Face it: Monogamy is unnatural
It’s also important to look at human longevity with respect to cultural expectations of monogamy.
As recent as over 100 years ago, it was far more likely that an individual would lose his or her spouse at a young age. Remarriage by widows and widowers — also known as serial monogamy — was one way for humans to fulfill the need for sexual variety.
Today, the median age for first marriages is 28 for men and 26 for women. Disease is far less likely to kill someone in their prime and life expectancy hovers in the late 70s.
Because fidelity is considered the barometer of a successful marriage, this means that a person is theoretically expected to have one sexual partner for about 50 years.
This seems like a lot to expect of any human being — even the most honorable, ethical and moral.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Isn’t monogamy practiced by the majority of humans worldwide? It’s also a practice that arose independently in cultures across the globe. Given the resources necessary to raise human children it seems pretty obvious we’d pair up for long period of time.
Why is human behavior outside of primitive cultures considered unnatural anyway? Last I checked we are still animals and part of nature.
jhffmn on June 24, 2013 at 1:21 AM
Then why would they ever get divorced idiot. You made a stupid point then. If your parents were candidates for divorce then you’d be a loser-adult-child to wish they stayed together.
Again, how old are you?
Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Then why would they ever get divorced idiot?
Capitalist Hog on June 24, 2013 at 1:31 AM
You first.
(Starts Sundial #15,503)
Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2013 at 1:33 AM
Top o’ the mornin’ to ya!
J-
Del Dolemonte on June 24, 2013 at 1:35 AM
Having more than one woman at the same time is burdensome. They will either be at war with each other or conspire together. Either way it requires too much attention. Having for than one woman serially tends to dilute wealth and property. If the primary concern is having one sexual partner over an extended period then on has deeper problems of identity and values and is probably unfit for marriage.
claudius on June 24, 2013 at 1:36 AM
Marcus, I often don’t agree with you but don’t try to reason with a jackass.
arnold ziffel on June 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM
This is called imposing your values on the test subject. Since when has sexual variety been a “need.” For the purposes of procreation we can assume there is a drive for sexual contact, but the idea that humans are so picky they won’t go back to whatever they already have if it remains available is absurd.
BKennedy on June 24, 2013 at 5:41 AM
In other words, cheating on your mate means that you are no better than a wild beast.
kregg on June 24, 2013 at 5:46 AM
Meghan Laslocky–the kind of person even shallow people think is shallow.
vityas on June 24, 2013 at 6:35 AM
Communism/Socialism/Fascism is unnatural too. But for centuries we’ve seen different versions imposed on people.
ProfShadow on June 24, 2013 at 6:46 AM
True love by its very nature does not need to be urged to make eternal promises, it seeks to make them. –CS Lewis, paraphrased
inviolet on June 24, 2013 at 6:56 AM
lol
Meghan is a rationalizing dim bulb who doesn’t understand that not everyone has the same problems with intimacy & commitment she does.
Reading the kind of BS people like her spew about the “true” nature of monogamy always makes me laugh! 😆
Anti-Control on June 24, 2013 at 7:12 AM
Let’s face it, discipline is unnatural.
boone on June 24, 2013 at 7:24 AM
Yes. Having sex with dozens of partners is only natural. Syphilis and gonorrhea developing resistance to antibiotics is also natural. So let’s stop it with the nature worship, already.
bitsy on June 24, 2013 at 7:27 AM
It feels natural to me. Almost 22 years married faithfully to the most wonderful man in the world. He doesn’t seem to mind it either.
This type of article is usually a rationalization for some mistake or some lifestyle someone else is living. “See I can cheat, play around, swing etc. because monogamy isn’t natural. I am the normal one, not all you monogamous people.”
No, monogamy is quite natural; it just isn’t instant gratification.
melle1228 on June 24, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Polygamy was a good and necessary idea at the time when men marched off to fight bloody wars and most did not return. Today, it is dangerous because you don’t want to have a lot of young men running around with no prospects for marriage.
Kafir on June 24, 2013 at 8:07 AM
One of the things that brings order to society is the acknowledgement of paternity. The reason our society has monogamy as an ideal is because that is the situation best made for ensuring the paternity of all children born into that union. No doubts about new babies she bears, no babies from him by ladies on the side. This ensures the maximum parental investment in every child.
Sekhmet on June 24, 2013 at 8:08 AM
Homosexuality is also unnatural, but that doesn’t fit the leftist’s degenerate agenda, so we can’t use it.
tommytom02 on June 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Over/under on how many children Capitalist Hog has had aborted or dumped?
northdallasthirty on June 24, 2013 at 8:42 AM
The entertaining thing about these “animals do it” argument is that they’re always being made by the same liberals who piously exhort people to rise above their animal natures and not overeat, etc.
Melle pretty much has it nailed. The other person who preaches this “monogamy is awful” crapola is Obama “marriage advisor” Dan Savage, and it’s because he needs everyone else to be abnormal so he isn’t.
northdallasthirty on June 24, 2013 at 8:47 AM
More encouragement for taking the easy lazy path of life. Just what is worth cultivating and doing correctly anymore?
Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Who wants to bet that’s what Mommy and Daddy Hog told little Capitalist?
northdallasthirty on June 24, 2013 at 8:53 AM
The War on Monogamy. Don’t give this person any more free promotion. This comes from being told that gay and lesbian marriage is not natural, there is no procreative purpose in gay marriage and if they procreate without marriage to a hetero partner, that is not natural too. Not that others are not out there meddling with nature to get kids from multiple eggs and laboratory science, but gay marriage has no natural purpose and this is the kind of thinking that is retaliation against average normal people who see no purpose for gay marriage. The same people who see no reason for women to get married to the fathers of their children for a legitimate lifestyle (here I mean legally ordered,) have some hurt or other and want to spoil marriage for everyone else.
