winstonjen

There's the risk of contracting AIDS or other STDs, and I think it's considered wrong to spread them to others. With casual, unprotected sex, the chances are greater.

dangin

I actually don't think people "prefer" monogamy. I mean the stats certainly don't hold up monogamy, at least not life long monogamy as the norm for humans, let alone primates as a whole.

In The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature the author points out that historically, men have kept harems whenever they could. He also points out that human males do not have testes large enough to maintain an available supply of sperm to impregnate large numbers of females, or to "rut" continuously throughout the day.

That said, the norm for human males is to try to get their sperm into as many females as possible, and the norm for females is to get the sperm of the "best" available man, which may or may not be their mate of the moment.

But why the "preference" for monogamy. Because this is the "best" method culturally for us to "guarantee" that our mate's offspring is also our own if we are male. And to be "certain" that our mate will stick around to help in child rearing if we are female.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I am a moral subjectivist or whatever you want to call it, but I still prefer monogamy. To me, sex is both an enjoyable act and a very enjoyable emotional attachment. I think it certainly adds to the attachment aspect to know that it is only being experienced between myself and my girlfriend. It seems very special to me. I enjoy it. It gives a nice sense of privilege to know that you are the only one "allowed" to do certain things. And makes those certain things more enjoyable.

Aside from that, there's the practical aspect, in that anti-STD measures aren't always perfect and monogamy lets one be quite certain of things, which is a very nice feeling indeed. Having just went through a pregnancy scare this last weekend, I can tell you all that having a sense of certain security is a very nice thing.

For me, too, I'm just not very interested in other women, so it really doesn't affect me much and I don't give it much thought.

-B

Gallimore

If we associate “sleeping around” with infidelity, then it’s undoubtedly illicit. Infidelity largely means a breach of agreement. Like Brigid mentioned, it’s a violation of emotional contract between both parties. I see no muddle in that.

My observation remains that monogamous relationships are illustrative of religious indoctrination. I think that just as we rational people have become atheists because we notice the multitude of problems arrayed in religious certainty claims, so, too, we have detected something nugatory about a monogamous relationship. No objective logical reasoning can undermine that the opposite is wrong. If any monogamous relationship is wrong, it’s based on subjective despotism, which represents logical fallacy. No subjective feeling can generate valid support. Furthermore, if we can detach, or “agree” to detach, emotional attachment from the physical act, then it’s a proof that the distinction between love and sex do exist. In that sense, then, point number 4 is valid. I don’t believe one should refrain from engaging sex with others BECAUSE of the deeply emotional and intimate relationship maintained between both parties, since there are polygamous relationships that maintain the same kind of intimacy.

According to statistics, monogamous relationships find progressively less and less audience. It’s not necessarily a proof of moral collapse, but that we’ve simply become intelligent. So why do most people, even those who tend to base their ethics on objective logical reasoning, consider “sleeping around” immoral? One, because they tend to confuse “sleeping around” with infidelity. Two, because they have chosen to attach love to sex (nothing wrong about it). Three, because it oftentimes contributes to a sense of insecurity or distrust. Three, because they're overeactive of STDS and etc.

Aethari

Why monogamy? For me, it is probably two reasons. First, I'd be worried about the chances of contracting a STD by sleeping around. It happens, you know? Second, I attach a great deal of emotional significance to any sexual act. It just isn't two people having a good time. Now, I'm not saying I couldn't have something like a harem-- there is obviously a desire for something like that in most med --but in a situation like that, I couldn't see myself also being 'in love' with someone, yet sleeping around with a host of other women. Call me a romantic...but yeah.

~Aethari

Dr. Retard

As a matter of fact, for human beings in general, if your lover asks you for permission to dilly-dally elsewhere, you will feel very sad and anxious. One question is why human beings are like this: maybe we're hard-wired by nature. But the other question, why is it wrong to ask permission, is pretty easily answered: it's wrong because it makes people feel very sad and anxious.

Gallimore

I think that depends on the nature of relationship, since there are lovers who appreicate a request for permission to sleep around. I think this represents a better comprehension of human nature. Those who become sad and anxious are less "hard-wired" by nature than an ideology embedded in our culture. In that sense, then, "hard-wired by culture" is rather the case. There are countless examples in nature that undermine the notion of monogamy.

It's not altogether wrong to ask for permission, simply because it DOESN't make everyone sad and anxious. That is, whether it's right or wrong depends on the nature of relationship.

vixstile

Although I have never had sex or been in any kind of relationship, I can imagine I would have visceral gut revulsion to my partner having sex with someone else. This is probably due mostly to biological factors, spiced with some cultural stuff.

I think that's all there is to it

galiel

Why do we assume that one can only love one person romantically and/or sexually at a time?

In every other arena, love is considered an infinite resource that is not depleted by sharing. One is capable of loving more than one child, more than one parent, more than one friend, without a new love replacing or even diminishing the old, yet one is supposedly able to love only one romantic partner, and in particular one spouse, at a time?

There is no logical or biological reason for this. It is, IMO, entirely socialized, completely artificial, and the direct product of the brain-washing and cultural domination of organized religion, which used marriage as an institution of political and economic control and the subjugation of women.

(Before you ask, yes, I have been married and monogamous for 22 years.)

Arrowman

I don't think that is being said here (especially in the post you quote from). People are simply remarking on what I would think is fairly obvious - that most people (not necessarily all) are emotionally, romantically and sexually monogamous. No-one is saying it is not possible to be otherwise; just that it is unusual - and in particular, that a person who feels otherwise (poly-whatever) would be wrong to assume that their partner feels the same way.

Except that it's a different kind of love. My love for my children is not diminished by having it spread over three of them; at the same time the love I feel for may partner is not something I can easily duplicate for another.

Some animals (eg some species of parrot) mate for life, and human monogamy serves a clear purpose (in rearing of offspring) which gives us every reason to think it may be a natural biological behaviour.

(FWIW, I believe serial monogamy, not necessarily lifelong monogamy, is the most natural human state)

Perhaps the reverse is true - that humans have developed social institutions and mores to codify their natural feelings. The fact (if true) that organised religion happens to have used marriage for political and other reasons does not disprove that.