NationStates Jolt Archive

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it? Humans possess many birth-control devices after-all.

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it?

decreased risk of contracting an STD from your partner

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it?

Socially less complicated than a polygamous relationship.

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it?
Population Control.

Less nagging.

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it?

clarifying question:

do you mean a logical reason for practicing it,

or a logical reason for legally enforcing it?

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it?

Yes.

If both parties wish it for themselves.

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it?Jealousy.

No need to wait in line ;)

decreased risk of contracting an STD from your partner

Only if it's monogamy in practice/fact. The only time I ever got an STI was in a 'monogamous' relationship.

You only have to deal with 1 raging and insane woman on her period instead of well....more than one raging and insane woman on her period....

Population Control.

the population potential is already limited by the current number of women, whether some of them choose to share a man or not.

Yes.

If both parties wish it for themselves.

this might just be the first inherently perfect answer that i have ever witnessed.

either that, or i just haven't been around here long enough. :wink:

this might just be the first inherently perfect answer that i have ever witnessed.

either that, or i just haven't been around here long enough. :wink:

All other arguments can be defeated.

the population potential is already limited by the current number of women, whether some of them choose to share a man or not.
True, but in monogamous societies, there's an element of competition involved that means that that upper bound for women who could potentially be in child-bearing relationships is never actually achieved. Polygamous societies don't place so much emphasis on that competition.

True, but in monogamous societies, there's an element of competition involved that means that that upper bound for women who could potentially be in child-bearing relationships is never actually achieved. Polygamous societies don't place so much emphasis on that competition.

Since I am too tired to do the math: which system (polygamy or monogamy) would lead to the most genetic diversity ? Assuming inbreeding is discouraged of course.

Yes.

If both parties wish it for themselves.

But why would they wish it? It seems (to me) just a watered-down version of: "no erotic activity outside of wedlock".

True, but in monogamous societies, there's an element of competition involved that means that that upper bound for women who could potentially be in child-bearing relationships is never actually achieved. Polygamous societies don't place so much emphasis on that competition.

not sure i'm getting this; would you please elaborate?

Population Control.

Ever hear of a condom?

Ever hear of a condom?

Ever hear of a "Lesser Developed Nation"?

Ever hear of a "Lesser Developed Nation"?

Are you saying that under-developed nations should be monogamous, while developed nations need not?

Only if it's monogamy in practice/fact. The only time I ever got an STI was in a 'monogamous' relationship.

well I assumed that's what he meant, otherwise it's sorta moot isn't it?

Jealousy.

Very logical.

Since I am too tired to do the math: which system (polygamy or monogamy) would lead to the most genetic diversity ? Assuming inbreeding is discouraged of course.

it seems to me that monogamy may produce the most genetic diversity in the long term, since it brings the maximum number of genes into play. but that is assuming that a) the model system in question has more women than men (as in life), b) the prevailing form of polygamy would be more than woman sharing a husband, c) polygamists would account for more than just the difference in women, and d) some men who wanted a wife would be going without and---if having sex---would be doing it with women that they shared---prostitutes---and not for breeding.

all of that may be somewhat probable under the model, but it is nonetheless quite a bit to assume.

i think, however, that under certain circumstances, polygamy can definitely yield more diversity in the short term. for instance: if i were going to choose 10 people to escape our exploding planet in a rocket ship and perpetuate the human race, i would not choose 5 men and 5 women. i would choose 3 straight men and 7 women. each woman would need to bear several children by each of the men. in this way, population growth would be maximized, while the necessity of inbreeding could fairly easy be minimized or eliminated.


on the whole, though? in real life? if we're talking about a society in which polygamy is only allowed but not mandated or artificially incentivized, and the result is that every man who wants a wife can find one and every woman who wants a husband can find one---even if it means sharing one---then certainly that society would produce the greatest variety of genetic offspring, since it would create the greatest number of intersections between the greatest number of variants.

But why would they wish it? It seems (to me) just a watered-down version of: "no erotic activity outside of wedlock".

If one partner is not forcing the other to engage in a behaviour (monogamy) against his or her will...if instead, each partner makes the decision to engage in said behaviour, then there is no power imbalance, no issue of force or coercion.

