[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

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

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

A swan won't always mate for life but they usually do

ETA I think TS already covered that though, you can't compare a Lion to a human

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

Promise me, Withano, that you're going to come back to this thread when you fall so hard for someone that you can't think straight. I'll happen... and it'll blow your neat, clinical theories out of the water x

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

Promise me, Withano, that you're going to come back to this thread when you fall so hard for someone that you can't think straight. I'll happen... and it'll blow your neat, clinical theories out of the water x

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

I'll take it! LOL...

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'll take it! LOL...

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more. Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

Well, good luck with that... remember, you'll also have two mother-in-laws and I can tell you from experience, one is more than enough.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

On that one I'd just direct you back to my original post: It's possible (or should be possible) for humans to love multiple people, fully and deeply, without any desire to become sexually involved with or socially entangled with multiple partners. The reason that people can't accept this is BECAUSE human society has - falsely - equated aesthetic LOVE with instinctual LUST... and driven the message home that if you find someone of the opposite sex physically beautiful and intellectually engaging, then you simply MUST want to put your genitals on them and / or spend every waking moment with them.

I would suggest to you that polyGAMY and polyAMORY are not the same thing, and that a monogamous person can love multiple other humans without it being in any way sexually motivated.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

It isn’t even about being monogamous because creeps like him only accept it in men. It is blatant sexism and abuse of wives in a culture where women have little or no choice. It is also something he is trying to promote in Britain and set female equality back years.

I doubt he would be so keen to set back equality laws for race - he is just an ignorant pig who believes the world revolves around him and wants his cake and eat it. He is hoping the PC brigade will pander to his cultural ‘rights’ whilst hoping that the rights of women get swept under the carpet as per cultural norms within certain societies.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

That deserves its own thread. Overpopulation is the future-calamity that needs more of a platform.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

That deserves its own thread. Overpopulation is the future-calamity that needs more of a platform.

It's too late Livia! It's been over since the early 1800's (1 billion humans, about what the planet can realistically handle indefinitely). Damn you, industrial revolution .

We need a good plague

I remember watching "Rec 2" (which was pretty rubbish, tbf) and at some point it transpires that the virus has been deliberately manufactured and released by a group who want to cull the human population right down to the millions...

... which is supposed to be all nefarious and stuff, but I was watching it like " Is it bad that I sort of think they're not wrong?"

Then again, I sympathise with the philosophical standpoint of the villians in an alarming number of movies and TV shows .

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Withano

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

Again though you're assuming that nurture doesn't play a part in the lion being a playah. If you remove a lion cub from all lion contact and lion socialization until it's an adult... you can't make any definitive statements about how it's likely to behave at all. All mammals have higher brain function and are shaped by social interaction.

I'm not saying that you're WRONG that thousands of years of society have influenced how we conduct ourselves in terms of relationships now... I'm saying it doesn't really matter; social evolution is as relevant as biological evolution to our desires and behaviors. Again I think you're trying too hard to separate nurture from nature, and also putting too heavy an emphasis on the importance of nature / instinct in a species that has the level of higher brain function that humans do. OK maybe not everyone chooses to USE all of that function; but nonetheless, we do have it .