Is it human nature to be with one person for the rest for our lives?

[madhatter1122]

It's really crazy, this whole cheating thing. I've been on that side where with my SO there was dishonesty, deleted cell phone calls off caller id over a 2 week period with a co-worker, some questions unanswered, other lies, etc. But, never did my SO admit to 'actually' cheating as in the sense of this going physical with this person. In my eyes whether he 'went all the way' or not was irrelevant to me. I think cheating is when there is dishonesty and hiding period whether it was emotional or physical.

 

Now, it's been 4 years since this occurred and over that period I did some dishonest things. I chatted to other men on the internet, a few phone calls, some flirting, etc. I always felt I had the 'right' to be dishonest and do these things behind his back as he was dishonest with me just the same. The funny thing was that I never really 'yearned' to do these things. It was all done out of revenge and I never 'actually' cheated as by my SO's standards, lol.

 

But, recently I had an experience that had never occurred before. I met a man and it was like instant magnetic attraction for both of us. I wasn't feeling that revenge anymore and this happened. I was dressing up to attract him, fixing my hair just right, just made sure I was looking 'gorgeous', lol, just for him. This went on for about a month or so off and on. I love my SO with all my heart but I finally understood how we as humans can get caught up in this scenario when we are not bad people and not even looking for it. It started making me look at the picture as a whole.

 

Are we really made to be with just one person sexually for the rest of our lives? I'm not condoning infidelity or cheating. Believe me I'm the first one to fight tooth and nail against it. But, I found it so ironic when I myself was feeling this way that I could actually have an affair with someone else while being in love/relationship with another. It was profound for me as it's something I feel so strongly against. I never actually went through with it and ended contact with this person but still think of calling him at times and of how special I felt when I was around him. And, believe me it was all sexual attraction on my part, probably on his, too. If my SO knew about this he would be very hurt and angry. Human nature is a complex thing.

[TaraMaiden]

Are we really made to be with just one person sexually for the rest of our lives?

 

No, I don't personally believe we are.

if you want to look at this in a biological sense, we're a mammal.

There are very, very few mammals on this planet that are monogamous.

It's not in our nature to be either celibate or single-partnered.

But it is socially conditioned into us, here in the west. Whereas other cultures do have customs permitting multiple marriage partners.

so it's a social programming, something instilled into us by Religion, law, and locally accepted morals.

 

I have said it before, and I'll say it again.

Desire is natural.

Commitment is a choice.

 

If you say you're going to love, honour and cherish him/her until death do you part - then do it.

if you don't think you can keep the vow - don't make it.

[madhatter1122]

Desire is natural.

Commitment is a choice.

So true. So true. Too bad not enough people look at it that way. Edited March 24, 2010 by madhatter1122

[threebyfate]

I mean seriously, the entire biological argument is bunk. Biologically speaking, women aren't programmed for monogamy either.

 

But both genders have free will, which is why some men and women, do and will cheat and others don't and won't.

 

Biologically speaking, humans aren't programmed to wear clothing and yet, the vast majority of men and women wear clothing.

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to use a toilet but the vast amount of men and women use them.

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to work computers, but the vast majority of people in North America, can and do use them.

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to eat cooked meat but the vast majority of people in North America, cook our meat.

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to go to work everyday and collect pay cheques, but the vast majority of adults do work daily and collect pay cheques.

 

I could go on and on about biology v. nurture. But I think that's enough.

 

The above is something I posted in another thread.

[JamesM]

I guess I cannot answer that question from anything more than a personal viewpoint.

 

My response is...so far I WANT to be with the one woman I have for the rest of my life.

[carhill]

so far I WANT to be with the one woman I have for the rest of my life.

 

When both partners are of a single mind on this issue, and that mind is commitment with free will, then it can last a lifetime, and has for many.

 

What is human nature, anyway?

[TaraMaiden]

I mean seriously, the entire biological argument is bunk. Biologically speaking, women aren't programmed for monogamy either.

I agree. if you're addressing your comments to me, I think and believe it cuts both ways.

 

But both genders have free will, which is why some men and women, do and will cheat and others don't and won't.

Precisely. but the reason they won't is usually moral and imprinted into them through being raised and conditioned or educated not to. But the temptation and urge may still be there. That's biological. They just don't succumb to it. That's conditioning'

 

Biologically speaking, humans aren't programmed to wear clothing and yet, the vast majority of men and women wear clothing.

