Is it in our nature

[CXXC]

Attitude

You make a great point regarding swinging and the family structure. I would have to say, as we are WELL BEYOND the need to propagate the species further, (the cause for a female to have multiple partners for the possibility of impregnation) the NEED for multiple partners is no longer viable.

However, the desire has not been bread out of us. Society, in all its glory, has made nearly every effort and attempt to squash the desire. Laws have been passed to prohibit such activities. Social standards have been set up, religious rules and regulations have been written and pushed down the throats of the congregations, The list goes on!

Is swinging, poly, open marriage in our make up? Yes. The necessity is no longer there, but the desire remains. We are creatures with self awareness. In that awareness we come equipped with a a pleasure center in our brains. Society attempts to regulate the activities regarding fulfilling that pleasure center.

Love is defined by the individual. The standard definition used by society is a general guide. Many in the lifestyle, detest labels and definitions to which others use for placing us in categories. Defining love as monogamous would be foolish. However, to make a society function as a whole, it becomes necessary to limit the expanse of our capabilities in order to govern. This is done through defining what is and is not acceptable behavior.

To love more than one person equally is unacceptable to those who are not capable. To share ones body with anyone other than your chosen S/O falls under the very same rule. Those who do not understand the mind set or the freedom that comes with enlightenment will look toward the lifestyle, poly, open marriages with disdain.

Inwardly, EVERYONE wishes to be with another. They may well have the closest relationship, best marriage, or find no other AS appealing to them as their S/O. However, in the heart of hearts, if they are honest, they will find that they too have this very same desire. They are hard coded with it.

Is poly hard coded? I dare say the ability is not. I would argue that it is only the individual and their ability to be so open that enables them to love, EQUALLY, another. In defense, I present the love of a parent. We all claim to love our children equally. We would be hard pressed to select one as the favorite when discussing t=our love with our children. However, if we were honest, we must admit, there is ONE who stands as the favorite.

Is it truly possible to love two or more equally and openly? I cannot say no. But I know that I am unable to. Many in both the lifestyle and the Vanilla world do not possess this ability. For us and for them, the scale tips to one side every time.

There you go. My .02 again.

[bbarnsworth]

Originally Posted by Professor_Zoom

I expressed this to a friend of mine, and she told me that I'm just a cheating dog and that she feels sorry for whoever I date.

There mere act of considering something from a philosophical standpoint makes you a cheating dog?

Ok, she's a closed minded weeble wobble swaying in the breeze of society and I feel sorry for whomever she dates.

[Rackir]

Originally Posted by Chicup

I am going to briefly get all evolutionary biology on you and state that for humans MONOGAMY (yes all caps) is the natural order.
Now before everyone gets up in arms, its the natural order for a hunter gatherer people, which our genes are mostly adapted to.
Its also completely normal to have affairs without our partners knowledge. Basically we are designed for one mate who we will cheat on.
Added while we are set up for one partner, that doesn't mean there isn't a desire for more, which is seen when there is a disparagy of wealth and power.
Swinging is a way to have our cake and eat it to. Its satisfying our innate desire for affairs while maintaining our pair bond with our mate.

I thought that from an evolutionary biology standpoint that women were programmed to be monogamous while men were not.

The rationale being that women are limited in the number of offspring they can have. So women are biologically inclined to find the fittest member of the species they can find, and have as many children as it is possible for her to raise with that male.

Men on the other hand have no real limit to the number of offspring they can produce, so the best strategy for them to continue their line is to breed with as many women as possible.

But then of course one has to consider the fact that immediately (and for some time thereafter) after birth the children are extremely vulnerable and so there is an argument for the male staying with the mother until such time that the children can fend for themselves. Couple that with a woman’s biological to keep the fittest breeding partner with only her (to eliminate competition for her progeny) and you do have a pretty solid argument for biologically driven monogamy. It’s also a good bio basis for group living and settling as opposed to solitary roaming.

Of course I also believe that we have progressed so far from the biological impetuous that it is at this point almost nothing more than a point academic interest with almost (not quite none, but almost) no real relevance in today’s societies. Sure is fun to think about though.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Rackir

I thought that from an evolutionary biology standpoint that women were programmed to be monogamous while men were not.

The rationale being that women are limited in the number of offspring they can have. So women are biologically inclined to find the fittest member of the species they can find, and have as many children as it is possible for her to raise with that male.

Men on the other hand have no real limit to the number of offspring they can produce, so the best strategy for them to continue their line is to breed with as many women as possible.

Thats the standard logic and its not quite true. Men are more apt to be promiscuous but women are programed to be choosy, not necessarily monogamous. Finding a good stable husband is important, but its NOT important that the children be his, only that he helps raise them. So for women who can't get a man of 'good genes' it pays to have an affair with them while cuckolding the husband. This is common in many previously thought of 'monogamous' species, and we have even developed counter strategies as men who's wives are away from his sight/control for a period of time will ejaculate more than men who are with their wives all the time. The reason is that if shes off having an affair you can 'swamp' out the genes. Likewise women who are having an affair are more likely to do so when ovulating and more likely to have an orgasm which aids in pregnancy.

One reason for seeing your wife with another man may be such a sexual turn on in the age of contraception, is that you have a much more powerful orgasm as a result of seeing her like that.

Of course I also believe that we have progressed so far from the biological impetuous that it is at this point almost nothing more than a point academic interest with almost (not quite none, but almost) no real relevance in today’s societies. Sure is fun to think about though.

We NEVER really escape our genes. The very reason we waste out time with sex is our genes. Based on studies done it has HUGE relevance to todays societies as there have been studies done where up to 20% of the children born are not born to the listed father.

