Is human monogamy a social construct and humans aren't really monogamous biologically speaking?

No, it exists in nature. Most great apes closely related to us are monogamous and based on how long it takes for humans to mature, monogamous relationships make the most sense. Even back in the stone age, most men and women could only take care of more kids if they existed in a tribe and tribes don't work well if people keep stealing each others wives and husbands.

You re right with that but imagine the standards we‘d have today if we didn‘t fuck with that selectioning process...
maybe the only solution is to do it like animal packs do. The beta males get thrust out of the tribe. They can come back and try to claim their place as the alpha male every day, but other than that they can stay the fuck away.

males and females suffered diferent evolutionary paths.

women were selected because of their physical looks.
males were selected because of their capability to be useful to their comunity.

This generally explains why women are prettier looking on average and why males usually dominate top tier positions.

humans are hypergamous.
In DNA studies 8000 years ago, only one male reproduced for every 17 woman.

No.

Kill your self degenerate

As if the selection process only focused on physical aspects...
I‘m disappointed in you, user.

uglier people are generally less smart than good looking people.

(You)

There's literal proof that humans weren't monogamous as a species till recently (up to 10k years ago).
Many more women than men reproduced, which wouldn't happen if we were monogamous.
Monogamy is a social construct. Not a bad one, but it is entirely a social construct.

That‘s why i said „as if it was the only focus“.
Ofc it is one. It‘s no secret that humans like symmetrical facial structures because it‘s a sign of less health issue invested dna. It‘s also no secret that the preferred bodily structure is based on signs of fertility, youth and health.
But just because you‘re a prettyboi doesn‘t put you on top of the hierarchy. You definitely need other traits to get there, so looks is by no means everything.

people are generally friendlier and people think a hot looking male is from a higher social class and higher earner than an average male.

looks help a shit ton.
you even make 20% more than an average male if you're good looking, and takes three times less effort to be hired.

As i already said, that‘s because good looks do indicate superior dna. Ofc those get more support, because those are the ones worth preserving.

>Many more women than men reproduced
Because more men died on average from hunting, group conflicts, etc. As well as men are more likely to die from a variety of health related issues which lowers the chance to reproduce. This also doesn't consider if a man took care of more than one wife or if she had a kid and died which was highly likely or he left his family to start another one.

So monogamy didn't exist.

It's also what drives society forward, the ability for a man to succeed as something other than an angry and unlearned brute.

Why is the primal way of being better? No redemption, no warmth, no orthodoxies. It's as natural as your shit, but you flush your shit away. You shave and cut the dead proteins that grow from you.
You are happy when you are groomed, healthy, and in love. A world where uncaring force rules is terrible.

Where did I say any of that? Like I said:
>This also doesn't consider if a man took care of more than one wife or if she had a kid and died which was highly likely or he left his family to start another one.
Monogamy is literally 1 partner per family until it ends. Divorce and Widowing are aspects of this and your argument doesn't include whether these things happened to either the women or men and how it changed the reproduction rate.

that's not what the DNA studies shows.

17 women per one male.

Monogamy is one partner per life.
You can have serial monogamy (one partner till it lasts). You can have polygamy (which is multiple partner at the same time).
But humans aren't monogamist. They're serial monogamist at best, and kind of cheaters in reality.

Sure, the concept of divorce was already in place 10k years and it‘s also obvious that being a widow suddenly chances the dna of your kids. Keep dreaming. If it wasn‘t for the social construct of monogamy, you wouldn‘t even exist.

It's to stop the beta uprising. A handful of chads can't stop a mob of incels.

most civilizations were polygamous (see the bible).

name a civilized country where polygamy is acceptable.

pretty much any historical empire had harems user, even europeans.

Name a civilized country where society isn‘t fucked beyond repair

Honestly we’re likely closer to how birds reproduce, meaning we’re socially monogamous but promiscouous otherwise and my main evidence for that is parental care. You inherently need some form of parental care to raise your child to reproductive age, it’s going to take both parties to do that. There’s nothing functionally that stops a male though from continuing to reproduce, or a woman from having another child with another man. Then again you could consider how social we are and figure that because we work and live in groups there was likely maternal care and nurses for the whole group, so maybe there’s more chips on the polygamous side of things.