Why each individual in the relationship comes to that decision really doesn't matter, as long as the decision is in truth freely made.

But why would they wish it? It seems (to me) just a watered-down version of: "no erotic activity outside of wedlock".

Does it matter?

While it would be nicer and easier if everyone had rational and intelligent reasons for their particular sexual choices, we know that's never going to happen. Aren't we stuck just accepting people's choices even if we don't rationally understand them?

Very logical.
In case you're agreeing: DAMN STRAIGHT!
If not: Human beings are envious, greedy bitches. They want what they can't have and want what they have for themselves. This carries over to partners in relationships. Polygamous relationships are more susceptible to drama due to one partner feeling neglected. Avoiding that by dedicating yourself to one partner is a logical thing to do.

Are you saying that under-developed nations should be monogamous, while developed nations need not?

No, I am saying that people in "under-developed nations" might not have access to contraceptive devices. In which case hearing of a condom is no longer relevant.

well I assumed that's what he meant, otherwise it's sorta moot isn't it?

Not really.

You have monogamy in practice, and you have monogamy as a relational construct.

For example...say you have a couple who want to have sex with people outside their relationship, who have agreed that this is alright, and who have every intention of following through on this. Yet, there they are, some months later, and the only sex they've had is with one another. Monogamy in practice, but not monogamy in terms of the make-up of their relationship.

Many people have experience in a monogamous relationship where either they, or the other partner, engaged in non-monogamous behaviour. The relationship can not be unilaterally declared non-monogamous in makeup simply because one person fucked someone else. Non-monogamous in practice, but not necessarily overall intention.

True, but in monogamous societies, there's an element of competition involved that means that that upper bound for women who could potentially be in child-bearing relationships is never actually achieved. Polygamous societies don't place so much emphasis on that competition.

i think that i just worked that out.

i think what threw me, here, was what i take to be your implicit assumption that either a) our society is actually effectively monogamous, or b) i am arguing for that, or c) both.

a) it's not, really, and
b) i wasn't.

the fact stands: population i bounded, at the top, by the total number of fertile women, at any given time---regardless of what the surrounding society tries to encourage or legislate.

But why would they wish it? It seems (to me) just a watered-down version of: "no erotic activity outside of wedlock".

Trust. And emotions, like jealousy.

Trust.

:confused:

And emotions, like jealousy.

That only arose with religion.

Human beings are envious, greedy bitches. They want what they can't have and want what they have for themselves. This carries over to partners in relationships.

to argue that this is the only possible reason for polygamy---as you implicitly are doing---is utterly fallacious. it is entirely possible for freely consenting adults to enter into a structure of polygamous commitment for reasons that are mutually happy, loving, and generous.

it would be similarly fallacious---for instance---to argue that the only reason that monogamy exists is because human beings are too selfish to share. rather, there are plenty of people who enter into that style of commitment with happiness, love, and generosity.

Polygamous relationships are more susceptible to drama due to one partner feeling neglected. Avoiding that by dedicating yourself to one partner is a logical thing to do.

assuming, of course, that it is more desirable to you to avoid the things to which polygamy has an increased susceptibility, than to avoid the things to which monogamy has an increased susceptibility.

i---for one---do not so assume. i can't blame others for feeling differently about that, but neither can i accept that i deserve judgment if i prefer the other set of 'susceptibilities'.

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it? Humans possess many birth-control devices after-all.

what does Birth-Control have to do with Monogamy?

only one form of Birth Control is 100% effective. Abstinance.


as for monogamy?

Religous Reason: A person cannot serve more than one Master.

Survival Reason: If you can't satify one person, why get two Pissed Off at you?

:p

Population Control.

Supposedly monogamy encourages population growth more than polygamy. I am just repeating what I heard and I forget where I heard it although I think it was a documentary on TV.

STD reduction is the only good thing about monogamy unless you are like into monogamy. I think monogamy is pretty wierd myself and it is not really my bag.

You only have to deal with 1 raging and insane woman on her period instead of well....more than one raging and insane woman on her period....