We have insufficient body hair. That's why we wear clothing. otherwise we'd freeze our butts off. That's biological. The fact that clothing has Armani, Gucci and wall-mart labelling, is conditioned....

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to use a toilet but the vast amount of men and women use them.

It's a necessity. Evem tribal people in the deepest amazon will defacate into a hole and cover it up.... away from where they live. it's hygiene and self-protection form wild animals.

That we crap into a hole and dispose of it, is biological. That this hole happens to be made of glazed porcelain is conditioning.

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to work computers, but the vast majority of people in North America, can and do use them.

That's conditioning and then some. Some civilisations still don't even know what a computer looks like.

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to eat cooked meat but the vast majority of people in North America, cook our meat.

We've been cooking meat since time immemorial... but we also eat raw meat, so actually, I'm not really sure what your point is....

 

Biologically speaking, we're not programmed to go to work everyday and collect pay cheques, but the vast majority of adults do work daily and collect pay cheques

.

All conditioning.

none of the above negates the fact that we're social pack animals, and mammalian in category.

not sure what point you're trying to make... simply because we do all this stuff (and look at how much more contented and peaceful we are, because of it!) doesn't make us any the less an animal.

 

Frankly, I really don't completely understand the point you're making....And your link goes nowhere....

[ADF]

I wince whenever someone invokes "human nature" to explain something. I have the same problem with the human nature arguement that I have with the intelligent design argument. Rather than actually try to figure out how, say, something as complex as the human eye could have evolved, the ID people just sort of shrug and say, "I guess God did it." Arguments about human nature work the same way. Rather than try to figure out why cheating is so prevelant, it is easier to just shrug and say, "I guess it's human nature."

 

That said, the question is more or less irrelevant. Except for the small minority who are genuinely capable of polyamory, infidelity is poison to relationships. Even people who convince themselves, on an intellectual level, that people are naturally nonmonogamous, are likely to be crushed when their partners are unfaithful. Monogamy may not be a biological truth. However, it does seem to be a pyschological/emotional need for most people.

[Spark1111]

It is human nature to feel a strong attraction to others. That is how we choose our friends, favorite co-workers in addition to our signifigant other.

 

Happens all the time....

 

It is what you do with that attraction that speaks to your choices.

 

I do agree, that fidelity is a choice.

 

And how about this: In the very best relationships, they speak of an attraction to another and decide together what boundaries they will put in place!

 

Can you imagine the amount of trust and intimacy that must exist for that conversation to take place in a romantic relationship without acrimony?

[threebyfate]

I agree. if you're addressing your comments to me, I think and believe it cuts both ways.

No, the comments were directed at the OP.

 

 

Precisely. but the reason they won't is usually moral and imprinted into them through being raised and conditioned or educated not to. But the temptation and urge may still be there. That's biological. They just don't succumb to it. That's conditioning'

I agree with this.

 

We have insufficient body hair. That's why we wear clothing. otherwise we'd freeze our butts off. That's biological. The fact that clothing has Armani, Gucci and wall-mart labelling, is conditioned....

We've conditioned ourselves out of the biological. We did have enough body hair at one time, still felt the cold and conditioned ourselves to wear clothing. As well, this argument doesn't hold true in tropical, sub-tropical and dessert regions of the world, which added together, is quite a substantial portion of our planet.

 

It's a necessity. Evem tribal people in the deepest amazon will defacate into a hole and cover it up.... away from where they live. it's hygiene and self-protection form wild animals.

That we crap into a hole and dispose of it, is biological. That this hole happens to be made of glazed porcelain is conditioning.

Is that biological or free will? Did human kind always do this? I doubt it. Just watch apes and monkeys, our nearest relatives.

 

That's conditioning and then some. Some civilisations still don't even know what a computer looks like.

Agreed. So how does your point relate to what's biological? It's not biological to use computers.

 

We've been cooking meat since time immemorial... but we also eat raw meat, so actually, I'm not really sure what your point is....

Previous to discovering fire, man didn't cook any meat, beyond scavenging burned carcasses from natural fires.

 

All conditioning.

none of the above negates the fact that we're social pack animals, and mammalian in category.

not sure what point you're trying to make... simply because we do all this stuff (and look at how much more contented and peaceful we are, because of it!) doesn't make us any the less an animal.

Never said we weren't animals.

Frankly, I really don't completely understand the point you're making....And your link goes nowhere....

Conditioning aka free will to do whatever we want, defines us as human. We as human beings, don't need to fall back to eating raw meat, copulating with whatever happens to walk by, defecating whereever, whenever the urge hits us, not using computers, etc..

