Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

Looks at the affairs, divorces looks like human beings are not born to be monogamus. Recent survey show bisexuality increasing among young kids who are open to experiment with multiple partners, married men having affairs have increased. Married couple get bored after few years of marriage.

Seismic cultural shifts about 10,000 years ago rendered the true story of human sexuality so subversive and threatening that for centuries, it has been silenced by religious authorities, pathologized by physicians, studiously ignored by scientists and covered up by moralizing therapists.
In recent decades, the debate over human sexual evolution has entertained only two options: Humans evolved to be either monogamists or polygamists. This tired debate generally devolves into an antagonistic stalemate where women are said to have evolved to seek male-provisioned domesticity while every man secretly yearns for his own harem. The battle between the sexes, we’re told, is bred into our blood and bones.
Couples who turn to a therapist for guidance through the inevitable minefields of marriage are likely to receive the confusing message that long-term pair bonding comes naturally to our species, but marriage is still a lot of work.
Few mainstream therapists would contemplate trying to persuade a gay man or lesbian to “grow up, get real, and stop being gay.” But most insist that long-term sexual monogamy is “normal,” while the curiosity and novelty-seeking inherent in human sexuality are signs of pathology. Thus, couples are led to believe that waning sexual passion in enduring marriages or sexual interest in anyone but their partner portend a failed relationship, when in reality these things often signify nothing more than that we are Homo sapiens.
This is a problem because there is no reason to believe monogamy comes naturally to human beings. In fact, for millions of years, evolutionary forces have cultivated human libido to the point where ours is arguably the most sexual species on Earth.
Our ancestors evolved in small-scale, highly egalitarian foraging groups that shared almost everything. Anthropologists have demonstrated time and again that immediate-return hunter-gatherer societies are nearly universal in their so-called “fierce egalitarianism.” Sharing is not just encouraged; it’s mandatory.
Ours is arguably the most sexual species on Earth.
–Christopher Ryan

Most foragers divide and distribute meat equitably, breast-feed one another’s babies, have little or no privacy from one another, and depend upon each other every day for survival. Although our social world revolves around private property and individual responsibility, theirs spins toward interrelation and mutual dependence. This might sound like New Age idealism, but it’s no more noble a system than any other insurance pool. Compulsory sharing is simply the best way to distribute risk to everyone’s benefit in a foraging context. Pragmatic? Yes. Noble? Hardly.
For nomadic foragers who might walk hundreds of kilometers each month, personal property – anything needed to be carried – is kept to a minimum. Little thought is given to who owns the land, or the fish in the river, the clouds in the sky, or the kids underfoot. An individual male’s “parental investment,” in other words, tends to be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not directed toward one particular woman – or harem of women – and her children, as conventional views of our sexual evolution insist.
But when people began living in settled agricultural communities, social reality shifted deeply and irrevocably. It became crucially important to know where your property ended and your neighbor’s began. Remember the 10th Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that [is] thy neighbor’s.” With agriculture, the human female went from occupying a central, respected role to being just another possession for men to accumulate and defend, along with his house, slaves and asses.

The standard narrative posits that paternity certainty has always been of utmost importance to our species, whether expressed as monogamy or harem-based polygyny. Students are taught that our “selfish genes” lead us to organize our sexual lives around assuring paternity, but it wasn’t until the shift to agriculture that land, livestock and other forms of wealth could be kept in the family. For the first time in the history of our species, biological paternity became a concern.

Our bodies, minds and sexual habits all reflect a highly sexual primate. Research from primatology, anthropology, anatomy and psychology points to the same conclusion: A nonpossessive, gregarious sexuality was the human norm until the rise of agriculture and private property just 10,000 years ago, about 5 percent of anatomically modern humans’ existence on Earth.
The two primate species closest to us lend strong – if blush-inducing – support to this vision. Ovulating female chimps have intercourse dozens of times per day, with most or all of the willing males, and bonobos famously enjoy frequent group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and conflict-free.

The human body tells the same story. Men’s testicles are far larger than those of any monogamous or polygynous primate, hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler temperatures help preserve standby sperm cells for multiple ejaculations. Men sport the longest, thickest primate penis, as well as an embarrassing tendency to reach orgasm when the woman is just getting warmed up. These are all strong indications of so-called sperm competition in our species’ past.

Women’s pendulous breasts, impossible-to-ignore cries of sexual delight, or “female copulatory vocalization” to the clipboard-carrying crowd, and capacity for multiple orgasms also validate this story of prehistoric promiscuity.
“But we’re not apes!” some might insist. But we are, in fact. Homo sapiens is one of four African great apes, along with chimps, bonobos and gorillas.

“OK, but we have the power to choose how to live,” comes the reply. This is true. Just as we can choose to be vegans, we can decide to lead sexually monogamous lives. But newlyweds would be wise to remember that just because you’ve chosen to be vegan, it’s utterly natural to yearn for an occasional bacon cheeseburger.

GS should open a sub-forum to let these people share their sexual fantasies.

:rotfl:

The author of the article is on something really strong. OP’s comments cannot be proven enough to justify posting of this ridiclulous article.

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

Uff, itna lamba article kaun parhay ga :smack:

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

Especially when its hardly worth reading… :smokin2:

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

^^ too right .. i read the first line and the title and scrolled right down lol

^^unfortunately i did the same :(
do we all have ADD(attention deficit disorder) or something?

If monogamy feels impossible, there’s good reason, argue the authors of a new book. It’s not our natural state. Our promiscuous origins make faithfulness an unnatural impulse

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/07/30/philanderingnot-faithfulness-is-ournorm.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/authors-contend-that-promiscuity---not-monogamy---is-our-norm/article1656462/

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

No i have obsessive compulsive disorder.

And also suffer from paranoia sometimes…

But as for Manish and FBI786 you guys seem to be sound so it’s not a mental thing… :hmmm:

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

Well, i differ to say i read it all.

Interesting stuff. Not totally wishful thinking.

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

monogamy is not unnatural for humans

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

so dude, are you impleing man needs 'gharwali' and 'baharwali'.

Are you trying to legalise this and rid the world problems!

OK well, polygamy was the practice of the ancient and the Prophets and thier disciples.

Faris Ji :P

it's ManishAAAA
and i think i do have ADD, i'm sure it was an interesting article but i wish there were some spaces between the paragraphs or something, it was too long :(

ok so monogamy is unnatural.....polyandry for women too right?

In Russia, for example, sex on vacation doesn’t count. In France, adulterous affairs don’t necessarily lead to divorce; in America, infidelity is one of the top reasons marriages split up.

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

what's your opinion on this saregamapa?

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

Crikey. R u going to next use the old argument that there are more females to males in the world?

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

Well theres alot of food in the world, enough to make every person weigh over 1000 kilos. does that mean we should eat our way to death.

people who say well theres more women to men...so? if there were more men to women, would we be allowed to marry more than once?

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

saregampa. Jeez. why is it only me helping out here, i know your a rookie but start learning to carry your threads.

Nadz. Eating that much is unhealthy.

More men to women point is interesting. Well if it was like that, one diadv is that you wouldnt know who the father of a baby was.
Although the princess draupadi from 'Mahabharat' did have 5 husbands.

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

so what if you dont know who the father is, as if they are any use anyway....lol

Re: Isnt Monogamy unnatural for human beings?

Well he'd be of even less use then in this case.

On the serious note. Mr Saregama has a degree of substance to his article.
There is a 1 hour documentary on this topic on msn videos, collaberating to much of this article.

Anyway what are you coming towards saregamapa?

That men should be should be legalised by thier wifes to be ocaasionally promiscuous..to avoid all the sudden upsets?