An age old question: Are humans naturally polyamorous or naturally monogamous? — Benj96

Yes.

Or have we totally shed the shackles of basic instinctual tendencies through our civilisation and risen to a level of diversity, complexity and individual preference that the question is now redundant? — Benj96

Those basic instinctual tendencies vary as much in nature as they do in humans. Some birds and mammals mate for life; some for the duration of their offspring's dependency, (and some of those still cheat or attempt to cheat) while other couple briefly without forming emotional or obligational bonds. Pack animals tend to be monogamous, or else form family units of a female and her young within a small related community; herd animals generally pool their weaned young in a large community. In these instances, the intimacy of pair-bonding are not factors: sex is an annual necessity; companionship is found with friends.

Human young also need the stability and security of a home with two (or more) adult caregivers, as one is rarely capable of providing all the material, emotional, intellectual and moral support structure that a complex creature needs to grow up healthy.
And humans generally - though not universally - have a need for that same stability and support to live a healthy life. Beyond that, they crave affection, intimacy, a sense of being indispensable to another person. And growing old alone truly sucks.
At the same time, having sexual attractions to other individuals than one's mate is quite normal, as is the biological urge to diversify one's genetic portfolio.
Which of those primal drives dominates depends on the individual. Many try to have it both ways; most of them fail.

Are humans naturally polyamorous or naturally monogamous? — Benj96

I suspect that, especially duuring peak childbearing life-stages, human males are "naturally polygamous" and human females are "naturally monogamous", yet (modern, more gender-fluid) culture somewhat modifies, or moderates, our "hardwired tendencies".

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Fucking. Fucking came first.

More seriously though, you'd be as well asking whether blue or brown eyes are more natural. It's population level variation, some people have strong preferences both ways. Some people don't. It also changes within lifetime and over history.

suspect that, especially duuring peak childbearing life-stages, human males are "naturally polygamous" and human females are "naturally monogamous", yet (modern, more gender-fluid) culture somewhat modifies, or moderates, our "hardwired tendencies". — 180 Proof

Male sexuality is limited only by permission.

Male sexuality is limited only by permission. — Hanover

AFAIK, that's the "official line" only in many (not most or all) contemporary, developed nations.

Are humans naturally polyamorous or naturally monogamous? — Benj96

I'm on the fence myself, — Benj96

Pervert! I hope the fence consented at least! :scream:

Meanwhile, this is a question that Google can do a better job of not answering properly than any number of amateur philosophers.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full

Pervert! I hope the fence consented at least! :scream: — unenlightened

Haha that gave me a good chuckle.

Oh my.

An age-old question: Are people naturally polyamorous or naturally monogamous?

An age-old answer: neither. I don't think there is an ideal objective type of relationship in humans, the reason being the good old mystery of "free will", whatever you think about it; the concept itself is certainly different in terms of freedom and conscious choice in relation to many other species.

However, once we as a species have managed to influence and control to some degree the evolutionary and mating rules that would work in nature, human beings find themselves in the strange and surprising position of not knowing what they are made for, or if they are made for anything at all.

Personally, I am in a polyamorous relationship, though we have not yet fully consumed the meaning of the term. I have also been in monogamous relationships and in my personal experience every relationship has its own set of rules and compatibilities that define it as poly or mono.

My eight wives and I find our polyamorous relationship perfectly natural.

Oh my. — fdrake

Not sure what you've read into this comment.

Without permission from the woman, sex doesn't happen. That's how our ought to be.

The point made was that men seek permission and are limited to the extent that permission is, whereas women have less difficulty receiving permission from men.

Not sure what you've read into this comment. — Hanover

I read it in a Sadean way. Appetites are in principle limitless, and only confined by what people agree to indulge in.

read it in a Sadean way. Appetites are in principle limitless, and only confined by what people agree to indulge in. — fdrake

That too I guess.

Perhaps the question ought to be who really has the time to "love" so many people if one is successful in loving one's own self?

Both. Some prefer an inch deep and a mile wide, others a foot wide and 100 yards deep. Different strokes for different folks.

It's possible that men are naturally polyamorous while women are naturally monogamous. Silverback gorillas, traditional Mormons, and lions display this.