Let you in on a little secret. It is not the cycle that makes them insane. It is used as a cover for bad behavior. Curious thing is I have never heard of the cycle as an excuse outside of the us.

to argue that this is the only possible reason for polygamy---as you implicitly are doing---is utterly fallacious. it is entirely possible for freely consenting adults to enter into a structure of polygamous commitment for reasons that are mutually happy, loving, and generous.

it would be similarly fallacious---for instance---to argue that the only reason that monogamy exists is because human beings are too selfish to share. rather, there are plenty of people who enter into that style of commitment with happiness, love, and generosity.



assuming, of course, that it is more desirable to you to avoid the things to which polygamy has an increased susceptibility, than to avoid the things to which monogamy has an increased susceptibility.

i---for one---do not so assume. i can't blame others for feeling differently about that, but neither can i accept that i deserve judgment if i prefer the other set of 'susceptibilities'.
It was a generalization to support the argument. There's always exceptions.

It was a generalization to support the argument. There's always exceptions.

Is it?

It doesn't even seem like a good generalization because we have very limited information on how people feel that come from non-western society from a society or culture that does practice polygamous relationships.

The fact is, Jealousy is more likely a product of our cultural raising then it is of a purely biological one, which brings me to my point; there isn't really any good arguments for why two or more consenting adults shouldn't have any number of relationships.

That only arose with religion.

I call bullshit. Animals that breed monogamously don't share either, and I don't recall ever having seen a wolf or a penguin go to church.

Edit: Actually, the monogamy part doesn't even matter. Generally speaking whenever animals mate they will fight over females and territory whether they are monogamous or not.

[QUOTE]Is it?
It doesn't even seem like a good generalization because we have very limited information on how people feel that come from non-western society from a society or culture that does practice polygamous relationships.


not to mention: those who nonetheless find a way to manage honest, consensual polygamy right here within western society are precisely those people who have to be exceptions to that generalization, just to accomplish it.

it's not only a bad generalization, then---it doesn't even support the point.

The fact is, Jealousy is more likely a product of our cultural raising then it is of a purely biological one, which brings me to my point; there isn't really any good arguments for why two or more consenting adults shouldn't have any number of relationships.

all very true. thanks.

I call bullshit. Animals that breed monogamously don't share either, and I don't recall ever having seen a wolf or a penguin go to church.

I have! It wasn't exactly happy at this, and neither was my pastor....:D

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it? Humans possess many birth-control devices after-all.

Biologically?
Two parents helping to raise a child means better survival chances for the kid. So it's a good idea to stay around to make sure your offspring gets through the worst of it (which in humans seems to be somewhere around 6 - 8 years).
Although that's just a rough estimate, many people don't stay together for that long, some stay together for longer.

I call bullshit. Animals that breed monogamously don't share either, and I don't recall ever having seen a wolf or a penguin go to church.

Edit: Actually, the monogamy part doesn't even matter. Generally speaking whenever animals mate they will fight over females and territory whether they are monogamous or not.

They tend to cheat, though.
Then again, many Christians I know do, too.

I call bullshit. Animals that breed monogamously don't share either, and I don't recall ever having seen a wolf or a penguin go to church.

Yes, but we are not wolves or penguins, we are primates.

If you study primitive cultures that evolved without the concept of God(s) (yes, there are such cultures), you will find that most cannot see a purpose in monogamy.

Edit: Actually, the monogamy part doesn't even matter. Generally speaking whenever animals mate they will fight over females and territory whether they are monogamous or not.

That is Darwin. In today's age, coupling is more about recreation than reproduction.

Some animals have one mate for life. Some do not. Humans are primates. Do other primates have one mate for life? I don't think so.

I call bullshit. Animals that breed monogamously don't share either, and I don't recall ever having seen a wolf or a penguin go to church.

Edit: Actually, the monogamy part doesn't even matter. Generally speaking whenever animals mate they will fight over females and territory whether they are monogamous or not.

