Why Monogamy?

[papadee]

We sometimes question if monogamy is natural. Here's an interesting study.

http://news.yahoo.com/monogamous-owl...235153364.html

[essence]

Originally Posted by papadee

We sometimes question if monogamy is natural. Here's an interesting study.

http://news.yahoo.com/monogamous-owl...235153364.html

You come on here with some asshole study, on a hooker board? Nobody, nobody (except maybe cog and yssup) here believes a sentient male is unable to love and satisfy more than one woman.

Carry on in your man train.

[Yssup Rider]

You putting me in the same boat as the basement dwelling bus station headmaster?

I love the bitches! And they love my money.

so you can kiss my ass...

[papadee]

Originally Posted by essence

You come on here with some asshole study, on a hooker board? Nobody, nobody (except maybe cog and yssup) here believes a sentient male is unable to love and satisfy more than one woman.

Carry on in your man train.

This is the SANDBOX where issues outside of hookers are to be discussed. Since you apparently only want to discuss hookers, STAY OUT OF THE SANDBOX. The point of the study wasn't if humans can love or satisfy more than one, but is there something evolutionary/natural, and not religious/societal, about why some/many/most are monogamous.

[essence]

Originally Posted by papadee

This is the SANDBOX where issues outside of hookers are to be discussed. Since you apparently only want to discuss hookers, STAY OUT OF THE SANDBOX. The point of the study wasn't if humans can love or satisfy more than one, but is there something evolutionary/natural, and not religious/societal, about why some/many/most are monogamous.

Wrong. I do not want to discuss hookers. My point was that this is a hooker board, so the audience here is very likely to agree that desiring/lusting/loving more than one woman is natural.

Are so many/most monogamous? Or is it lack of opportunity?

Question - what proportion of males, in a loving married relationship, would be happy to keep a mistress/lover/jump-off/whatever if (a) she was desirable (b) did not cost any money (c) the wife fully accepted her, or indeed encouraged her (d) did not cause any stress (e) he could find one who found him attractive.

I think the vast majority would, unless there were some religious reasons.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by essence

Wrong. I do not want to discuss hookers. My point was that this is a hooker board, so the audience here is very likely to agree that desiring/lusting/loving more than one woman is natural.

Are so many/most monogamous? Or is it lack of opportunity?

Question - what proportion of males, in a loving married relationship, would be happy to keep a mistress/lover/jump-off/whatever if (a) she was desirable (b) did not cost any money (c) the wife fully accepted her, or indeed encouraged her (d) did not cause any stress (e) he could find one who found him attractive.

I think the vast majority would, unless there were some religious reasons.

If you would have made those points in your 1st post, then we would have had something to discuss.

We read all the time on the boards that monogamy isn't natural, men like to roam, no other species is monogamous, etc. This study is researching if that's true in primates. I know there are some bird species (bald eagles I believe is one) that are monogamous & mate for life. And the post wasn't to condemn or question the hobby. I just thought it was interesting.

As to your question, I think it's not reasonable to ask what someone would do if there were no consequences. Would you jump off a cliff if nothing would happen when you landed? Would you go BB in the hobby if there were no STDs or pregnancy concerns? In the study, fewer births was the consequence of sleeping around.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by papadee

We read all the time on the boards that monogamy isn't natural, men like to roam, no other species is monogamous, etc. This study is researching if that's true in primates. I know there are some bird species (bald eagles I believe is one) that are monogamous & mate for life. And the post wasn't to condemn or question the hobby. I just thought it was interesting.

While it may be true that some species of animals mate for life, the vast majority of nature does not (look at all the birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc.). Generally speaking, seeking out multiple mates creates greater genetic variety as opposed to a smaller more limited genetic pool, so it makes sense that in nature, monogamy would be the deviation from the norm.

Now, from a human standpoint, just because we may be genetically predisposed to do so, it does not mean that we don't have control over our actions and can take actions that mitigate the consequences of our actions (ie, don't get married if you know you're going to be unhappy in the relationship, etc.).

[essence]

A doctor, a lawyer and an eccie member were discussing the relative merits of having a wife or a mistress. The doctor said: "It's better to have a wife because the sense of security lowers your stress and is good for your health." The lawyer said: "Surely a mistress is better; if you have a wife and want a divorce, you'll incur all sorts of legal problems." The eccie member said: "You're both wrong. It's best to have both, so that when your wife thinks you're with your mistress and your mistress thinks you're with your wife --- you can go on the sandbox."