Claiming that we’re entirely monogamous is kinda silly. Our genitals work after having children and although women have a limited number of eggs, it’s not like you have one brood and you’re set for life. You could theoretically have many kids for a long time.

That doesn't mean it is natural.

>there was likely maternal care and nurses for the whole group
It‘s this

It‘s not natural for men and women to try and stay a „couple“ when there‘s little kids.
Women only want sex when the time is right to procreate (we‘re talking about mentally sane women here, not depraved attention whores on bc). If they still have a small child, their libido is shut down for obvious reasons and if they’re still breastfeeding, healthy females can’t conceive another child. If a man becomes a father, that has zero influence on his libido. Now society is so fucking cruel to incarcerate those women who‘s libido is shut down with those equally poor men who want to keep spreading their seed but aren‘t morally allowed. Both suffer. Because women can only be in one of two modes (during their fertile years): motherhood or sexual partner. Both is not possible in sane females that don‘t bend to the social expectations. Basically, women who have sex with their partner despite having little kids rape themselves to keep their men somewhat content.
It would be so much less pressure on both of them if the females could focus entirely on raising their offspring together with all the other females of the group and the males could go and keep reproducing. Imagine the weight that would be lifted from human‘s shoulders if religion didn‘t fuck shit up like that.

Divource or abandoning a family would result in less chances for more than 1 guy to reproduce resulting in 1 man and 2 women reproducing despite the relationship being non-polygamous. Widowing would also result in this. Add in more death on the mens side and child birth resulting in death some if the time and you end up with the same numbers. You want to disprove this, give me a paper or data.

But it does lower his libido, men when they see a small child experience a decrease in testosterone.

Monogamy means you have one partner your entire life.
Your thing isn't monogamy.

monogamous animals don't get new partners after their partner died.

Checked.

But not permanently. It might be a way nature made sure the alpha male didn‘t throw the annoying brats on the wall.
Test has other functions than strictly sexual ones.

>historic
so do we go back to the middle ages or stone age? would that be a good idea? you can have hedonism or a functional society. if you want to fuck dirty women and live in a mud hut sure.

I've probably sucked like 14 dicks by now so I would say yes

Computers and smartphones aren't natural. Medicine isn't natural. Are you going to give those up too? Utterly retarded.

Attached: 4L_NIIKoUky.jpg (1024x1024, 83K)

So what? The question was whether it is natural or not, not whether it is beneficial or not.
Monogamy is a social construct and it isn't natural.

you can't simply tell women to be monogamous if biologically is unnatural for us.

It's biologically wrong for you to use birth control so stop that too.

The biology suggests that we are monogamous for the most part. Women's ovulation is hidden, not just to the man but to the woman as well. So we aren't like animals that just present themselves and wait for the males to come impregnate them. Women need to have the man around them so that when it's time, it will happen. No we are not 100% monogamous, meaning you can have different partners throughout your life. That gets twisted into meaning that adultery is no big deal, which is of course ridiculous.

If we were truly polygamous, then we wouldn't get jealous of our partner being with others, but we all do. Except fetishists of course.

That's not true. That period of time you are talking about, where 1/17 of men reproduced, was very short. Not a significant part of history. However, for most of history 1/2 men reproduced. I'd wager that is mostly because men die off in droves in wars before they get a chance. People are a little bit polygamous, but mostly monogamous. The monogamy part is definitely reinforced by society, (because without it we are screwed), but it's not entirely made up.

nah. we wuz meant to live in harems.

Attached: 1554920412539.jpg (480x483, 36K)

women are only attracted to top 10% of males.

we're not polygamous but hypergamous.

Even if that is true. Do you really want to go back to what is 'biologically natural'? You do know how women were treated before we built a civilization to protect you, right? Men will be just fine if we throw out societies morals and customs. It's women that should want to maintain civilization at all costs, unless you want to go back to the days of endless rape and oppression. The fact is, if most men are not giving a shot at mating, they aren't going to sit around and take it for very long.

We aren't monogamous because we have different partner through life.
We're not that good at sticking to serial monogamy either, since around 40% of people cheat.

The fact of feeling jealousy or not doesn't mean anything, and it could very well be a cultural thing.

>However, for most of history 1/2 men reproduced
No. 1 men every 2 women reproduced. It's different. Few men reproduced with more than one partner. Which isn't, obviously, compatible with monogamy.
Even if men died before they got a chance, the men who stayed alive still were polygamous.