Um, no, very few animals mate monogamously, they often have families 'on the side'

Biologically?
Two parents helping to raise a child means better survival chances for the kid. So it's a good idea to stay around to make sure your offspring gets through the worst of it (which in humans seems to be somewhere around 6 - 8 years).
Although that's just a rough estimate, many people don't stay together for that long, some stay together for longer.

But you are assuming a life-long relationship that will involve children; there are many such people who are not looking for this. But besides: how does adultery imply not looking after one's children?

Some animals have one mate for life. Some do not. Humans are primates. Do other primates have one mate for life? I don't think so.

Nope.

Exclusivity, in some form or another, is pretty much fundamental to any close relationship. You can't be close to everyone.

Sexual exclusivity is one of the ways people in romantic love can affirm the closeness of their relationships. It's not the only one, and it's probably not necessary in many cases, but just because it isn't for you doesn't mean it isn't for anyone.

:confused:

You're unfamiliar with the concept of "trust"?


That only arose with religion.
I don't think so.

But you are assuming a life-long relationship that will involve children; there are many such people who are not looking for this. But besides: how does adultery imply not looking after one's children?

Well, true, but it's still how our bodies tick. Even with contraception we still want to have sex. Even without children, we still fall in love, and it lasts on average a couple of years...

Adultery can endanger the commitment of one partner to the relationship/family. Which is the main reason why the other partner instinctively will react with jealousy. It's a risk to them.

You're unfamiliar with the concept of "trust"?

Surely non-monogamous relationships can involve honesty and trust?

I have! It wasn't exactly happy at this, and neither was my pastor....:D

LAWL

They tend to cheat, though.
Then again, many Christians I know do, too.

Yes, but we are not wolves or penguins, we are primates.

If you study primitive cultures that evolved without the concept of God(s) (yes, there are such cultures), you will find that most cannot see a purpose in monogamy.


Um, no, very few animals mate monogamously, they often have families 'on the side'

Some animals have one mate for life. Some do not. Humans are primates. Do other primates have one mate for life? I don't think so.

I love watching you guys nitpick the very same part I already said was irrelevant and ignore the issue. The gripe was that jealousy is somehow the product of religion and yet we see animals will fight over their mates.

How about actually responding to the issue?

And this:


That is Darwin. In today's age, coupling is more about recreation than reproduction.

Is utterly irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that humans came about by some other means?

That only arose with religion.

You think jealousy is a creation of religion?

I love watching you guys nitpick the very same part I already said was irrelevant and ignore the issue. The gripe was that jealousy is somehow the product of religion and yet we see animals will fight over their mates.


But they're no fighting because they're jealous, they're fighting because that's how they 'date' one another. It's the Courtship stupid.

I love watching you guys nitpick the very same part I already said was irrelevant and ignore the issue. The gripe was that jealousy is somehow the product of religion and yet we see animals will fight over their mates.

How about actually responding to the issue?



Huh?
I admit I never saw that claim. If you look through the thread, I gave a behaviour-biological explanation for jealousy earlier on.

But they're no fighting because they're jealous, they're fighting because that's how they 'date' one another. It's the Courtship stupid.

If I said something like that somebody'd be screaming for sources...

Huh?
I admit I never saw that claim. If you look through the thread, I gave a behaviour-biological explanation for jealousy earlier on.

Then we have no problem, as I was reacting to the nonsensical claim that somehow religion is the sole source of jealousy.

Surely non-monogamous relationships can involve honesty and trust?

Yes, they do. But it's also a logical reason for monogamy, as is what the OP asked for. A kind of formalization of trust, if you will.

You think jealousy is a creation of religion?

Only in the sexual sense. Sure, sexual jealousy would still exist, but not to the same degree; no more, then say, if one was jealous of a friend one's spouse enjoyed spending a lot of time with.

Only in the sexual sense. Sure, sexual jealousy would still exist, but not to the same degree; no more, then say, if one was jealous of a friend one's spouse enjoyed spending a lot of time with.

Back that up, please.

Back that up, please.

While jealousy is a normal human emotion, religion is what made it a social requirement for sexual relations. What is more, is that the emotion is very pronounced due to religion. If your spouse bought a dog, and spent a lot of time with it, you might feel slightly jealous, but nothing major that you would voice; the same would apply extra-marital couching, if it was not for religion.

