Is a monogamous relationship/marriage realistic?

You know normally, I would agree with you about personal preference, but you know I don't feel that I know quite enough about life, and what is in store to take this one and only life I am going to live, and to risk it being wrecked because I'm using it as a guinea pig.

I prefer to read the manual that the manufacturer wrote and treat my life properly in light of that. The one who made me certainly should be able to give me proper working instructions.

 

Yeah, i am with her right now. She definitely is the one woman that i want to commit myself to, and be faithful to. I'm naturally a committed/faithful kind of guy anyway, but she is just special, and i hope marriage is in our future. Anyway, the qualities that i would want out of my long-term partner is a constant desire to communicate, and i want a woman who appreciates me, and makes it known to me that she does. In order for a man to keep infidelity from happening, he has to look inside himself, and ask himself this simple question: "is it really worth it?" If you're with a man who thinks it's worth his while to throw away the love of a woman who adores him and appreciates him, just so he can enjoy a few nights of passion with another woman, then that man isn't good enough for you. Even though me and my girl are apart right now, the one thing that keeps me in check while she's away is the fact that i realize in advance that it wouldn't be worth it. It's not worth my while to throw away what i have with her for anything else. She's far too important to me. Make a long story short, i believe some men are naturally programmed to know that the grass isn't always greener on the other side, while others are not.

 

Words of wisdom Tinkerbell. Well said.

 

Talking to people who grew up with polygamist fathers, most of them seemed not to have very happy mothers. And often the children aren't happy either. They describe how the women have to compete with each other to get "favours" for their own children (often "favours" being necessities, like school money), and often the wives often seems to strongly dislike the children of their co-wives, since they "steal" resources and attention away from their own kids, so they'll be beating the "step-kids" whenever they find an excuse to do so.

An episode of "Africa have your say" (BBC call-in radio show) confirmed this. The only callers who defended polygamy, were men living in polygamous marriages. And of course they're happy, they've got more people to cook and clean for them, and get respect form other men. The majority of callers, however, were wives and children of polygamists, and they were NOT happy about the arrangement.

If polygamy were in our basic nature, polygamist marriages would on average be happier than monogamist. And not only happier, it's how we would have an instinctive wish to live. Men AND women! Yet, both in Africa and Asia, where polygamy is legal, it's on the decrease.

To be honest, I also think a man living with multiple wives is missing out on something great. I doubt he would agree though. But he's not likely to ever feel that deep love monogamous spouses feel for each other, after having shared everything for a long life. I'm not saying they don't care about them, but that deep love- I don't think it's there. You'll hear old monogamous people saying this all the time when their spouse dies "I didn't just loose my spouse, I also lost my best friend". Have you ever heard a polygamist say the same thing? I don't think so. And even if you have, it only means he loved that one wife more than the others.

 

I see several have said we can't be monogamous, cause then we wouldn't have been with so many before we find our final partner. I don't but that argument. It's just the last 3-4 decades really, we've lived like that. Most of the generations before us did end up marrying the first (or at least the second or third) person they met.

 

Thats not true Ronja. People just didnt talk about it. They were still boning each other.

And besides, societal pressures are what changes our human nature, not what defines it.

 

Not to the degree we do now. Or we'd all have a bunch of bastard-grandparents...

Human nature can't change in 2-3 generation. Evolution doesn't work that fast.

However the social rules can change, and it has, a lot because of birth control. Still most of us, even though we've had more than one partner in our lifetime, does not have more than one partner at a time. And cheating is still being frowned upon everywhere.

 

DNA can reveal ancestors' lies and secrets
As the testing becomes more commonplace, families sometimes learn painful facts. And that can raise ethical issues.
By Alan Zarembo

January 18, 2009

In a search for their ancestors, more than 140 people with variations of the last name Kincaid have taken DNA tests and shared their results on the Internet.

They have found war heroes, sailors and survivors of the Irish potato famine.

They have also stumbled upon bastards, liars and two-timers.

Much of it is ancient history, long-dead ancestors whose dalliances are part of the intrigue of amateur genealogy. But sometimes the findings strike closer to home.