Monogamy is not marriage, but it is a stick this woman wants to beat marriage with. It is funny that in a day where elites are espousing that women AND MEN have only one child for a myriad of reasons, monogamy is not given as one of the best tools to insure that the child is the center of their humanist universe. Excuses need to be made why inclinations regarding sex need to over rule rational thought.
Fleuries on June 24, 2013 at 8:58 AM
Lets also not forget that far more heterosexual marriages have experienced infidelity and not gotten divorced. Women and men (though more often women) forgive their partners or understand that their partners have different sexual needs than them. It is just a shame we can not be honest about this.
libfreeordie on June 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM
Yes, let’s please argue morality based on the behavior of animals.
First old-fashioned notion we can scratch off the list: murder. Rape will go by mid-morning, and the notion of private property, and therefore theft, by lunch. It’s going to be a productive day!
TexasDan on June 24, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Also, this whole thing rises or collapses on the definition of the word “need.” I need oxygen. I need water. I don’t “need” to get my rocks off.
TexasDan on June 24, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Yet forgiveness is not “natural” either, given the standards which have been tossed around on this thread and in the article.
tommyboy on June 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Except that far more have NOT experienced infidelity and not gotten divorced. Infidelity is the primary reason for divorce. Always has been.
The “Far More” you are looking for is “Far more heterosexual marriages have never experienced infidelity when compared to homosexual, polyamorous, or polygamous relationships.”
Face it; Heterosexual monogamous relationships that result in marriage are the best, most vauable and most socially useful kind of relationship. No other even comes close. 10,000 years of human civilization has borne that out. No need to waste time experimenting with dead-ends.
wearyman on June 24, 2013 at 9:16 AM
Given the increasing number of sexually transmitted diseases infecting the population — some, like AIDS, which are eventually fatal and others, like herpes, which are permanent — I think it would be beneficial, from an evolutionary standpoint, to have one healthy, monogamous partner.
And expressing those “different sexual needs” to ones partner isn’t a possibility why?
I call bullcrap. My dog eats his own vomit once in a while, does that mean the next time I have the flu I should, too? Basing our behavior on what animals do is bad science and even worse socio-political commentary.
englishqueen01 on June 24, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Yeah, let’s be honest that since traditional marriage has been the norm for thousands of years with the vast majority of the all populations having participated that any stupid thing you want to make a statistic is going have happened overwhelmingly within it’s perimeters. Your are so enlightening and cogent.
Cindy Munford on June 24, 2013 at 9:18 AM
Sin – the gold in currency for the left.
williampeck1958 on June 24, 2013 at 9:24 AM
When considering how many people are perfectly happy with monogamy & able to make it work w/o flaw, where is the real dishonesty about this coming from, hmmmmmm?
Some people are just too dumb to be able to figure out that just because they themselves can’t hack a monogamous commitment doesn’t mean everyone else is as inept at it…
Anti-Control on June 24, 2013 at 9:28 AM
My parents were married 61 years. My dad died and then my mom died 4 days later from a broken heart.
davidk on June 24, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Now we know its need for attention.
I guess we should feel sorry for it.
Nah. Didn’t think so.
davidk on June 24, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Those are the real love stories.
melle1228 on June 24, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Best comment from the article:
cptacek on June 24, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Far more than what?
I suppose you have statistics to back your claim?
davidk on June 24, 2013 at 9:55 AM
What is it with these leftists that they want to define everything by their sex lives? Not to mention, viewing everything through a very selfish lens that does not concern itself with anyone else.
This author’s basic argument for why we shouldn’t be monogamous is that the sex would get boring. Putting that aside for the moment — even though I don’t believe it to be true — who cares? Is “sexual variety” really such an important goal in human life that it trumps all of the benefits to one’s family, not to mention society as a whole, that come from a monogamous marriage? Not to mention that I would argue the human need for stable companionship is far greater than the need for “fun” sex.
But, then again, I’m not a liberal and I suspect that for many of them, sex is about all they have to cling to.
Shump on June 24, 2013 at 9:56 AM
And it is one of only two reasons given in Scripture under which God allows divorce. (Note: “allows” not requires.)
davidk on June 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM
Amen brother, or sister as the case may be.
The only thing which could separate my parents was mortality and I don’t think that succeeded either. Though they married later in life than most those 42 years together was the perfect match.
Something Meghan wouldn’t understand as she chases shallow, transient pleasure instead of meaning in her life.
viking01 on June 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM
What social conservative looks to the animal kingdom to show homosexuality is unnatural? Link please?
cptacek on June 24, 2013 at 10:01 AM
Marriage is the chief cause of divorce.
bgibbs1000 on June 24, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Don’t forget infrequent.
Yes, I went there.
roy_batty on June 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Will Meghan’s next article be about, er, power tools?
Are batteries unnatural? Meghan elaborates… on the next Jerry Springer…
viking01 on June 24, 2013 at 10:18 AM
printed without comment
roy_batty on June 24, 2013 at 10:28 AM
The only time I’ve ever heard a social conservative mention this is when, like the article we’re discussing, the left attempts to say homosexuality is natural because x number of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. And in those instances, the response is “Just because animals do it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.”
englishqueen01 on June 24, 2013 at 10:36 AM
I guess libturd is not going to answer the challenges to its assertions.
davidk on June 24, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2