While jealousy is a normal human emotion, religion is what made it a social requirement for sexual relations. What is more, is that the emotion is very pronounced due to religion. If your spouse bought a dog, and spent a lot of time with it, you might feel slightly jealous, but nothing major that you would voice; the same would apply extra-marital couching, if it was not for religion.

Ok so I asked you to back it up, not elaborate. Show me the logic that leads you to the opinion that somehow religion itself is the source of this jealousy.

Also, explain why atheists can feel just as much jealousy as any religious person.

Ok so I asked you to back it up, not elaborate. Show me the logic that leads you to the opinion that somehow religion itself is the source of this jealousy.

Also, explain why atheists can feel just as much jealousy as any religious person.

...and while you're at it, Parkus, do please account for the many religions which have smiled upon polygamy.

...and while you're at it, Parkus, do please account for the many religions which have smiled upon polygamy.

What of them? I am merely saying that religion is the cause of the guilt factor associated with polygamy; but when I say "religion", I obviously do not mean all religions, as theological beliefs will greatly contradict each other; I am referring to the religions that condemn polygamy, mainly Judaism and Christianity, in the West.

Ok so I asked you to back it up, not elaborate. Show me the logic that leads you to the opinion that somehow religion itself is the source of this jealousy.

My logic is from the study of cultures that evolved without religion.

Also, explain why atheists can feel just as much jealousy as any religious person.

Social normality: our culture heavily endorses monogamy. If atheists were raised without the idea that monogamy was important, they would not care about it.

My logic is from the study of cultures that evolved without religion.Namely...which?

Social normality: our culture heavily endorses monogamy. If atheists were raised without the idea that monogamy was important, they would not care about it.

Even if one is raised without the idea that monogamy is important people would feel jealous about many other things and eventually sexual partners.
Logic.

What of them? I am merely saying that religion is the cause of the guilt factor associated with polygamy; but when I say "religion", I obviously do not mean all religions, as theological beliefs will greatly contradict each other; I am referring to the religions that condemn polygamy, mainly Judaism and Christianity, in the West.

Ok so it's not 'religion' it's mainly Judeo-Christianity now. I think we're getting to the truth of where this is really coming from now.

My logic is from the study of cultures that evolved without religion.

And...? You still haven't backed it up.


Social normality: our culture heavily endorses monogamy. If atheists were raised without the idea that monogamy was important, they would not care about it.

Back that up. I don't want to hear the opinion. I want to hear the reasoning that brings you to this conclusion.

Namely...which?


Various pygmy tribes of Africa, and the dwarfs of Cameroon.

The Veddahs of Cylon.

The Abipone Indians.

In addition, there were many tribes which did believe in God(s), yet they did not accept the idea of monogamy until it was imported from religions which endorsed it, such as Roman paganism, Judaism, and Christianity.


Even if one is raised without the idea that monogamy is important people would feel jealous about many other things and eventually sexual partners.
Logic.

Then it is logical to see to it that one's spouse may not derive happiness from anything but one's company and/or couch.

And...? You still haven't backed it up.

See directly above.


Back that up. I don't want to hear the opinion. I want to hear the reasoning that brings you to this conclusion.

Originally marriage was a form of bondage: the man purchased the woman. Since the woman was the man's property, she had to be of his use only unless he "lent" her to another. In places where this bondage never appeared, monogamy never evolved. And this bondage was generally supported by religion, especially religions which stressed male superiority.

Less complaining.

You only have to deal with 1 raging and insane woman on her period instead of well....more than one raging and insane woman on her period....

there is a simple way to avoid any insane women.....to answer the op, I can't think of one. I never been good at it anyway.

Dating more than one person at the same time is too distracting. I never get anything done. :/ I find it hard to believe that making a committed relationship out of doing this is much less complicated.

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it? Humans possess many birth-control devices after-all.

It's less strenuous than polygamy.

It's less strenuous than polygamy.
Word.