In one case, two brothers were surprised to discover they had different fathers. They confronted their elderly mother, who denied the most obvious possibilities -- that she had been unfaithful to her husband, the man they had always known as Dad, or that one son was adopted.

"It has been traumatic for some to discover their true lineage through the DNA tests," said Don Kincaid, a 76-year-old Texan who oversees the Kincaid surname project and witnessed the brothers' ordeal.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-dnasurprise18-2009jan18,0,3188221.story

And FYI, the reason why some American black men have the pretty caramel skin color that some of you ladies prefer is because white slave masters screwed around on their wives, including Thomas Jefferson.

 

It happened all the time.

I know of one woman, an elderly woman now, who was sent away from the area when she became pregnant at 14. The child was adopted out and she was taken back home. No one knew she had that child.

Also, people didn't know that children were illegitimate because there was no such technology as DNA testing until the 90's. Think of all the people you see on shows like Maury. All those children would have just had to take their mother's word that she wasn't sleeping around.

Fathers also though - men would impregnate poorer women often. In the US slave masters would have fornicated with the slaves. That practice dates back centuries... maybe even longer.

We've never been strictly monogamous; it's just become more socially acceptable in some places to have a liberal sex life so we hear more about it.

Just read Tess of the d'Urbervilles. It was definitely around back then, people just hid it better because of the attitude society had towards pre-marital sex, polygamy, whatever.

 

The US is full of mixed ethnicities because slave masters raping/sexing their slaves while married. Native women were imprisoned and beaten for sexual promiscuity because they werent as sexually repressive as the colonists. Even the women of European ancestry were tortured and killed for promiscuity. They sexually tortured "witches" and if they got a boner during it, they claimed to be sexually bewitched by the woman proving their claim she was an evil seductress. Why would people need to go to such extremes as to torture, mame, kill and imprison to force people to follow their own natural inclinations? They wouldnt. The only reason you have to go to such extremes is to get them to control their natural sexuality.

This whole idea of one man/one woman forever really just stems from social constructs and European repression. Other cultures no touched by colonialism dont have as much a problem.

Marriage to one person for your entire life is the new concept, not polyandry. And even as strictly as they have tried to impose it, it still is failing.

 

Now reread the first time you quoted me and disagreed. I said specificly I believed we were meant to have one partner at a time, but that doesnt mean for a life time.

Personally, I believe the "seven year itch" is real and is based on biology. It is healthier for any community to be as divers as possible. Doesnt mean we cant choose not to act on instincts, just means it is what it is. :smt102

 

You know, I don't disagree totally with the argument that we "naturally" are inclined to have multiple partners. Here's my take on it, I am not trying to preach at anyone, just showing how I believe you are right, yet "not" if you know what I mean.

"The whole earth is under the rule of the wicked one", scripture says, mankind now has a sin nature ever since Adam gave his rightful domain over to Satan in the garden. So it is "natural" for mankind to sin. Yes it is "natural" for us all to want multiple sex partners, but that was not Gods original plan nor is it best for us. It is, in my opinion, and I believe according to Scripture, wrong, and the only way to change that is to put God into the equation because we as "natural" humans are unable to change that on our own.

 

Personally one of my biggest complaints about the whitewashed bible is its whole "evil temptress" theme.

 

Shouldn't we keep the Biblical quotes in the religion section? Not all of us want to be preached to 24/7. I get enough of that from the Jehovah's, Ministers and what not who come to my door with their leaflets and books. It's a little boring.:smt015

 

Sarah, fly, etc. I agree with you.. I just stopped by to cheer you on a bit.

 

Yep, because women have been viewed as "evil temptresses" for millenia. Women are evil and men can do what they want. Whatever. :roll:

 

Fixed.

 

Like I've been saying, right-wing Christian wacko. Textbook case.

 

LOL!! Very true! Of course you should have taken the "Whatever" out. Now it looks like I don't like that!!!

 

Well I have asked about my comments regarding the Bible and my belief system and was encouraged to post them.

Since only 19% of Americans believe that the Bible is only a book of fables, I do see any harm in refuting that view here. Unless of course this web site is made up exclusively of those 19%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx