[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's silly to compare animal "relationships" to humans, we have evolved, you said it yourself. How on Earth do you think you can speak for every person in the world and tell them their relationships are unnatural? lol Some people can't do monogamy others can't do anything else

It is a bad comparison and mostly because this part;

"It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom."

is actually not really right at all, surely. Humans are animals yes but the evolution of the human brain is at this point so far beyond any other animal life (on earth...) that being quick to compare to the animal kingdom never really gains much. The basics being... the vast majority of animals don't love at all. We like to assign pets human characteristics - we like to pretend that our dogs love us in a human way - they simply don't, and can't, because non-human animals simply aren't capable of the level of abstract thought required for "human love"... therefore they can't really be placed in a debate about the nature of human connection.

Animal instinct is relevant to a discussion about desire, or "lust", but they're completely different things. Other than the fact that (again, going back to it) most people are deeply socially conditioned to confuse the two.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

and where do children fit into your polygamous utopia btw?

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It is a bad comparison and mostly because this part;

"It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom."

is actually not really right at all, surely. Humans are animals yes but the evolution of the human brain is at this point so far beyond any other animal life (on earth...) that being quick to compare to the animal kingdom never really gains much. The basics being... the vast majority of animals don't love at all. We like to assign pets human characteristics - we like to pretend that our dogs love us in a human way - they simply don't, and can't, because non-human animals simply aren't capable of the level of abstract thought required for "human love"... therefore they can't really be placed in a debate about the nature of human connection.

Animal instinct is relevant to a discussion about desire, or "lust", but they're completely different things. Other than the fact that (again, going back to it) most people are deeply socially conditioned to confuse the two.

Exactly. I mean it's kind of a basic idea anyway to say humans should be polygamous because .....sex.... etc. A monogamous relationship, a good monogamous relationship should I say is so much more than that. In my idea of what makes a good relationship and what I think makes my own relationship good, it would be impossible for it work with a third or fourth person in the mix

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It is a bad comparison and mostly because this part;

"It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom."

is actually not really right at all, surely. Humans are animals yes but the evolution of the human brain is at this point so far beyond any other animal life (on earth...) that being quick to compare to the animal kingdom never really gains much. The basics being... the vast majority of animals don't love at all. We like to assign pets human characteristics - we like to pretend that our dogs love us in a human way - they simply don't, and can't, because non-human animals simply aren't capable of the level of abstract thought required for "human love"... therefore they can't really be placed in a debate about the nature of human connection.

Animal instinct is relevant to a discussion about desire, or "lust", but they're completely different things. Other than the fact that (again, going back to it) most people are deeply socially conditioned to confuse the two.

I mean, love can be explained by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesnt exist in other animals. Chocolate can cause the same reaction, and so could a multiple partner if it was socially acceptable to have one, and people very hypothetically lived in an unimaginably different world to what we're in now.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

Polygamous marriages are recognised for welfare benefits, and there are tens of thousands of recognised polygamous marriages in the Muslim community in the UK already.

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

[Livia]

Humans aren't the only animals that "mate for life", although I'm pretty sure we're the only ones who fall in love. It seems to me giving labels like polyamarous etc. is a nice little "get-out" for people who cheat - male and female.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

So you think everyone in a monogamous relationship deep down doesn't want to be? That's kind of a bold claim that you think you know how everyone in the world feels

[Livia]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

Except that polygamy is actually against the law. It's a strange thing...


Totally agree with everything else there.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

Hmmm not necessarily; genetic diversity is evolutionarily good for us and genetic diversity is directly impacted by "alpha male social construct" given the way our society is set up. If we're talking basic animal instincts... the strongest and smartest male around would be doing all of the mating. However, the result is that the majority of offspring are then coming from one genetic source (one alpha) reducing diversity and increasing abnormalities. Also, given that evolution is not deliberately selective (common myth is that evolution = improvement) but is ONLY about being best adapted to environment... there are plenty of ways to argue that life monogamy - or at the very least, serial monogamy (which is actually what most people practice) - is actually an evolutionary advantage for humans.