"Straight men aren't promiscuous like gay men because straight women don't let them." she said.

Women, families, mortgages, careers, churches, etc. all tend to tame straight male behavior. Gay marriage, mortgages, careers, churches, etc. tends to do the same thing for gay male behavior.

Men who do not live within the usual sex-limiting social structures can be more promiscuous. For that matter, men and women who do not live within the usual social structures of marriage, mortgages, careers, churches, and so on are perhaps freer to be political outsiders as well.

Humans are not naturally and deeply civilized. "Civilized behavior" is a hard-won achievement. Loosen the bonds, and we dispense with inconvenient trappings of civilization. Promiscuous gun use, promiscuous sex. In both cases there are resulting fatalities.

Men who do not live within the usual sex-limiting social structures can be more promiscuous. For that matter, men and women who do not live within the usual social structures of marriage, mortgages, careers, churches, and so on are perhaps freer to be political outsiders as well. — BC

A few follow up questions though.

Not to get overly personal (but why stop now?), but in your committed relationships were you as monogamous as your typical hetero male/female couple? If the answer is no, then there is something about the insertion (purely coincidental pun) of the female into the equation that governed the promiscuity.

Then we look to woman on woman sex, which in the various 5 minute documentaries I've watched on the topic, they do show that such ladies are insatiable, but I wonder if they're accurate depictions. My question then is whether actual lesbian behavior is as promiscuous as man on man affection? If it's not, then it appears again that it's the woman in the equation that is the spoil sport, not just an issue of domestication of the partners (or combatants, as the case may be).

Then I turn to the recent arival of legalized same sex marriage. If we do find that in manly marriage there is greater monogamy than in a typical shacking up arrangement, that might just have to do with the two living up to their committment when they said they'd forsake all others. That is, they declared the party over because they were apparently so enamored with hetero unions, they wanted a piece of that action. Hah! I say. Not so super fantastic now is it?

were you as monogamous as your typical hetero male/female couple — Hanover

I was not as monogamous as heterosexual-male/female couples are supposed or alleged to be.

My question then is whether actual lesbian behavior is as promiscuous as man on man affection — Hanover

My impression is that lesbians are generally not as promiscuous as gay men have tended to be. However, my information is now quite dated. The lesbians on Grey's Anatomy were certainly quite frisky. I haven't been out mixing in the gay community for 35 years. Did legalized marriage change behavior? Perhaps. The broader culture changed as well. "Gay Liberation" was partly a consequence of the '60s, rolling on into the 70s. AIDS brought the free-for-all up short by the mid '80s.

Have social / sexual norms grown more conservative over the last 40 years? It seems like it, but if more conservative society isn't more stable. If anything, society seems less stable now. Does instability lead to more cautious social behavior?

The physical environment in which sexuality is enacted has changed. Places that facilitated promiscuous sexual activity -- like bath houses, police-free parks, cruisy locations, etc. have been eliminated in many cities. The gay bar business isn't as lively as it used to be, owing to the increased use of social media.

There were about 1.2 million same-sex couple households in the United States in 2021, according to recently released Census Bureau data.

Roughly 710,000 of the same-sex couple households were married and about 500,000 were unmarried.

That seems like a lot, but if 4% of the population are gay or lesbian, then that is only 1.1 million who coupled and/or married out of 10.3 million over the age of 18. Inquiring minds would like to know what all the 9 million single gays and lesbians are doing.

The lesbians on Grey's Anatomy were certainly quite frisky. — BC

I'm glad to see you're using reliable sources :P

Did legalized marriage change behavior? Perhaps. The broader culture changed as well. — BC

I tend to believe there is some paradoxic behaviour at play in regards to legalisation and rights. Sometimes, the drive to gain the same rights doesn't actually reflect the same values. As in gay people may want access to marriage as straight people already enjoy, but once they have it the numbers who actually avail of it might drop off in comparison to how many people wanted the option if that makes sense?

It's like when the legal age of drinking is lowered, often the rate of drinking in youths goes down -opposite to that you would expect.

I am of the opinion that female emotional intelligence, hormones or whatever it is etc confers some complex stability and form to monogamous commitment. Lesbians have higher marriage rates and lower divorce rates than both straight people and gay men. Gay men have the lowest.

