Are we naturally monogamous?
>>84847796Human nature isnt monogamous, no. Thats why society has to actively enforce monogamy for it to continue, once society has no sexual mores and allows free love monogamy collapses, as we are seeing now.
>>84847796Depends on the culture. Pair bonding started for humans around 3.5 to 4.4 million years ago. Normative monogamy as a widespread social institution emerged later, roughly 10,000 years ago during the Neolithic agricultural revolution, driven by the need to manage property inheritance. The modern concept of lifelong sexual monogamy became the dominant cultural norm in Western societies primarily within the last 1,000 to 2,000 years, largely influenced by religious and legal institutions. So, whether it's a natural behavior or put in place for the sake of whatever social issue, it's been around in various ways for a long ass time.
>>84847796Humans are polygynous. This is why human nature has to be suppressed.
>>84847826Are you telling that trying to create a space faring civilization is against human nature?
>>84847851It requires having control over human nature, for example society having strong sexual mores
>>84847796"Human nature" is a misnomer in the first place, there's no such thing. There are patterns of behaviour, and different humans have different inclinations. Some are more monogamous and some less so. These are not set in stone however and can change depending on conditions, like the environment or the person's will to change.
>>84847849what about pair-bonding though? that's been around for almost ever
>>84847898>"Human nature" is a misnomer in the first place, there's no such thingNo it's not. Behaviors universal to human beings exist as with all other species
If humans were naturally monogamous, then infidelity laws would not exist.
>>84847915As I said, there are patterns of behaviour, and different humans have different inclinations, that does not mean such a thing as "human nature" in the way people think of actually exists. Patterns of behaviour are habits, not immutable essences. These habits are subject to change, they are conditional.
>>84847968Proves the opposite thoughbeit. Laws exist for the minority of people, not the majority. If the majority of people did not care about fidelity no such laws exist. That's why now that people don't care about monogamy that these infidelity laws are being phased out.
>>84847796I am because even putting up with only one woman is still stressful as fuck.
>>84847912That was only long enough to raise kids, i.e. serial monogamy