Monogamy is reinforced by society because it is convenient for society. It's not how we naturally are.

We do have different partners but for most of life we stay with one.
>40% of people cheat.
It's strange that you think jealousy is a cultural thing but cheating isn't. There are all kinds of reasons why someone might cheat. Just because a lot of people end up with the wrong partner, doesn't mean we aren't supposed to have one. Again, the difference between men and women reproducing could be the result of many factors. Young men dieing in wars for all of history, men being the ones doing all of the dangerous work. You get a lot of dead men that never got a chance to reproduce.

What is 'natural' by the way? Do you mean primitive? Are we going back to the birth of the modern man or before? Are you saying that if we removed all human accomplishment from the earth, wiped everyone's memories, and plopped them down in the jungle, they would be polygamous? I don't think so, I think our natural state is to create civilizations, and to do that monogamy is a requirement.

>We do have different partners but for most of life we stay with one.
So we're not a monogamous species. Monogamous species have one lifetime partner.
And most people do not stay with one - 50% of people divorce, cheating is a big deal.

>It's strange that you think jealousy is a cultural thing but cheating isn't.
Having sex with people you're attracted to is biological. Jealousy might be a cultural thing thing, there's no proof it is biological.

>the difference between men and women reproducing could be the result of many factors.
If we were a monogamous species, there wouldn't be any difference.
In a monogamous society, if there are 100 men and 100 women, and 60 men die, then 40 men and 40 women reproduce. Not 40 men and 80 women.

>What is 'natural' by the way?
As we were before we started developing a civilization

> I think our natural state is to create civilizations, and to do that monogamy is a requirement.
No, our natural state is to be naked apes. We'd go back to building civilizations, and monogamy would come back, but that isn't the natural state for humans. We've been a polygamous society for most of our history.

if humans were monogamous they wouldn't cheat or divorce.

I say we were mostly monogamous. It's misleading to say we are polygamous just because people get remarried or change partners. Polygamy implies zero exclusive relationships, just bonobo orgies. So it's true we aren't monogamous, but we definitely aren't polygamous either. We are somewhere in between leading towards monogamous. Our biology suggests monogamy by the way.
Just watch this guy talk for awhile starting at 20 minutes
youtu.be/7Dtv8ibI1vk

>No proof jealousy is biological
It's a very strong emotional response that people have even when society says they shouldn't. I'm pretty sure that's biological, not a social construct.

Read what I wrote

Monogamy is both biological and a social construct, like religion or anything else.

Good relationships are great and monogamous, most people are unhappy little shits so they don’t think monogamy is valid or good relationships exist.

Most humans societies in history weren't monogamous.

Which ones?

Arabs, chinese, I think japanese, mongols, african societies, amerindians had harems.

of course most of the time only the richer guys had harems, but still, it wasn't uncommon for some guys to have hundred of childrens.

Gengis khan had more than 1k kids.

I say that we aren't either. I'd say that we were definitely mostly polygamous at the beginning of society (so naturally we have a tendency towards polygamy, as a species), and now we're neither.
There's proof in our DNA that we originated as polygamous societies, in our biology (sexual dimorphism for example is a big sign of a non-monogamous society), and even in our history (around 80% of primitive society weren't monogamous from our understanding).
Mostly monogamous would mean that most people stick to the first partner they meet for their whole life, and there are rare exceptions to this practice. As a society, we enforce monogamy because it is convenient to us. We fail majestically at sticking to the first person we meet, in most cases. We definitely have polygamous desires. If we were monogamous, it wouldn't be the case.
We're not a polygamous society, but we're definitely not monogamous either.

>It's a very strong emotional response that people have even when society says they shouldn't.
Society literally teaches you from the get go that you need to find a partner and stick with them. A partner that leaves you will give you a strong emotional response.
Not biological.

>there's no proof jealousy is biological
Yeah, like culture could create a distinct emotion. If you can feel an emotion it's biological. You can at most say that culture influences the reasons why you're feeling said emotion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealousy
>Jealousy is a typical experience in human relationships, and it has been observed in infants as young as five months

I'm always impressed by how confident of the smell of their own farts people here seem when spewing shit that could be easily disproved with a google search.