There must be some innate aspect of men -hormonal or otherwise, that means gay guys are less likely to have a strict monogamous lifelong relationship. Ofc none of that speaks at all to whether they're happy or not with that -another topic entirely.

There must be some innate aspect of men -hormonal or otherwise, that means gay guys are less likely to have a strict monogamous lifelong relationship. — Benj96

An evolutionary aspect is that males in many species have lower reproduction costs than females. Caring for offspring may require many months of effort. Another evolutionary aspect is that in many species males can mate with successive partners, while females tend to cease mating after fertilization. Our primate relatives may be quite disreputably (or admirably) promiscuous, depending on one's POV.

Whatever evolution has to say, humans need (and like) to have lasting, loving relationships with others. That said, humans also like to have sexual adventures and novel excitements--both, if possible. Social norms, mores, customs, rules, and regulations try to apply the brakes on said sexual adventures and novel excitements, for the sake of the children, motherhood, community, and the State. For the most part, all that works reasonably well.

In modern societies (post 1875, say) where immigration, lots of population movement, new technologies, social disruption, and so on resulted in looser societal controls and more atomization, some individuals found themselves outside settled community and were thus able to pursue whatever desires they had. Rates of prostitution rose rapidly. The notorious saloons of the prohibition movement were another result.

Unfettered social rules made it possible for gay men to meet and mate outside the palisades of social control. A subculture of promiscuous sex followed, and flourished when and where possible. "Possible" was governed by how much effort a given police force was willing to expend on suppressing this sub-culture. So, this subculture was not usually wide open and public, but kept a low profile and carried on its activities wherever it was possible.

Urban environments are favored places for cultural innovation, invention, sexual adventures, and novel experiences. So with gay male culture. Besides, there aren't enough gay men per square mile of prairie, farm, and forest to provide for partners, let alone promiscuity. Consequently, gay men tend to move toward larger urban centers -- along with any other mobile people who want more opportunities to succeed in life.

I believe a fixed percentage of men are born gay. It's not a large cohort--maybe 2% or 3%. Nature does its part, but then culture decides how gayness will or will not be expressed. Many people in Uganda, for example, believe that homosexuality does not exist there. In that context, expression of gayness is going to be very muted, for self-protection. Kampala, Uganda -- a city of 1.5 million, might offer more opportunity for expression. However, in a country where homosexual activity is a newly defined capital crime (life imprisonment or death for "aggravated homosexuality"), it won't be very open there, either.

There are costs to living outside the security of marriage and family, but there are certainly costs to living within marriage, as well.

I recollect that Dawkins tells us somewhere (was it in The Selfish Gene?) that according to computer modelling, the survival of the species is best guaranteed if 70% of females are faithful to one partner, and 30% of males are faithful to one partner; interpret that as you will.

Another provocative idea (not due to Dawkins) is that the Oedipus and Electra complexes evolved as another survival mechanism, whereby the parents would teach their children how to reproduce before they go out into the world to start their own families. But try selling that idea at your next seminar.

"I believe a fixed percentage of men are born gay. It's not a large cohort--maybe 2% or 3%."

I think 5% is likely a more accurate figure, although there is obviously some leeway, depending on the criteria.

Genetic science and anthropology can explain why some dispositions, though apparently dysfunctional, do not disappear but settle down to around 5%. This applies across a wide range of phenomena from alcoholism in laboratory rats to colour vision deficiency in humans.

This raises the question whether a 5% deviancy rate in any phenotypic feature has a survival value for the species.

In the case of colour vision deficiency, this is a topic of ongoing research. Experimental evidence suggests that CVD people have a heightened ability to distinguish fine shades of green and brown, and heightened night vision. There is anecdotal evidence that in Vietnam, CVD soldiers were sought after to act as foward scouts, because of their heightened ability to "see through" enemy camouflage.

One may also speculate that in hunter-gatherer societies, homosexual people, who have the same nurturing and loving instincts as heterosexuals, may have been valued as carers for the children of parents taken away early by disease or predation.

Fucking. Fucking came first.


Tell that to asexual reproduction