Humans aren’t monogamist

[Heaven]

Hey all!

Why do I find it so hard to give away my freedom and be in an exclusive relationship?

I feel like I’m limiting my love to one person instead of expanding it to all women on earth?

Maybe the main reason people get married is for survival and because I almost transcended it I don’t find this need? 
Why does the divorce rate is so high?

I would love to hear insights from men who actually got married and happy about it.
 

Thanks?

[Globalcollective]

It can actually take up a lot of your energy being with multiple people. It can also became impulsive and addictive. It's not bad or wrong to be non monogamous but it comes with it's own set of traps and issues. Though so dose monogamy ahah. Search your heart and see what it truly wants, probably deep intimacy which is easier to cultivate with one person. Also you have to take into account the stage your at in life, if you are young and horny why not go for it. 

[Terell Kirby]

2 hours ago, Heaven said:

Hey all!

Why do I find it so hard to give away my freedom and be in an exclusive relationship?

You most likely lack the maturity / knowledge to create and sustain a healthy and fulfilling relationship.

This is a personal issue, so saying that humans are not monogamist is a bias you have to keep from looking at the work you need to do on yourself.

This isn't an attack on your character, many of us are not mature enough to forge healthy relationships. It's beneficial, however, not to be in denial about it.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Terell Kirby

[Harlen Kelly]

42 minutes ago, Globalcollective said:

It can also became impulsive and addictive.

That sounds like over 90% of monogamous relationships. 

22 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

so saying that humans are not monogamist

Saying humans are not monogamous is an evidentially observable, measurable, factual statement. 

The human species has evolved to make commitments between males and females in regards to raising their offspring, however that bond can fit into all kinds of relationship patterns such as polygyny, single parenthood, monogamy, etc. 

Monogamy is a relatively recent human/societal invention, it has only been practiced since the last 1,000 years out of the approximately 200,000 years modern humans have been roaming around the earth. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Harlen Kelly

[Heaven]

1 hour ago, Terell Kirby said:

You most likely lack the maturity / knowledge to create and sustain a healthy and fulfilling relationship.

This is a personal issue, so saying that humans are not monogamist is a bias you have to keep from looking at the work you need to do on yourself.

This isn't an attack on your character, many of us are not mature enough to forge healthy relationships. It's beneficial, however, not to be in denial about it.

I actually was in a several long term relationships and I believe I transcended it into a more loving thing. 

maybe you have a bias towards monogamy because you’re scared to be alone and find it harder to survive by your own.(Not a personal attack).

@Harlen Kelly Thanks for sharing those insights.

[zazen]

We have pair bonding abilities, yet not sure if we can still have pair bonds and get sexual desires met outside of that  (sexual chemistry fades in long term relationship) to maintain some societal stability, guess thats why the oldest profession existed. A lot of people end up chasing that fresh spark again and again, maybe its natures way of saying now you've mated, go elsewhere or just us humans wanting to feel those intense emotions again of getting to know a new partner, it's novelty. Maybe that biological spark is only to serve its own end of reproduction, for that spark to keep going requires a more spiritual angle than sexual as the body has achieved its goal of making babies.. Seems nature made us to be serial monogamists  yet society imposed monogamy for life, when really what comes naturally is to be monogamous one at a time. 

Quoted

''The natural fallacy is the assumption that because something is natural, it is optimum. In this case: “promiscuity comes naturally to humans, therefore, promiscuity is a good thing.”  Almost every religious institution to ever dominate the hearts and minds of a society has preached quite mightily the importance of monogamy. Religion as untrue as it appears, is therefore not only a pre-science way of explaining reality, but likewise a civilizational mechanism for social order. It is the imposition of order on creatures capable of order, but lacking the self-discipline to exercise such order without theological arguments permeating the hive mind. Human instinct is not without fault, and thus by merit of its destructive aspects will undo civilization if left unchecked. Religion inherently acknowledges the flawed nature of the human character and so brainwashes humanity in an effort to reconcile human flaw with human ingenuity.

Civilization is a construction that balances on the fragile precipice between human instinct and human imagination. Civilizational progress is therefore contingent on the balance of conflict between our instinct to seek what we momentarily desire, and the loftier pursuits of what our minds envisage. The trade-off’s one must make in the pursuit of either is a warring battlefield, one that permeates the root and core of all that we do. Civilization demands imagination, whilst instinct, the mediocrity of self-gratification. Without the subjugation and noblest oppression of the prior, the freedom-seeking of the latter has a propensity to win. And with that victory, civilization falls.''

Edited November 2, 2021 by zazen

[Terell Kirby]

32 minutes ago, Heaven said:

I actually was in a several long term relationships and I believe I transcended it into a more loving thing. 

Then why are you posting about your worries in losing freedom to exclusive relationships? If you were truly satisfied being alone, you wouldn't even ask the question in the first place.

2 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

Saying humans are not monogamous is an evidentially observable, measurable, factual statement. 

In 2020, there were 62.34 million married couples in the United States. This is an increase from 40.2 million married couples in 1960.