But anyway... that doesn'tt really even matter. To go back to the point before; the human mind has evolved to the point of abstract / philosophical thought, appreciation of personality and "the individual", which makes us entirely unique (again, on earth, there are probably plenty of emo aliens out there)... and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So you think everyone in a monogamous relationship deep down doesn't want to be? That's kind of a bold claim that you think you know how everyone in the world feels

No, I think deep down they want to be because of the social construct side of things, might even be a cognitive element now we're starting to see what mess we've made to the planet. Ultimately that weighs out our evolutionary instincts.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Withano

I mean, love can be explained by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesnt exist in other animals. Chocolate can cause the same reaction, and so could a multiple partner if it was socially acceptable to have one, and people very hypothetically lived in an unimaginably different world to what we're in now.

Penguins love, and flamingos, young men wanting lots of sex with lots of people isn't unheard of so I can understand your view.. Come back after a couple more saturn returns and you'll have changed

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

I mean, love can be explained by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesnt exist in other animals.

What you're talking about here is "initial attraction", and exactly what I'm talking about, essentially lust confused with love or more colloquially, "a crush", or infatuation. It's a completely different thing to love... and occurs long before a person actually knows anywhere near enough about the other individual to truly declare love. Again, though, lots of social confusion there, lots of people declaring that they "love" people they barely know enough to say that they even like them on any philosophical level.

Actual love is a very complex and abstract psychology.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Penguins love, and flamingos, young men wanting lots of sex with lots of people isn't unheard of so I can understand your view.. Come back after a couple more saturn returns and you'll have changed

I think most birds mate for life? Swans do too off the top of my head.. mammals typically do not.

[Niamh.]

Withano I'm just going to let TS answer you I think, he's far more articulate than me but he's saying all the stuff I think

Come back to me when you actually meet someone who changes your mind though

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

I think most birds mate for life? Swans do too off the top of my head.. mammals typically do not.

A List of Animals That Mate for Life


Gibbon apes
wolves
termites
coyotes
barn owls
beavers
bald eagles
golden eagles
condors
swans
brolga cranes
French angel fish
sandhill cranes
pigeons
prions
red-tailed hawks
anglerfish
ospreys
prairie voles
black vultures

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Actual love is a very complex and abstract psychology.

Debateably its just phenylethylamine and dopamine reacting to one another, like it does when you eat bar of chocolate, and like it would if you met a third of forth relationship interest. Its a good feeling which other animals dont experience.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

Debateably its just phenylethylamine and dopamine reacting to one another, like it does when you eat bar of chocolate, and like it would if you met a third of forth relationship interest. Its a good feeling which other animals dont experience.

That's lust you're talking about again

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

That's lust you're talking about again

No thats the chemical reaction for what we know as love, actually just googled 'norepinephrine' is in the mix too.

[Kizzy]

'However, the current Government have decided to no longer recognise polygamous marriages and there are measures in the Welfare Reform Bill which will bring this change in policy into effect under universal credit as from 2013'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...t=clnk&gl=uk#9

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans".


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

No thats the chemical reaction for what we know as love, actually just googled 'norepinephrine' is in the mix too.

This is the fight or flight hormone? news flash you don't feel like that all the time, this is lust, love doesn't feel like that all the time. You are mistaken, when you google it they may be using the word love but they're talking about lust or initial attraction :

The first attraction causes us to produce more PEA, which results in those dizzying feelings associated with romantic love

http://asdn.net/asdn/chemistry/chemistry_of_love.php

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans".


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

Well yeah, I'd have to talk about a parallel universe really, because I can't explain it with who we currently are after that millenia of abstract thinking, and wedding ceremonies, and disney.

As a species, we are not monogamous.
As a society, we sure as **** are.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

No thats the chemical reaction for what we know as love, actually just googled 'norepinephrine' is in the mix too.

It's the chemical reaction for what has become confused as being love (self serving feel-good infatuation) in a wider society that - like I said from my very first post - readily confuses this with the completely different, entirely philosophical concept of actual human love.

It might sound twee, but I suppose you have to have experienced both to understand the difference. 10 years ago there were girls in my past that I would have sworn blue in the face that I had "loved". I now understand that what I felt towards them was the chemical response that you are describing and it is not love... nor, frankly, anything even close to resembling it.

Like Niamh, I do genuinely hope that you'll get to know the difference at some point .

[Withano]

Well I guess if your argument is love causes monogamy, it is difficult for me to argue against. I personally think our social construct caused it, and long after the feeling of 'love' (by any definition) was first experienced.