 

In essence, we've come a long way. Using biological urges, is just a way to justify a lack of will-power. If everyone allowed their biological urges to dominate, as social animals who're now crowded into substantial pockets of this planet, there would be sheer anarchy and solely, the strong would survive.

 

As for the links, they're part of my copy and paste. Didn't have time to properly edit the post, before James posted.

[2sure]

I don't know about human nature and biology and all that. But I do know that when I am with someone in a committed relationship, I do not even look at, nor wish to be with someone else. In fact, I find the thought of being with someone else replusive.

 

But that's just me

 

I am EXACTLY the same way. This surprises even me sometimes but the fact is ...way back when I was OW to MM ( a few times) when I was seeing them, even tho I didnt feel obligated or even in love...I wasnt interested in other men. Strange, I know.

 

I always chided myself about being loyal as a freaking spaniel...but you know...its committment. And thats OK.

[torranceshipman]

OP, what you're doing isn't normal...sounds like something in your R really, really needs fixing. Or maybe its time for the R to end?

 

As fro your question, that's a judgement call that each individual has to make and the answer might be different from one person to the next. What the issue here is whether you've gotten married and therefore promised to stay faithful to one person for your whole life. If YOU chose to make that promise then it is really awful if you break it. Relying on the 'we weren't meant to be monogamous' argument is pretty useless as you yourself decided to stand in front of all friends and family in a church and promise to God and to your SO that you WOULD be faithful forever.

 

Edited to add: which is why I am generally in favor of people marrying later, rather than earlier, in life...because it gives us a chance to go out and experience dating different people, being single and independent, growing and learning that what we find attractive in a mate will change with our age (so we need to identify the traits in a person that have longevity of attraction)...etc. I could marry now-ish but even 2 yrs ago...no. I wouldn't have been ready.

Edited March 24, 2010 by torranceshipman

[JamesM]

I have the same problem with the human nature arguement that I have with the intelligent design argument. Rather than actually try to figure out how, say, something as complex as the human eye could have evolved, the ID people just sort of shrug and say, "I guess God did it.".

 

Let's not get off topic, but having read many ID books even if I do not agree with it all, IMO this is a rather naive statement to explain their views. It would be just as naive to say that "evolution happened as a reaction" is how evolutionists describe how the eye developed. Stating what caused something will not explain how it was caused. Saying that an engineer designed my computer certainly is correct, but that does not explain how he or she did it. Stating that God did it does not mean that it appeared from thin air. Stating that it was a result of evolution does not explain how it happened either.

 

But I digress.

 

 

In essence, we've come a long way. Using biological urges, is just a way to justify a lack of will-power. If everyone allowed their biological urges to dominate, as social animals who're now crowded into substantial pockets of this planet, there would be sheer anarchy and solely, the strong would survive.

 

I would have to agree. Too often this "human nature" excuse is simply a way to justify desires that are selfish. If anything, I guess we could say we have a selfish human nature.

 

Technically speaking, if we are the result of the survival of the fittest, then creating societal structure and families requires fidelity. Thus one can say that fidelity is actually our human nature as it has evolved. However, if we think that survival of the fittest will result in an individual doing only what helps the individual survive, then fidelity may take away from selfish pleasure...assuming that pleasure is an evolved need. So, then society shows that we do not live according to a human nature.

 

Either human nature is evolved to create societies or we created societies against our evolved human natures.

 

 

As for the links, they're part of my copy and paste. Didn't have time to properly edit the post, before James posted.

 

Sorry. There should be a way to prevent such problems.

[Nikki Sahagin]

No I don't think it is natural.

 

I think people are full of conflicting needs. We all have egos and pride and a great desire to be loved; we all want to be somebodies everything.

 

However, we also have wants and desires, sparks and excitement with people that cannot always be met by one person, at least not ALL of the time, forever.

 

Even as I loved my boyfriend and wanted to be with him forever, I still felt desire and attraction for other people. I never acted on that and would like to believe I wouldn't have but I know that the true reason I wouldn't would be because I could not bear to hurt him and NOT because I wouldn't want to do it.

 

I was disapointed when I realised that loving someone does not mean you can't fall in love or lust with others. Some days I believe in monogamy and other days I don't but I know whether its acted on or not, you will always have thoughts and feelings for other men/women. That is prove to me that monogamy is not 'natural' or easy but definately can be done if both people want to do it ENOUGH.