I've been in several monogamous relationships as well as two polygamous relationships, and I can confirm that polygamy requires significantly more effort. You have two (or more) people to keep happy instead of just one other person to keep happy. You have to juggle the emotional and sexual needs of more people. You have to deal with the schedules of three people instead of two (try going on a date on a week night when all three of you work and have school...oy). The list goes on.

There are absolutely benefits to polygamy, but I found that over-all it requires a lot more time and energy to make it work. It can be worth it for some people.

Is it?

It doesn't even seem like a good generalization because we have very limited information on how people feel that come from non-western society from a society or culture that does practice polygamous relationships.Got me there. All I have to back me up is a thread on this forum.
The fact is, Jealousy is more likely a product of our cultural raising then it is of a purely biological one, which brings me to my point; there isn't really any good arguments for why two or more consenting adults shouldn't have any number of relationships.To assume that an argument for monogamy is an argument against polygamy as a whole is pretty damn fallacious. I pointed out an argument where monogamous relationships may potentially be better than polygamous relationships, not that polygamous relationships ought to be banned.

See directly above.

Various pygmy tribes of Africa, and the dwarfs of Cameroon.

The Veddahs of Cylon.

The Abipone Indians.

In addition, there were many tribes which did believe in God(s), yet they did not accept the idea of monogamy until it was imported from religions which endorsed it, such as Roman paganism, Judaism, and Christianity.

Ok so in support of your opinion you've given

-Various but as yet unnamed pygmy tribes in Africa
-Veddahs and Abipones, which I suspect very few people have heard of.

And you want us, on that basis, to accept that this somehow defines humanity overall. Meanwhile, you ignore examples, much more significant examples, that refute this. Namely:

-The fact that ancient Judaism and depending on the sources, ancient Christianity practiced polygamy.
-Ancient Sparta, which had the same pantheon of deities as other ancient Greek states, who were known to share spouses and those spouses were NOT considered property.

How do you account for this?

The fact is, your opinion is what it is, an opinion. That's fine, but you have -no- solid sociological basis for presenting it as a fact.


Originally marriage was a form of bondage: the man purchased the woman. Since the woman was the man's property, she had to be of his use only unless he "lent" her to another. In places where this bondage never appeared, monogamy never evolved. And this bondage was generally supported by religion, especially religions which stressed male superiority.

I'd love to know where you got this from, and how it relates to religion.

Polygyny without polyandry, or polyandry without polygyny for that matter, would, if the number of men and women is roughly equal, inevitably lead to some men (or women) not having sex. If we assume sex is a good thing, that means monogamy is better than either of the above possibilities, although a combination of polygyny and polyandry could potentially be even better.
Apparently almost all men (and I believe a large majority of women) do not like sharing, so monogamy and polygyny without polyandry seem to be the only viable options. That makes monogamy the best thing we can have.

Logical enough?

Ok so in support of your opinion you've given

-Various but as yet unnamed pygmy tribes in Africa
-Veddahs and Abipones, which I suspect very few people have heard of.

And you want us, on that basis, to accept that this somehow defines humanity overall. Meanwhile, you ignore examples, much more significant examples, that refute this. Namely:
Namely yes, but the examples are suppose to be case studies in isolated, and therefore un-influenced cultures that predate modern Christian culture.

Similar to how living fossils can give us a glimpse of ancient species.


-The fact that ancient Judaism and depending on the sources, ancient Christianity practiced polygamy.[/quote

We're not talking about Christianity the Cult, we're talking about the post-Roman Empire's Christian evolution in Europe, which didn't happen until about 1000 years after Jesus had died.

[quote]
-Ancient Sparta, which had the same pantheon of deities as other ancient Greek states, who were known to share spouses and those spouses were NOT considered property.
Yes, but they were Greek States, which more or less means each one was different from the others in terms of government and social attitudes.

Our culture (in the West) has largely been influenced by Christianity for the last 1000 years, so why are you talking about another culture that died over 2000 years ago?

Ok so in support of your opinion you've given

-Various but as yet unnamed pygmy tribes in Africa
-Veddahs and Abipones, which I suspect very few people have heard of.

There are only so many atheist tribes out there.