You’re talking like 1-2% of the population who are all sociopaths anyway, almost everyone is monogamous. People without mental issues are monogamous.

this shit only happens in judeocristians societies, mainly european.

is not the norm on non western cultures.

Some societies even have arranged marries today, like india.

I don't think african countries, muslim nations and india, are like 1% of the population retard.

> You can at most say that culture influences the reasons why you're feeling said emotion.
I obviously meant jealousy for a partner not being biological, not jealousy itself. People feel jealousy for their parents or for friends.

You don't get to choose your partner in muslim and indian countries.

some tribes are matriarchal and woman have multiple male partners.

I mean, muslims are polygamous. So are some african tribes. I don't think you picked a good example.

the western concept of love is a hollywood fantasy to sell romance books and romance novels to bored housewifes about some Chad who fucks a self insert.

It was invented in the reinassance and popularized by Shakespeare.

It's 100% cultural and not biological.
It doesn't even exist in places like africa or India where people usually look down on getting a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Love does exist.
The fact that you don't get married out of love doesn't mean that love doesn't exist.

Well we can agree to disagree on most of it. I'm not convinced that polygamy is any more natural then monogamy. None of those polygamist cultures lasted, so why are we more successful when we are going against our 'natural state'. That doesn't make any sense to me.

As for jealousy. Why then do people get jealous about people who they are not mating with? Why do people think about their ex for years and years? A polygamous animal would only care about their partner in the moment and then move on to the next one.

Arranged marriage is still monogamous dipshit.

In India, you’re talking maybe 5% of the population.

Polygamy is actually what is socially enforced, and it works for sociopaths. Sociopaths have no problem with polygamy because of their own mental issues.

Normal people that want a healthy relationship are monogamous.

So why is everything western a 'social construct' and other cultures customs are not? Africa has no 'social constructs'?

And the reason why you can see polygamy is the social construct is that it happens only in dumbfuck socially conservative societies.

When women have more freedom they don’t choose polygamy, they want monogamy.

>why are we more successful when we are going against our 'natural state'.
I mean, natural doesn't mean good. Living without vaccines is natural, I'm glad I can get vaccinated.
I'm arguing that poligamy is natural, not that it is the right choice for western civilisation.

Monogamy became important at the same time as virginity became important, and it exists because it allows inheritance. People are more likely to work hard if their bloodline has benefit from it.
Plus poligamy only works in small groups, in a more large and complex society for things to work you need monogamy.

It doesn't mean it is natural.

That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You think love doesn’t exist?

Yeah, people feel jealousy for a bunch of things, all for the same reason. They feel like that something can be taken away from them. It's all biological. The distinction between jealousy for a partner or for a friend/parent is irrelevant.

I'm not saying sexual jealousy proves we're monogamous, btw. This whole debate is retarded, mating is obviously very flexible for us, so we're neither. Or you can say we're somewhere in the middle, however you want to put it. We have biological incentives for sticking to a partner AND for looking for multiple ones. They're just triggered in different circumstances.

monogamy isn't seen in nature but either is animals worshipping a deity. we have evolved to have different traits because we are more intelligent than animals

Ok well then 'natural' just means 'shit we used to do when we didn't know any better'.

>monogamy isn't seen in nature
yes it is.

100% correct

Yes, even our reproductive systems say so.

We're both. Evolution isn't exact. It does what work.

There are obvious advantages to spreading the seed, and there are advantages to monogamy.

We have an insatiable sex drive with a desire to have a main mate with whom we raise kids while controlling them and preventing then from fucking other people while we ourselves try to fuck other people..

Nature isn't nice. It doesn't care about feelings. Just babies.

On that note it also a biological instinct to punch your boss in the fact when hes being a dick but we've agreed as a cultured species that's not cool, the same way we've agreed that having a partner you love and not destroying their trust and emotions by cheating on them also isn't cool.

Capiche?

>Ok well then 'natural' just means 'shit we used to do when we didn't know any better'.
It means natural.
If the question is "Is human monogamy a social construct and humans aren't really monogamous biologically speaking?" then the answer is yes. The social construct is there because it is mostly beneficial for sosciety.

This. These people arguing about polygamy being 'natural' are not your friends. They want to drag you down to base level. They want you stupid, poor, in the dirt fucking and killing each other like chimps. Why do we enforce monogamy? Because we choose too. We choose to be better then our primitive origins. We are a species who chose to get ourselves out of the muck and build something. Now they are assaulting our morals, our spirituality, they want us to destroy everything that separates us from wild animals. Please don't listen to them.

