Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 45 total)
  • Are humans meant to be monogamous?
  • SST
    Free Member

    Or is it something unnatural that religion has forced onto us?

    Or is there a third option?

    grizzlygus
    Free Member

    For men yes – the more women they shag, the more likely their genes will survive. And only the genes actually matter.

    For women no – the more men they shag, the less likely their genes will survive as they need one permanent partner to look after them and their ‘young genes’.

    A man needs a faithful women to avoid him bringing up someone else’s genes.

    A woman needs an ’emotionally faithful’ man who is committed to looking after her and her genes – if he goes off shagging other women it’s not a big problem.

    .

    And there lies the problem 😕

    JulianA
    Free Member

    Monogamy works for me… Just MrsJulianA for me 😀

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    grizzlygus
    Free Member

    Sorry about getting the question ar5e about face – I read the question ‘are humans meant to be polygamous’

    Doh ! 🙄

    hora
    Free Member

    A man should always ensure his Goat is tethered.
    and
    Once a woman’s head has been turned, only a spade will turn it back..

    🙄

    JOKE

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    Reading into it what you want to see eh gg? 😉

    I’d agree that GG was right in general, but then I thought about the fact that family units with father figures etc tend to bring up more balanced kids (or so the research says, obviously there are exceptions) so that would suggest that a lionesque “pride” was actually the ultimate (and possibly original) solution – many women and men to provide family, protection, better chances of catching food, but the choice of women for men and one man always being about for the woman.

    pass, I’m no – whateverthatsciencewouldbeologist.

    hora
    Free Member

    1 in 5 children aren’t the children of the Father they thought they were……shoots down SST’s arguement. There will be a fair few STW’ers who are raising someone else’s children unwittingly.

    SST
    Free Member

    What argument was that?? I’m asking the question . . . .

    footflaps
    Full Member

    any reference for that random statistic hora?

    Stoner
    Free Member

    any reference for that random statistic hora?

    his two sisters and two brothers. They’re not ginger like him.

    SST
    Free Member

    Is Hora adopted? 😉

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    of course no reference to that we have not all been geneticaly tested it sounds like b0ll0cks to me and b0ll0cks is where I will stay
    If we were monogamous we would have teeny tiny ones say pea size if we were womanising philanderers they would be the size of footballs….make bike riding both difficult and dangerous.
    As they lie somewhere between we are probably monogamous …..unless we think we can get away with it …. both sides
    Intrestingly female humans have concealed ovulation (a baboons bum changes colour for example iirc) so we do not know when she is fertile so she tries to trick us back to get us to stay etc etc

    All this is just gentics which to a degree[lets have that argument another day] we can overcome (kinship, altruism etc)Personally I think we can be faithful if we wish to but probably 50/50 split on whether we do

    miketually
    Free Member

    1 in 5 children aren’t the children of the Father they thought they were

    I’m the eldest of five 😯

    Stoner
    Free Member

    If we were monogamous we would have teeny tiny ones [testicles] say pea size if we were womanising philanderers they would be the size of footballs….make bike riding both difficult and dangerous.

    hahaha.

    You do realise that each fully equipped chap is capable of deploying 30 millinon mini-me’s per money-shot?

    stratobiker
    Free Member

    It’s like GG said…….

    For a man, he cannot be 100% sure that the child is his.
    For a woman there can be no doubt.

    For a man, parental investment amounts to a few minutes.
    For a woman it is around 9 months.

    This is why, in order to maximise his genetic potential a man is driven to be polygamous.

    A woman tends to be monogamous.

    YoungDaveriley
    Free Member

    One in five?? Where’s that come from ? Steve”nowhere near funny” Wright in the afternoon??

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    You do realise that each fully equipped chap is capable of deploying 30 millinon mini-me’s per money-shot?

    yes of course i am aware that is the case. Are you aware that it is the number of times a day that you can do your 30 million squirt that would be affected by testicle size.

    Amasingly a 3 litre Camelbak holds more than a 2 litre one and apparently can fill more cups 😉

    footflaps
    Full Member

    apparently 1 in 5 random statistics quoted in internet forums are correct the other 4 out of 5 are just made up to substantiate the posters argument 😉

    Stoner
    Free Member

    I fail to see how having larger trouser plums would encourage a man to be any less monogamous or indeed more polygamous than 30million little opprortunities already permit? 🙂

    grizzlygus
    Free Member

    I fail to see how having larger trouser plums would encourage a man to be any less monogamous

    LOL ! Gotta be the best excuse ever ….. “Sorry luv, but it ain’t my fault – you see I’ve got these really large bollox. I do love you really

    LOL ! 😯

    zaskar
    Free Member

    I had this problem when trying to match bone marrow of two siblings and Mum & Dad…

    Non matching and let the Doctor ask about the milkman/postman

    DNA database ethics?

    Mono works if you love and respect each other.

    Besides Humans are at risk of stds. HIV, herpes,

    I reckon a mans DNA can circulate in woman for life as in her children-disease causing who knows?

    DNA testing-diy at home? its easy to do.

    Onzadog
    Free Member

    Now I’d heard that research into sperm found three types, defender, attachers and fertilisers. They say the reason for this is that there’s an expectation to find “foreign” sperm in there. Guess that means women are not meant to be monogamous.

    neverfastenuff
    Free Member

    why have we got 2 palms ?

    druidh
    Free Member

    Serial monogamy. Start a relationship, impregnate the woman, stay around long enough to make sure the offspring are off to a good start, then move on to another partner.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    stay around long enough to make sure the offspring are off to a good start

    are there standardised guidelines on that?

    Midnighthour
    Free Member

    Someone a while back did a study of ostriches. Some of them are consistantly faithful. Some of them consistanty ‘cheat’. The offspring of the faithfuls tend to be faithful themselves, the offspring of the ‘cheaters’ shag around. It is thought the mix of types must be sucessful and possibly helpful as neither group have died out and they co-exist within the same ‘herds’.

    I suspect humans are similar – some are destined to be happy with one mate, some stray.

    A male friend of mine says he would never cheat on his wife, as to betray her would be a huge betrayal of himself, so he would be letting both of them down. I guess he is one of the faithful ostriches. I admire his outlook.

    Moses
    Full Member

    Mammals that are faithful in pairs /monogamous tend to have both sexes the same size; those that don’t tend to have males much larger than the females (think deer, gorillas, where the males weigh twice as much as the females).

    In humans, males are on average about 15% larger than females, so we’re basically monogamous, but meant to mess around a bit.

    corroded
    Free Member

    I think the stat for raising children that aren’t yours is 1 in 10, not 1 in 5. Still…
    Out of my group of friends, equal numbers men and women, all the women have been unfaithful to a partner at some time. Only about about 30 percent of the men have cheated. The women, of course, tend to keep it much quieter.
    Personally, I don’t believe either gender is biologically designed to be monogamous.

    GNARGNAR
    Free Member

    Well are we not very adaptable? I’d say we are “designed” to be either or to maximise or chances of survival. Whether we are monogamous or not I’d say is probably down to how we may have lived thousands of years ago as opposed to how we do now. Or maybe that’s just kerazeee.

    wee-al
    Free Member

    C’mon guys your making me feel bad. It’s a struggle to get one woman, never mind getting some “strange”!

    samuri
    Free Member

    We clearly we’ve been too succesful so far. We’ve overpopulated our planet massively by our behaviour. We need a genetic upgrade to refine the process. We should start by identifying superior specimens, like me, and only breed them with equally superior specimens, like Angelina Jolie, quite a few times I should imagine. I’d want paying for it obviously.

    chewkw
    Free Member

    It’s all in the head.

    😆

    p/s: the one with a brain not the other one between the legs.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    I fail to see how having larger trouser plums would encourage a man to be any less monogamous or indeed more polygamous than 30million little opprortunities already permit?

    The size of the plums does not control the behaviour it only allows you to do it… in the same way a s legs allow you to pedal a bike … it does not mean you have to BUT it does mean you can if you want to.

    hora
    Free Member

    Everytime I think of the word monogamous I think of wood. Is that Freudian?

    donald
    Free Member

    Read this book

    Nick
    Full Member

    this has the makings of a totally classic thread.

    I’d agree that GG was right in general, but then I thought about the fact that family units with father figures etc tend to bring up more balanced kids

    Is this relevant? I mean our view of what is balanced is totally driven by the society we have contructed, if society collapsed then we would still reproduce.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    Is this relevant?

    I believe it is – being socially balanced (in whatever the current view of society is) allows progression within that society. It may not be physical evolution, but it is mental evolution – adapting to survive in your environment. Without father figures to give the male side of the family it makes the woman work harder to be all possible roles (and means she is less likely to have more kids as rearing one is twice the load), and ultimately that leads to kids without the influence of the male side of the species. This may not be overly detrimental to female kids, but I think in general kids need experience of both sexes points of view and methods of interaction in order to understand how people are as a whole. Naturally some cope just fine, but there’s reasonable evidence to show kids without a father figure do not progress as well in life, do not reach their potential. If any animal doesnt reach it’s potential it is not adapting to its environment very well. Obviously this is secondary to physical adaptations (such as the fact that people tend to pick more symmetrical faced partners as they’re genetically better and women tend to pick more masculine men during their most fertile time of the month) which provide physical improvement feedback to the species.

    Trimix
    Free Member

    Maybe the muslims have it right. More shags, but all in the family.

    Olly
    Free Member

    i was wondering about this earlier today :s
    odd that, perhaps im on a STW super natural wavelength…. or perhaps not.

    i myself am a serial monogamyst.

    I wouldnt ever cheat on someone. i like to think its not in my genes (though my old man would indicate otherwise apparently) but having been cheated on and ditched for someone else (who always ends up being a **** to the other party involved) 3 times, i find it a bit easier not to loose sleep over it, and move on to the next fully commited relationship :s
    easy come easy go,nothing else to do but try ones hardest and be the best a person can be…

    irritating thing is, 2 of the 3 have, having cheated and ditched me, come back and beg for forgiveness, and cant see how i can be “so heartless”

    errrrrr. Spade please hora

    anyhoo, humans arnt swans, but then again they arnt slutty sparrows.
    ostriches, yes we are ostriches.
    no design, just personal preference….

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 45 total)

The topic ‘Are humans meant to be monogamous?’ is closed to new replies.