would you forgive a cheater?

[phys251]

Both articles assumes that people are not naturally monogamous. The first one tries to explain why this is the case. I don't think the first article is any less scientific than the second article.

The second article however goes into the psychological/mental aspect of it which I think is very important. After all, morality, intelligence, and mental self-control have a lot to do with it.

Yeah. The thing is, any time humans attempt to address a problem, they must address the source and not the symptoms. And if we can't make the problem simply disappear, then we either have to control the damage or redirect the situation into something more positive.

[IndiReloaded]

I don't think people are naturally monogamous. We can see that simply by observing people's behaviour and issues.

What I think is interesting is how we try to control it, and our reasons for it.

[Gribble]

What I think is interesting is how we try to control it, and our reasons for it.

Tradition, stupid deep-seeded dogma.

[IndiReloaded]

Tradition, stupid deep-seeded dogma.

Those aren't my reasons. But if you can convince me otherwise, I suppose I'll have to fly out and join your ongoing harem.

[Mish]

Both articles assumes that people are not naturally monogamous. The first one tries to explain why this is the case. I don't think the first article is any less scientific than the second article.

That's not the interprettation I got from the articles.

To me the first article tried to explain why people are not naturally monogamous due to genetic causes alone, while the second explained there are many pieces to the puzzle and whether people are naturally monogomous or not is dependent on a number of factors. It was against blanket statements. Personally I don't believe that people are not naturally wired to be monogomous, with a human child being the most vulnerable creature on the planet that takes many years to nurture, it wouldn't make any sense for people to not be naturally monogomous.

[phys251]

BTW, I want to be clear on one thing: Just because we humans have an innate tendency to be promiscuous, doesn't automatically make cheating OK. The problem, rather, is society's insistence that we MUST be "faithful" to our significant other, while at the same time making it perfectly acceptable to walk out of a relationship on a moment's notice. When will we learn to reverse the two?

[IndiReloaded]

BTW, I want to be clear on one thing: Just because we humans have an innate tendency to be promiscuous, doesn't automatically make cheating OK. The problem, rather, is society's insistence that we MUST be "faithful" to our significant other, while at the same time making it perfectly acceptable to walk out of a relationship on a moment's notice. When will we learn to reverse the two?

When we decide to? FWIW, there are at least a couple posters here who would agree with you, at least where children are involved in a relationship.

[Mish]

I don't think people are naturally monogamous. We can see that simply by observing people's behaviour and issues.

I think it depends on whether or not they have the "monogamy gene"

[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html]Monogamy gene found in people - life - 01 September 2008 - New Scientist[/url]


Anyway, all of you should know that any article that starts with "all humans are....have innate tendency to" which doesn't have something obvious like "have two arms and legs" is automatically open for questioning.

[qwertz]

Argggghhhh!!!! He came over today- mainly as i hadnt really spoke to him since this all blew up and i just wanted him to know that there was no going back so that he would stop sending me emails and texts!!
He didnt try anything- which i knew he wouldnt anyway, but it just made me realise that if he hadnt done what he did then things could have been really good. Oh well, shit happens and i guess its his loss.

[IndiReloaded]

You know, once we figure out how the individual genes interact with each other I have a feeling that a lot of "nuture" arguments are going to be out the window.

[bluesummer]

I have never believed that humans are hardwired for monogamy.

It's a choice. You either go with it or you don't, and people have their own reasons for making the choices they do. I'm personally tired of dating. I find it harder work than maintaining my long-term relationships. I have a great loving supportive relationship, and I know what the alternative is; and to me the alternative kind of sucks. So monogamy fits my life better. That's all.

[phys251]

Argggghhhh!!!! He came over today- mainly as i hadnt really spoke to him since this all blew up and i just wanted him to know that there was no going back so that he would stop sending me emails and texts!!
He didnt try anything- which i knew he wouldnt anyway, but it just made me realise that if he hadnt done what he did then things could have been really good. Oh well, shit happens and i guess its his loss.

Did you tell him that it's over, it's done?

[qwertz]

yep.

10chars

[Mish]

Good on you qwerty, stand your ground and show you won't stand for mistreatment and disrespect

[lastwish]

That's not the interprettation I got from the articles.

To me the first article tried to explain why people are not naturally monogamous due to genetic causes alone, while the second explained there are many pieces to the puzzle and whether people are naturally monogomous or not is dependent on a number of factors. It was against blanket statements. Personally I don't believe that people are not naturally wired to be monogomous, with a human child being the most vulnerable creature on the planet that takes many years to nurture, it wouldn't make any sense for people to not be naturally monogomous.

The second article starts with presenting evidence in support for natural promiscuity but ends the first section by stating that although science is in support for the theory that humans are naturally non-monagamous, they are capable of socializing themselves or train themselves to be committed:

"Perhaps for humans, monogamy does not come naturally, and biology predisposes us to seek multiple sex partners. That's what zoologist David Barash, PhD, and psychiatrist Judith Lipton, MD, argue in their book, The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People. Virtually all animals, they say, are far from being 100% monogamous 100% of the time.
"The only completely, fatalistically monogamous animal we've been able to identify is a tapeworm found in the intestines of fish," Lipton tells WebMD. That's because the male and female worms fuse together at the abdomen and never separate afterward.

Other animals, including humans, are motivated to ensure their reproductive success not only by picking the highest quality mate they can get but also by taking others on the side.

'The examples where monogamy is perceived to be the norm are generally facades when you actually do DNA testing and see who's sleeping with whom,' Lipton says. She and Barash make a distinction between sexual fidelity and what they call "social monogamy." Even in animals that mate for life, like many birds do, DNA tests reveal that the offspring are often not related to the male of the pair.

That is the case with people, too. Lipton says she was once contacted by a Canadian hospital, where doctors were running genetic tests to find out children's risks for inherited diseases. In about 10% of the samples, the children were not genetically related to the supposed father.

But make no mistake: Lipton and Barash, who have been married to each other for 28 years, don't say that sexual fidelity is impossible or wrong because it is not natural, only that it takes some effort. 'We human beings spend a large part of our lives learning to do unnatural things, like play the violin or type on a computer,' Lipton says."

Although the discussion in the second article extends beyond the biological realm, it was certainly accepting the theory that humans are not naturally (or biologically) monagamous.

I agree with you that a person's behaviour is a result of both genes and upbringing. But when the articles "talks" about people's "natural" behaviour, they are referring to the genetic and biological aspect of humans.