OFFLINE

Is it possible that human sexual attraction and their pair bonding behavior is only supposed to draw a man and a woman together just long enough to raise a child together?

OFFLINE

Sure, it's possible.  I think the idea that it's just lust is probably more likely.  Sometimes a person just wants to get laid.   ... and you meet someone and think they are hot and they think the same ... happens.

OFFLINE

Just long enough to raise a child? That's at least 18 years so how is that short term? I'm wondering if the question actually has to do with monogamy or not, which would be a whole different topic.

OFFLINE

Hi Donna. I considered that as I phrased the question. But I opted with short-term thinking a person lives into their 70s. When I divorced, the relationship was 13 years and it sure seemed long(as hell)-term to me. In a sense, I think monogamy plays a part in it but maybe it gets semantic. If we take out the whole man-made concept of "Marriage", and one partner in a relationship behaves non-monogamously, then is it really a 'relationship' per se, or is that really just a partnership?

Maybe more simply, are human beings 'designed' (that is if we're actually a 'design' by some higher power/consciousness/God) to experience relationships ONLY long enough to mutually raise their offspring together?

OFFLINE

it depends on if you ask a man or a woman. i'm convinced that men just aren't hardwired for lifelong monogamous pairings. we certainly can do it, and there are rewards to it, but absent the social stigmas of cheating and the expectation to remain monogamous, i think the male of the species is more inclined to "spread his seed" around a bit. i think that as our society sprang up, monogamous relationships were fostered as a means of preventing conflict, as is seen in the animal world. it kept men from having to compete for breeding females.

from a female perspective, it makes sense to try to keep a mate devoted strictly to you. it meant help with rearing the children, and ensured that your provider (which, as hunters, the men were) wasn't dividing his attention and the spoils of the hunt with other females. but it also makes sense for our male ancestors, to ensure the legitimacy of his children.

this may sound incredibly sexist in today's terms, but mind you i'm referring to our primitive days, and this view is shared by a lot of anthropologists.

what we consider to be "monogamy" is a combination of social and sexual monogamy. but there is also serial monogamy, meaning that a pair mates exclusively for a time, but not for life. i think that in our natural state, we may be social monogamous, but not necessarily sexually monogamous. meaning, we form pairs to mate and raise children together, but we still engage in extra-pair copulation. full monogamy (what we would consider monogamous marriage) is quite rare among non-human primates, and i suspect that prior to social institutions outside of a group setting, this too was likely our arrangement.

OFFLINE

Anything can be long term....if you are BOTH in it for that.... most men are NOT in it for long term.... they just want the "instant" satisfaction...then they're off to their next adventure.  Funny how most women are "happy" with their lives....while men don't seem to be quite so happy... hmmmmmmm

OFFLINE

I have always had a genuine disinterest in procreating. The idea of a man's primitive, visceral, inherent, or lustful urge to 'spread his seed' has never resonated with me. I suspect that some guys feel this though. I also suspect other guys hide behind it as a means of rationalizing their non-monogamy. Also, I think many people find this idea to be a good example of someone simply being immature, irresponsible, careless, inconsiderate, etc.

I think this is one of countless things where lumping every male into one category is a disregard for truth. And I very much agree with Mary that long-term can happen if BOTH partners are in it for that. And combination with love, commitment, compatibility, and a mutual desire to grow, this long-term thing can happen very much in loving harmony.

Here's a (just say'n) point. One guy I worked with several years ago argued vehemently that monogamy was BS. And when I compared this individual to Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, there was a complete or 'cut' resemblance. But I don't say this to suggest that every person who exists in disbelief of non-monogamy also exists without conscience, I'm simply just say'n...

OFFLINE

but as products of our environment, you must ask, do we see promiscuity as being immature, irresponsible, careless, inconsiderate, etc, because that is what our current social construct says, or because it is true? mind you, ours isn't the only culture in the world, and there are very many with different standards than ours has. ones that feature polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, etc, all with different definitions of what is and isn't taboo. so just as we view our morals as THE standard, so do they with theirs.

personally, i'm a product of my environment, so i am monogamous, but i also recognize that monogamy might not be the natural way, simply because it is predominant in this culture, at this time.

OFFLINE

I think the "Product Of Our Environment" idea only holds just so much water unless we get semantic or vacillate with it. Does a victim of childhood sexual abuse go on to later victimize children? Yes, some do. But certainly not all. Does a child of two very non-monogamous parents go on to be adulterous themselves? Again, some do and some don't. Suggesting we're all products of our environment can suggest an untruthful categorizing of people. Rather, I think we're all the ongoing result of our own unique experiences.

Regarding the idea of non-monogamy being a negative or bad thing, I think we only need to consult with those who've been hurt by it. And if you were to look at other non-monogamous behavior, such as polygamy, how much silent conflict actually exists between the various partners, and how much does the center person get off on that dysfunction?

OFFLINE

As mentioned above in my opinion we are for special propagation genetically disposed to serial monagamy, theocratic and through that social mores have taught us as a whole to stay our wanderlust and combat hedonic adaptation with "settling".

To assist nature through evolution and few fortutitous medicinal finds, thereby creating longevity, has taught us despite the nutural fight/flight response to stay whilst the products of our fluid exchange drain us of our finances resources strength and hope, and that doesn't ensure inheritance of the familial fortune, attack us with an even more dangerous weapon - grandchildren.

It does boil down to hedonic adaptation though, basically if you don't do you share in keeping it interesting the other party does tend to wander off down a different path, which of course is entirely their fault ????

Life should have an element of fun in it, should'nt it, or what's the point, and that's what I think should be on the first rung of Maslows little pyramid, fun, laughter, smiling and the it's the absence of it that causes us to seek it togther or apart.

There is more, but it's wednesday - fun night ;-)  

OFFLINE

   biting tongue counting to ten  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Sherry Holiday:
   biting tongue counting to ten  

Lol, you went to 13 didn't ya

OFFLINE

still counting ... thank you very much  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Sherry Holiday:
still counting ... thank you very much  

Fingers and Toes
Ears and Nose
Only think left is
Asses and Elbows

OFFLINE

Actually I am counting my female professional Friends and clients that are  "just aren't hardwired for lifelong monogamous pairings" either and are raising their children as single parents.  They date men but rarely date one longer enough to meet their children.