You're right, the instincts tell us we want more then just one partner. But monogamy makes total sense in another way. If you just pump kids into women, then fuck off and let them take care of the upbringing and providing then your offspring will be "weaker" in a sense. You don't have a legacy, you don't have a family. When you stick to one woman, raise kids and provide for them together your offspring will come out more healthy and better equipped for life. That's actually proven. And even more important they'll have family to rely on in hard times and so will you. When things get really ugly, like war, economic crisis etc. then you and the individuals that make up your family are much more likely to come out intact then all the lonely people that struggle alone. So finding yourself a woman, sticking to her, comitting yourself to building a family and a home provides a more stable and nurturing place then pump and dump, everyone for themselves

Well i think if something is natural, then it should be comfortable. So if it's natural to be polygamous, then we should be more comfortable sleeping around then being with just one. Your definition of natural is just 'primitive'.

>Well i think if something is natural, then it should be comfortable.
That's retarded. It's natural to live without vaccines, antibiotics, houses, internet, glasses, heating, supermarkets. It doesn't mean it is comfortable.

>Your definition of natural is just 'primitive'.
My definition of natural is "as we are by our nature", biologically. Humans aren't monogamous naturally.
And everyone is very comfortable with sleeping around - the average number of partners is 4 to 13.

To have love you have to be in a monogamous relationship. Most people are too stupid to be in healthy relationships so monogamy doesn’t really matter.

But to have love...that’s the best thing in the world

I don't think that's right at all. Houses? It's not in our nature to build shelter? It's not in our nature to create and use medicine? You've got that wrong. It's not in our nature to live like chimpanzees. We are not apes, we are better.

>Everyone is comfortable sleeping around
No. Most people only have multiple partners because they are looking for the one they want to be with. They would marry the first one if it was a good match.

Our nature is to strive for better chances of survival, not necessarily to live how we do now.
Did our nature radically change over the last 20 years because we have internet? Or did just our culture change and we're still the same people biologically?

>Most people only have multiple partners because they are looking for the one they want to be with.
And that is not monogamy. Monogamy is meet one partner, sleep with them, stick with them.

Of you found someone to love you would be monogamous. You just haven’t been in love so how would you know.

And so we are back to this. We already agreed we aren't 100% monogamous or polygamous. However, I think it's clear that people want to fall in love and stay together at the very least for long periods of time. Sleeping around, having casual sex with strangers, this isn't a part of our nature, this is self-destructive behavior.

I mean I'm the guy you're replying to and I agree to a poijt.
Some people like polyamory. All the power to them.

But yeah you and I can surely agree the argument is tiresome. We are both, we have drives for both, and most importantly, we have mate guarding instincts which equate to a fuck tonne kf pain for a partner you're supposed to love so knock off the shit.

What does this even have anything to do with what I am saying?

>Sleeping around, having casual sex with strangers, this isn't a part of our nature,
Yet we have been doing it since the beginning of time. We've been sleeping with people we haven't stayed together forever, we've been having casual sex prostitution exists since the beginning of times.
Fucking around is our nature at least as much as being monogamous is, if not more since at the beginning we were't monogamous.

Yes. People want love, sex is an expression of love but also fucking for people not in love.

People not in love try to find love, but usually they just keep moving on to the next person to fuck, hoping to find love but never finding it.

>Yet we have been doing it since the beginning of time.

Citation needed.

There's extensive proof of humans not being monogamous in history (having much more female ancestors than male).
For example: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743131
We have written records of prostitutes as professionals since the sumerians, which are also the first people whose written records we have. At least 5000 years ago, whores existed.

You better be happy monogamy is a thing otherwise, only the top 10% of males would get laid

>judeocristians
Reminder that, despite what boomer cuckolds will tell you, this is a pejorative that originally referred to Christians with Jewish sensibilities.

>the reason why you can see polygamy is the social construct is that it happens only in dumbfuck socially conservative societies.
I'm sure that's why it was a capital offense at times in Europe.

People have always been largely garbage undeserving of life, it's just that in recent times there has been a distinct strain of insanity where immorality is praised in the open.

This thread is just here to stir shit, not asking for advice. Go away.