The Galactic Question Center

It soundslike this is one of these self-fulfilling prophecy dealies, though I know which option I would prefer: choice 2. Of course the only way to verify this would be to scoop out your partner's brains and poke around, so I don't think that either of these is a perfect definition of monogomy...
 

Addendum to B: Not to say that infidelity is a positive attribute...

I choose B. I can understand A's viewpoint, but monogamy isn't necessarily unnatural or disadvantageous. From an economical standpoint, it seems like an odd choise, but we also have to remember that humans are jealous creatures. Polygamy might lead to distrust and chaos...or might force us to sacrifice our values and put us at the level of primates. I'm not very coherent today, but yeah...
 

This is not a mere four hundred word question; but briefly: Monogamy is not a natural state but rather a discipline whether voluntary or societally imposed.

Adultery,incestuous
marriages,orgies,divorces,affairs,
polygamy, bigamy, and prostitution etc. have always been with us for a reason.

Your second option dsplays some specious attitudes eg./ "Infidelity"
is only infidelity if the construct called 'fidelity' has been agreed
upon and engaged as a discipline. This discipline is often chosen because fear and insecurity and the societal norm of ownership and possession lead us to stake a chattel claim to another's affections, presence, and in worst- case-scenarios, their being and natural right to self determination.

The suggestion that the practise of monogamy might cause us, as humans,
to "rise above" other sentient beings, ("the level of the primates"), does not demonstrate our
"greater spiritual depth" but instead clearly illustrates the sick root attitude which has led us to impose global environmental degradation and species extinction.
 

Aren't most of us serial monogamists?
 

The word 'monogamy' means 'serial monogamy' according to the Oxford Dictionary, "state of being married to one person at a time". Those, who like geese have one partner for a lifetime are usually devotees of religious philosophy or human ethical constructs. This is OK, even occasionally laudable. Nevertheless it's no indication monogamous relationships are somehow instinctual activity.
 

being a poor single student having had no time for courting much less engagement and holy matrimonious conjugality it all seems like an attractive ball of coagulants...yet if i'm to trust the seeming candid and sincere comments of those with far greater experience whom i admire and whose judgement I trust by the scope of their accomplishments then it seems a narrow idea to decide upon exclusivity in those common cosmic relations at such a tender stage of study, unless the unification is driven by universal imperative, as has been the case in each of the trillions of extant histories of individual life on earth, and almost every form and variation of interface has blessings even in the wickedness of contrivedly perverse misalliance.
 

Monogamy was invented by men and is intended to be imposed on women, not on men. The purpose of monogamy is to insure that men know 'their' woman's offspring are their property, engendered from their sperm and carrying their genetic material. The purpose of polygamy is the same. The purpose of polyandry is to serve a woman's need to have the best results of exogamy (genetic mixing) and the best results of endogamy(a stable, nurturing, culturally compatible partner/protector during pregnancy and child-rearing). Monogamy does not serve women in either capacity. Between divorce rates, deadbeat dads, domestic violence perpetrated in the home, loss of civil rights in the married condition, and discriminatory differentials in salary for women in the workplace, all forms of marriage that are legal in most countries are nothing but a codified method of systematically robbing women of their labor, health, control over their own bodies and their sexual services, real property, personal property, and personal freedom. If some people experience symbiotic transcendence in a married state, bully for them. I doubt very much that marriage is the agent for that effect. They could achieve the same effect by being handcuffed together for life. Anyone who thinks humans as a species have risen above the level of primates has not noticed the annual rates of death due to war, murder, spousal abuse, and child abuse. They may have the illusion of being exalted above animality by virtue of their egos, but they have no more rational grounds for such a belief than they do for the Tooth Fairy.
 

I can't help forming deep emotional attachments to some people. I suppose that I would be a fan of monogamy, because I can only manage that amount of feeling for one person at a time. I'm sure it's also subconciously partly due to safety aspects of only attaching yourself to one male at a time when considering pregnancy and STDs. But I can't imagine attaching myself to one person for eternity.

If you commit to a relationship, then it should be obvious to you you that (if that's how you define relationships) there will be no infidelity. Outside a relationship situation and the deep emotional attachment it comes with, I suppose it's up to the individual how promiscuous they want to be.

If someone persuaded me to MARRY them, the depth of feeling I had for that individual would be such that I was happy in a completely monogamous state. That whole "love" thing is a bit beyond me at the moment though. Is that what they mean by "spiritual depth"?
 

Monogamy is a choice. I am a firm believer in the power of choice. When it comes to a mate, choose wisely.
 

The bonobo primates are well above the human level in their capacity for using sexual encounters to defuse tensions between groups. When they encounter another troop, they send out their alpha females to have sex instead of their alpha males to have mortal combat. They are also above humans in their capacity to enjoy many kinds of sexual coupling and mutual grooming. They have cooperative and hedonistic values instead of harsh dominance behaviors. Pleasure and joy over misery and maleficence--show me a human society where that holds true!
 

well, if my hubby had the chance to bonk Anna Kornikova, i would tell him to "go for it"!
 

Some animals are monogamous.Some not.I guess being non monogamous is better to preserve the species.The more you try the more chances you have...
 

LA VERDAD ES KE DEJE DE SER PRIMATE HACE YA VARIOS AñOS...
ahora solo amo a mi amada!!! manana no se! hoy respeto para que me respeten!!
no me gusta ke nadie me este manosiando mi comida!! DO YOU ?
 

My hubby and I only cheat together.
 

Monogamy of the body, well, okay. I am certainly a physically monogamous woman. Monogamy of the heart and mind ... Hm! That's something else.
 

Monogamous relationships provide for long term advantages that cannot be had in short term or multi-relationships.
They can provide intensity. deepness, & devotion that nothing else can of the level that it can.
A person who does not want these things should stay away from monogamy. It requires total committal- which is why a transgression is one of the ultimate betrayals.
 

You can only ever be sure what you are doing. Don't torture yourselves about things you have no control over. Be true to yourself that is all.
 

Gibbons monkeys (like humans) form monogamous bonds. People pair up like this across time and continents and regardless of religious preference. This suggests more than merely cultural invention. It is simply false to say that marriage is an unnatural state, nor an invention or priviledge of homo sapiens. Both A and B are incorrect.