And you want us, on that basis, to accept that this somehow defines humanity overall. Meanwhile, you ignore examples, much more significant examples, that refute this. Namely:

-The fact that ancient Judaism and depending on the sources, ancient Christianity practiced polygamy.

I am not referring to polygamy in marriage; I am referring to a monogamous relationship. In other words, why is it considered wrong to couple with someone whom one does not have a "relationship" with, and why do such relationships require monogamous behaviour? As for religions practicing polygamy, you will find that the Bible generally does consider the wife a slave, and that she is not free to couch whom she will.

-Ancient Sparta, which had the same pantheon of deities as other ancient Greek states, who were known to share spouses and those spouses were NOT considered property.

How do you account for this?

Like deities do not make like religion; the Spartans were mostly Dorics, who had be driven out of other parts of Greece, and Sparta (the only conquest the Dorics kept) thus had a culture which was very different from its fellow city-states. It adopted the Greek gods and language, but it kept its own lifestyle.

And my point is, why does our society consider "cheating" on a spouse so wrong, whereas other societies (Sparta, for instance) did not?

The fact is, your opinion is what it is, an opinion. That's fine, but you have -no- solid sociological basis for presenting it as a fact.


I have now given such a basis.

I'd love to know where you got this from, and how it relates to religion.

Sumner and Keller's Science of Society; it relates to religion in that religion supports it, as those who do not comply are threatened with eternal torture.

Bump.

Can anyone provide me with one logical reason for it? Humans possess many birth-control devices after-all.
The logical reason for it is self-preservation. I'll kill him if he doesn't stay monogamous. Okay, maybe not kill. But I like being the center of attention and the only way I'll tolerate a third party in the relationship is if it's another guy. And all fun includes me, at least as a spectator.


You want a logical reason for the whole species to be monogamous? Not one. But I'm not interested in the whole species. As a matter of fact, I wish most of them would go away.

I am not referring to polygamy in marriage; I am referring to a monogamous relationship. In other words, why is it considered wrong to couple with someone whom one does not have a "relationship" with, and why do such relationships require monogamous behaviour? As for religions practicing polygamy, you will find that the Bible generally does consider the wife a slave, and that she is not free to couch whom she will.
.

you are confusing monogamy with fidelity.

monogamy is very common. fidelity is not and never has been.

you are confusing monogamy with fidelity.

1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monogamy

monogamy is very common. fidelity is not and never has been.

It has long been considered a sin to "cheat" on one's partner; if you are telling me that sinning has always been a common occurrence, I agree.

Only if it's monogamy in practice/fact. The only time I ever got an STI was in a 'monogamous' relationship.Heh. QFT. Both times I had anything that can be classified as STD were in monogamous relationships. This is a psychological happy pill - girlfriend was not being unfaithful but she did have past relationships. Now, 6 months ago I called her and told her that I had that small problem and since she was the only person I've had unprotected sex for over 12 years I thought I'd give her the heads up (now that she's getting married and all).

She screamed at me and told me to go screw myself and that she always was faithful to her lovers and it was impossible for me to get it from her.

Go figure :)

Cheerio!

Some animals have one mate for life. Some do not. Humans are primates. Do other primates have one mate for life? I don't think so.Some do, some don't. Not all primates where created equally. (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/mating.html)

Birds- 90% monogamous.
Mammals- under 5% monogamous
Primates- 37/200=~18% monogamous.
(Traditional human societies are about 20% monogamous.)

And so what, anyway. Should we cast of our clothes just because other primates don't wear clothes? It's a moot point whether monogamy is cultural or biological. Someone with a deeply ingrained cultural urge for monogamy will be utterly miserable if you force him/her to be otherwise; regardless of whether that's "natural" or not.

Originally marriage was a form of bondage: the man purchased the woman. Since the woman was the man's property, she had to be of his use only unless he "lent" her to another. In places where this bondage never appeared, monogamy never evolved. And this bondage was generally supported by religion, especially religions which stressed male superiority.It seems more likely religion followed culture here than vice versa. First subjugation of women to men developed and then religion evolved to justify and regulate this.

Ever hear of a condom?

Ever hear of a less than 100% success rate?