much problms because it is part of a cultuer that has been ingraind as normal in individual members, and it is pretty diferent from the notions of th larger christian culture wher families aer only seen as stable or proper if it is just oen man and one woman who haev to be compltely sexually loyal to each othre, so thats just part of the reason and a personal anecdote besids of why I advocate cultuer being a large part of determining human mating behaviour. _________________ ...con curfe far tiug?ra
Back to top
Khoma Butterfly Joined: Jun 08, 2013 Posts: 13 Location: Netherlands
Back to top
WildTaltos Deinonychus Joined: Apr 18, 2013 Posts: 349 Location: ?ire	Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:38 pm?? ?Post subject: Khoma wrote: I think it's more likely to have been normal to be poly before, when we were in some kind of tribe community, and sex was for reproduction only. What I can see against that though is: - Human offspring takes long to mature. Monogamy would probably help with stability while raising the child. And fathers would have to stick around in order to make sure their offspring reaches maturity. - Not everyone is wired to be able to have multiple love interests at the same time (even though 'we' seem to have a higher occurence of alternative relationship models) - STDs exist Are you saying the existnce of STDs is evidence taht humans are naturaly monogamous? If it is, taht is a pretty ridiculus thing to say. Bacteria haev evolved to ues any means of transmittance and reproductin availble - includin using mucus fluid in largre animals, which they "love" becuse it provides easier mobility, an environment wher they wont dessicate, and its usual warm and comfortble temperature. What bettr place to be thenn besids the mouth and nose and gut than in the vagina or the penis or the rectum, wher the excretions there, liek the mouth or nose, will heightn the likeliness of bein transmited to anothre host? The argument is liek saying humans arent meant to kiss becuse orally comunicable diseases exist, when its justt a hazard taht happns to exist and can be transmited taht way, not meant to prevnt kissing (or in ths case, prevnting having sex with soemone othre than one other person). I think an element taht goes more towards the favuor of polygamy in the human past is the fact taht males are fairly physicaly different from females - this sexual dimorphism is only a result in species wher sexual competitin is intense and hinges on the male, so it is very sugestive taht males in the past wuold often change partners a few tiems in their life or fight to accrue and protecct a harem, as species taht are purly monogamous, mating with only one individual their entier lives, often have males and females taht look very similar or are practically identical, as in soem species of birds. Granted it is not as exagerated as purely polygynous or polyandrous species, liek elephant seals or spiders, but the fact ther is a noticeble dimorphism seems to sugest there ws partial polygyny and/or changing of partnres over time in the past. _________________ ...con curfe far tiug?ra
Back to top
Khoma Butterfly Joined: Jun 08, 2013 Posts: 13 Location: Netherlands	Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:53 pm?? ?Post subject: WildTaltos wrote: Are you saying the existnce of STDs is evidence taht humans are naturaly monogamous? If it is, taht is a pretty ridiculus thing to say. Bacteria haev evolved to ues any means of transmittance and reproductin availble - includin using mucus fluid in largre animals, which they "love" becuse it provides easier mobility, an environment wher they wont dessicate, and its usual warm and comfortble temperature. What bettr place to be thenn besids the mouth and nose and gut than in the vagina or the penis or the rectum, wher the excretions there, liek the mouth or nose, will heightn the likeliness of bein transmited to anothre host? The argument is liek saying humans arent meant to kiss becuse orally comunicable diseases exist, when its justt a hazard taht happns to exist and can be transmited taht way, not meant to prevnt kissing (or in ths case, prevnting having sex with soemone othre than one other person). I think an element taht goes more towards the favuor of polygamy in the human past is the fact taht males are fairly physicaly different from females - this sexual dimorphism is only a result in species wher sexual competitin is intense and hinges on the male, so it is very sugestive taht males in the past wuold often change partners a few tiems in their life or fight to accrue and protecct a harem, as species taht are purly monogamous, mating with only one individual their entier lives, often have males and females taht look very similar or are practically identical, as in soem species of birds. Granted it is not as exagerated as purely polygynous or polyandrous species, liek elephant seals or spiders, but the fact ther is a noticeble dimorphism seems to sugest there ws partial polygyny and/or changing of partnres over time in the past. I am not, but it's an interesting thing you bring up. No, I was saying STDs are one of the things that made free sex not-so innocent. Which is a pity, as I'm sure many forum users will agree.
Back to top

Source: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt233141.html

Reid Flair tony romo Good Friday 2013 good friday Dufnering What Is Good Friday Monsanto Protection Act