[museumoftrees]

You are hitting this point from the male survival's agenda. The male agenda is to have infinite access to infinite women. Technically, the feminine agenda is the opposite. Women want to secure the best genes possible on the market to ensure the reproduction of their offspring and since society is pretty much dependant on security, stability and reproduction, it's going to be very hard for you to manifest your agenda.

To make it happen you'll have to against the grain and get into pickup heavy. You'll also have to spend a lot of energy and time making it happen.

[something_else]

I think the way this should work is that you spend your younger years experimenting, satisfy your desires for sexual variety, get into some slightly more committed relationships and see how it goes. Most will fail, be ok with leaving when necessary

Once you've exhausted that desire, you start looking for deeper connections and something longer term, ideally with someone who has also experienced some sexual/relationship variety and now knows what they want. And that what they want is you. Both of you feel like you've landed a catch, and you click perfectly. And you build something incredibly deep together

I would say this is optimal. Obviously this is massively over simplifying and this won't be the right path for everyone. But I think for most who feel they don't want to settle down too early, this is the path

[Harlen Kelly]

1 hour ago, Terell Kirby said:

In 2020, there were 62.34 million married couples in the United States. This is an increase from 40.2 million married couples in 1960.

The US population in 1960 was approx. 180 million people, in 2021 the US population is 330 million people which you are not taking into account. 

The marriage rate of the US went from 80% in the 1960s to 33% in the year 2019. 

As I stated previously, monogamy is a relatively recent societal invention and it's definitely not inherent to the human species. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Harlen Kelly

[Heaven]

@Terell Kirby

I keep questioning my beliefs and this is the way I do that. I observed my entire life the disfunction in monogamy long term and that’s my current conclusion..

Thank you guys for the comments.

I’ll keep experimenting and see how it goes for me. 
For sure there is no black and white here.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Heaven

[Terell Kirby]

@Harlen Kelly You are missing the point. It's not about marriage rates, I am conveying to you the large numbers of humans that have chosen to be monogamist through marriage. They can also choose to be monogamist without the institution of marriage as shown below:

• There are 112 million unmarried Americans, representing over 47% of the adult population (ACS, 2012).
• Since 2005, the majority of US households have not been headed by married couples. The number of non-married-couple households continues to grow (ACS 2005-2007).
• There are more than 51 million households headed by unmarried Americans, representing roughly 44% of all households and the majority of households in 23 states, plus the District of Columbia (CPS, 2007).

It is quite arrogant for a single human to claim what they feel/value is inherent to all other humans.

The reality is it's all relative, humans have the capacity to be monogamist (in marriage or not), or not monogamist.

One is not more inherent than the other.

[Heaven]

@Terell Kirby There are biological needs that makes it inherit for human to behave in certain ways. To deny that is to be blind to the understanding of human behavior.

[Lyubov]

 

 

 

[Terell Kirby]

2 minutes ago, Heaven said:

@Terell Kirby There are biological needs that makes it inherit for human to behave in certain ways. To deny that is to be blind to the understanding of human behavior.

No one is denying biological needs. Humans can get those met in exclusive relationships or through screwing multiple people.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense. You want someone to validate that monogamy is not good for the human species, which is your biases again. Get it through your thick skull that there isn't just one way to live life.

[Harlen Kelly]

53 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

It is quite arrogant for a single human to claim what they feel/value is inherent to all other humans.

Maybe you don't know the definition of the word inherent. Here it is: 

''existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute''.

Monogamy has not even remotely been the main relationship pattern humans have utilized to procreate and survive throughout history, therefore, is not inherent to humans. 

Your argument would be equivalent to asserting that countries are inherent to the human species even though countries (just like socially enforced monogamy) is a recent human invention. 

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Harlen Kelly

[Terell Kirby]

1 hour ago, Harlen Kelly said:

''existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute''.

Ok...since we're using definitions...I will use the definition of 'inherent' to make this more clear to you.

Neither monogamy or polygamy is permanent or essential, thus not inherent to any human. If either were, they would have no opposite, which is clearly not the case as they both exist in the realm of sexual relationships.

What's essential is the need to reproduce as animals, monogamy and polygamy are just a means to an end.

Even the need to reproduce is questionable, as birthrates are decreasing in the U.S. and globally. There is nothing in the dynamics of evolution that says things need to stagnate and be permanent.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Terell Kirby

[Harlen Kelly]

44 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Neither monogamy or polygamy is permanent or essential, thus not inherent to any human. 

You just made my point. 

[Terell Kirby]

6 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

Saying humans are not monogamous is an evidentially observable, measurable, factual statement. 

Don't weasel your way out of this lol. Your statement above is what warranted a proper and rigorous challenge.

The claim that humans are not monogamous is not observable, measurable, factual...or truthful in any absolute sense.

What's factual is that humans have the ability to choose, what's inherent is the choice itself.

Do you also agree that polygamy is not inherent? Nothing in your comments alluded to it, as you seem to have a bias in favor of looking at polygamy as being more inherent the monogamy.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Terell Kirby

[Harlen Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

What's factual is that humans have the ability to choose, what's inherent is the choice itself.

You made my point once again. 

9 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Do you also agree that polygamy is not inherent? Nothing in your comments alluded to it, as you seem to have a bias in favor of looking at polygamy as being more inherent the monogamy.

Of course. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Harlen Kelly