Are humans naturally predisposed to monogamy?

[Anonymous No.11848562]

Data suggests that Individuals with only 1 lifetime sexual partner tend to be the happiest, have the most stable relationships, be at the lowest risk of divorce, are the least likely to be infected by an STD, etc... whereas the opposite holds true for very promiscuous individuals - pic very related. Individuals with multiple partners have been shown to have difficulty with, and become desensitised to pair bonding. This is especially true for women who usually pair bond with their FIRST sexual partner regardless of level of intimacy.

Is it then, that promiscuity is unnatural and overall harmful to humans, and that society has degenerated from having monogamy as the ideal standard?

[Anonymous No.11848579]

Going your whole life with only one sexual partner is like remaining a child forever because it’s scary to grow up, breakups are hard but they’re part of life, you’re not having a complete life experience without going through one or two somewhere along the line.

The only way to keep people happy with one lifelong sexual partner is to leave them totally deprived of agency and experience in the world, and while some may be lucky enough to be born into that kind of existence it’s not feasible for most people in the modern world.

Growing up is tough, but it’s part of life and you’re going to need to find the strength to do so sooner or later or you will be forever incomplete and unsatisfied.

[Anonymous No.11848607]

>>11848562
Good for humans, likely. Naturally predisposed, not particularly. We know from mitochondrial DNA that about 40% of the men who ever lived reproduced.
80% of the women did.

you figure it out

[Anonymous No.11848624]

>>11848579
Breakups are horrible and it’s definitely not necessary to experience one to have a complete life. That’s like saying you need to experience a compound fracture to fully experience life. Dumb as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11848625]

>>11848579
I disagree and i fail to see how having one sexual partner is a bad thing. If i go out and have sex with more than 1 partner, i will be statistically less happy, my marriage will be more likely to fail, I will be at a higher risk of depression,, at a higher risk of contracting an STD, i am more likely to be a single parent, more likely to be unfaithful to my partner and a host of other negatives that will hold the same for my partner if they also have more than 1 sexual partner. What scientific benefit is there to having multiple sexual partners in modern day? You cant just tell me "you have to find yourself bro or you wont be happy" when the statistics say i will

[Anonymous No.11848634]

>>11848579
This sounds like feminist horseshit since breakups are life destroying for men (handsome men exempt) and minor inconveniences for women (ugly women exempt).

[Anonymous No.11848644]

>>11848562
There's gonna be a lot of dumb cunt cope in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11848675]

>>11848625
>i fail to see how having one sexual partner is a bad thing
That’s because you’re a child.

You’re also misinterpreting the statistics and falsely attributing causation to explain a correlation while missing the bigger picture. What the data shows is that the decline in traditional values over the past decades is correlated with a decline in happiness. Those from older generations, and the shrinking minority of those raised with traditional values, tend to have higher levels of happiness than those who weren’t. There’s also another cross correlation with wealth and income here, which clearly have some level of causative relationship with happiness.

None of these correlations are transferable to someone who wasn’t raised with traditional values.
>spoiler alert: if you’re on 4chan you have nothing even close to traditional values
Trying to force your first relationship to be your only one when it doesn’t match with the very much 21st century nature of your career and life. And, avoiding a relationship and all the growth and personal development that comes from the experience out of fear that it’s not likely to be permanent is the worst thing you can do, more likely than not it will result in you dying as a forever alone virgin

[Anonymous No.11848678]

>have the most stable relationships, be at the lowest risk of divorce, are the least likely to be infected by an STD
whaaaat water is wet?

[Anonymous No.11848798]

>>11848675
>You’re also misinterpreting the statistics and falsely attributing causation to explain a correlation while missing the bigger picture. What the data shows is that the decline in traditional values over the past decades is correlated with a decline in happiness. Those from older generations, and the shrinking minority of those raised with traditional values, tend to have higher levels of happiness than those who weren’t.

Cope, correlation almost always heavily implies causation. Having a single sexual partner is the common denominator and is almost certainly the cause for the observed effects. You can't just pull "No its not the clear link between x and y causing this, its ACTUALLY z because i say so" out of your ass.

>There’s also another cross correlation with wealth and income here, which clearly have some level of causative relationship with happiness.

Only matters for statistical outliers, irrelevant otherwise.Even then the studies speak about happiness in the MARRIAGE, not happiness with their lives.

[Anonymous No.11848890]

men who aren't married with a family don't have as much motivation to put in an effort

when men don't put in as much effort civilization suffers for it.

good luck taking over for the men ladies, even though men do the work you're for the most part not actually interested in doing

[Anonymous No.11848908]

It's simple, people that are too dumb to successfully choose an adequate mate at the start are too dumb to be happy.