The only real major difference is with effective birth control we can be more intellectual about it and embrace our natures without the most obvious negative consequence.

[ratimadan]

Originally Posted by Professor_Zoom

I've had this on my mind for a while now, but is being poly, and even swinging in our nature? Society says that you are only allowed to love one person. If a woman is sitting in the park with her ll.

We fully agree. It is in our (human brings) nature to be attracted to the opposite (and also same) sex. This does culminate in desire for sexual intercourse with the male or female.

Being poly is also a very natural state of affairs, though some couples do limit the love part to their own mate, husband/wife, or s.o. with good reason.

[Karmickiss]

ooooo...Good one...

I love this question, I've thought about it a lot. It's one of those, when I began reading the responses, there was so much in my mind at once, I had to just go to the original post, here, and reply from the heart. Then go back to read the rest. Everyone has such good points and ideas, that I could go in indefinately, so will try and simplify..

For me, yes, it is in my nature. I like what Rackir said about deeply and truly loving, and the work and often pain to get to that level, might be a very good reason to limit this to one(or one at a time), or not limit. Those are my words, though, so if I missed the mark I take responsibility. I have had this thought(since I was really young), that why, if there were the "right" (minded) people, and the proper care and love in place for all, then why wouldn't it work, that we can love more than one. I felt like love could overcome jealousy, and that love if present, doesn't ever truly "leave anyone out".

I immediately faced resistance to this, and reistence to freely loving even in one primary relationship, according to my first model. I do tend to think fear of intimacy in general can add fuel to the fire. It was also in my nature to be bi-sexual, and there's a lot of resistence to that idea too...including in straight and gay populations. Like, straight people could say, I have some insatiable sex drive, and/or I'm not being true to myself. And in gay communities the other extreme is to see me as not fully committed, all the way and maybe less capable of love, or that I can't embrace the fact I'm really homosexual. There are so many variations to this, and additons on both sides that I'm truly simplyfying.

I have heard the observation that I must be over-sexed, and the reason I want to swing, and by being bi...is b/c I cannot get enough sex, that I am unable of really "loving" one person. I grew up hearing this. But the act of sex of course can occur with or without love. However, I have said it here before, I was very much, deeply and madly in love with my late partner. I experienced this kind of love one other time. It was worth every tear, and every moment. He could not swing, and out of my love for him there was no resentment from me...I was fully satisifed, but being staisfied fully did not mean that I wouldn't have "gone there" with him, if he had been able. It did not threaten my love...and it was amazing, b/c I consider it is my nature to be able to love more than one, but b/c my love didn't share this, it was not seen as sacrifice by me to be with just him. I did not get bored, I did not feel cheated. The things that came out of that relationship has helped define who I am today.

It's love itself that dicates me, I'm volunteering for this I have always just gone with the natural flow of things around me. I think the purpose for my life probably has many factors, and I follow my heart. In the ideal world for me, there'd be no raised eye-brows. I believe in these karmic processes, that I define my reality and if I am only but open, to what my hearts telling me at the moment, there's no internal conflict. I know that over my life I've fit inside of many labled categories, but for me, it's more like, "Oooh, that was interesting"...and rather than not making any commitments, I commit to love in general, and feel so blessed to have experienced what I have.

Ok. more than enough from me. I fear I wont do this the justice it deserves, b/c the subject to me is so wide...so personal, again... and thankfully, my nature I feel is one of love...and I feel like I'm constantly being surprised and awed by it's power, and just appreciate beauty in all it's forms and love in motion is wonderous to watch and be a part of.

[ncmd_couple]

Karmic,

I kept my true thoughts and feelings very carefully hidden because I knew that society would not understand. Of course, this has, over the years, made a rather reserved person and though I try very hard not to, I still keep my true thoughts to myself.

S

[little firefly]

Well, I'm a monogamous woman in a serious relationship with a swinger. I'll admit that yes I do notice when I see good looking men but in all honesty I've never had even the slightest desire to be touched by anyone but my NDN. I've never felt limited or that I've been missing out on anything (we have a very good sex life). For me it has nothing to do with religious beliefs and such, I'm just naturally monogamous I suppose. Monogamy is comforting to me (for lack of a better way to explain it, lol). I don't crave the variety of being with others the way that NDN does. I guess It's a bit weird that I have no sexual desire for anyone but NDN but that's part of what makes me "me"

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by little firefly

Well, I'm a monogamous woman in a serious relationship with a swinger. I'll admit that yes I do notice when I see good looking men but in all honesty I've never had even the slightest desire to be touched by anyone but my NDN. I've never felt limited or that I've been missing out on anything (we have a very good sex life). For me it has nothing to do with religious beliefs and such, I'm just naturally monogamous I suppose. Monogamy is comforting to me (for lack of a better way to explain it, lol). I don't crave the variety of being with others the way that NDN does. I guess It's a bit weird that I have no sexual desire for anyone but NDN but that's part of what makes me "me"

Give it 10 years

[little firefly]

Originally Posted by Chicup

Give it 10 years

lol....nah, i don't think so. I was actually married 15 years and was monogamous throughout the relationship without ever having a desire for anyone else but him. WE divorced when we found ourselves wanting different things out of life (our sex life was never an issue though)......I guess I'm just a strange breed, but that's ok, i like being strange

[SheLovesTheSun]

If it's what you want, it's what you want. Not everyone will like it or agree with it. If your partner wants a monogamous relationship, you're probably won't be able to change his/her mind. If your partner wouldn't mind (heck, maybe wants to go for) a polyamorous relationship, the you're good to go!
I don't know about being monogamous or polyamorous being in our nature. I can see both sides. I think it's about choice. Some will choose monogamy, some will choose polyamory; either way, all involved should not be forced into a decision they don't want.