[Anonymous No.11848914]

>>11848908
>people that are too dumb to successfully choose an adequate mate at the start are too dumb to be happy.
But sometimes they were adequate at the time, but then they turned 30 and were far too old to remain attracted to.

[Anonymous No.11848930]

>>11848914
The foundation of a lifelong relationship is a mutual understanding of the value of not having to choose and secure a new partner, a mutual understanding sometimes called 'love'

[Anonymous No.11848933]

>>11848562
>Are humans naturally predisposed to monogamy?
Maybe 'function best under monogamy'

[Anonymous No.11849024]

not science. that's sociology, those statistics are sociology, that study is sociology, your whole argument is sociology, all the counter arguments are sociology. just because you brought some numbers and charts doesn't mean it's science.
if you think otherwise, go ahead and find me the monogamy gene/nerve and explain it, i'll wait

[Anonymous No.11849080]

I wouldn't say that we're naturally predisposed to monogamy. Simply that monogamous societies are better.

If you look at hunter-gatherer societies, they tend to practice polygeny in particular. Namely, one man, many wives.

The catch is that these societies tend to advance more slowly since men are concerned with both watching out for the competition and peacocking to get women.

By contrast, monogamous societies are better off since less time and resources are devoted to interspecies competition and peacocking. You're happy enough with your husband/wife (largely because you don't know what sexual variety is) and you can trust same-gender friends and even strangers to an extent since you know that society has a whole holds your union sacred.

Any society that knew better eventually followed suit, was conquered in one way or another, or simply forgotten until wider humanity rediscovered them.

Again, this isn't natural per say. It simply had advantages over what was natural. Unenforced, I think humanity could slide back to a polygynous lifestyle. A future where every high IQ individual is too busy either mate-guarding, peacocking, or figuring out how to pull more pussy.

[Anonymous No.11849158]

>>11848562
>age of first sexual intercourse
>12 & younger

[Anonymous No.11851118]

>>11849080
How does monogamy correlate to civilisational complexity?

[Anonymous No.11851694]

good book
https://www.amazon.com/Individualism-Western-Liberal-Tradition-Evolutionary/dp/1089691483/ref=sr_1_1#customerReviews
https://b-ok.cc/book/5256185/1e96b2

[Anonymous No.11851701]

>>11851118
all complex civilizations are generally monogamous or dominated by monogamy.

[Anonymous No.11853709]

>>11848562
Evolution does not maximize happiness, but offspring. In some environments being more promiscuous is a more successful reproductive strategy, leaving unhappy but evolutionarily effective humans in its wake.

[Anonymous No.11853754]

>>11848562
Pre-agriculture we would practice monogamy for periods of time, could be 6 months, could be 5 years, maybe even 15, with raising children at least in the first stages of their lives being the glue for this. But we'd usually swap out for another partner in the tribe sooner or later. People might go through 5-10 longterm partners in their life.

The big difference is the tribe shouldered many of the responsibilities that plague monogamous couples today like raising children, gathering food, tending to sickness, etc. Married couples now are expected to run their entire household alone, which causes much tension. You had also already known the people you'd eventually pair with your whole life, just hadn't had your turn yet, so it wasn't like people's nasty sides got slowly revealed to you over time.

But no with the raging male sex drive I have a hard time believing they're happy with lifetime monogamy

[Anonymous No.11853778]

>>11848562
No, humans are naturally predisposed to social conformity. If monogamy is the norm, humans will mostly adhere. If promiscuity is the norm, humans will mostly adhere.

[Anonymous No.11853795]

>>11848562
Incel confirmation bias: The thread

[Anonymous No.11854575]

>>11848634
You'll get over her someday anon, don't worry

[Anonymous No.11855107]

>>11853795
degenerate cope, the post

[Anonymous No.11855884]

Men are genetically programmed to spray sperm into any orifice they can find.

[Anonymous No.11855945]

>people who are monogamous have more stable relationships
>attributing the stability to the fact they're monogamous and not realising that if the relationship was stable and satisfying to both partners in the first place then they would have been monogamous

[Anonymous No.11855952]

>>11848562
>parroting the same fudged statistics from the Heritage Foundation in a /pol/ infographic

[Anonymous No.11856922]

>>11853778
How do we make promiscuity the norm (for men too)

[Anonymous No.11856943]

>>11848675
This is a science board.
There are actual experts in statistics amd data analysis here.
You dont get to make empty statements such as "correlation doesnt imply causation" and be taken seriously.