Monogamy

A bit more science:

"...monogamy is usually more apparent, or social, than real, and monogamous animals commonly use two methods to hedge their bets on mate choice. First, they may actually engage in serial monogamy, bonding with a mate for one mating season, but choosing a different mate in a subsequent season (Figure 11.1. Second, many seemingly monogamous pairings are often subject to infidelities, or EPCs.49,111 While over 90% of bird species are socially monogamous, genetic studies show that in most populations at least a few offspring in each generation result from matings with partners other than a pair member. In some species, EPCs produce over half of the offspring."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monogamy

.
~ DEFENDING ONE's INTERESTS ~
.
- People tend to 'seek & promote',... ( subliminally or deliberately) the information/data/study, which - reinforces - their bias or preference.
.
Below, I provide a Q&A progression ( circa 1856-1869) of related topics being discussed. I hope it provides 'food for thought'.
- Take or reject from it as you will. It stands on its own, without my opinion.
.
Heading under Philosophy - The Law of Reproduction -

Marriage and Celibacy
695. Is marriage – the permanent union of two individuals –
contrary to the law of nature?
- “It represents progress in the evolution of humankind.”

696. What effect would abolishing marriage have on human society?
- “A return to the life of the animals.”
The free and fortuitous union of the sexes belongs to the state of
nature. Marriage is one of the primary acts of progress in human
society because it establishes fraternal solidarity and may be found
among all cultures, though under the most diverse expressions.
- Abolishing marriage would therefore be a return to humankind’s
infancy, and would place humans even below some animals that
demonstrate examples of stable unions.

697. Does the absolute indissolubility of marriage belong to the law
of nature or is it only a human law?
- “It is a human law that is quite contrary to the law of
nature. But humans may modify their laws; only those of
nature are immutable.”

698. Is voluntary celibacy a state of perfection that is meritorious in
God’s sight?
- “No, and those who live that way out of selfishness
displease God and mislead others.”

699. Isn’t celibacy a sacrifice for certain individuals who desire to
devote themselves entirely to serving humankind?
- “That is very different. I said ‘out of selfishness’. Every
personal sacrifice is meritorious when it is made for the
good – the greater the sacrifice, the greater the merit.”
- God cannot be self-contradictory or regard as evil what has been
divinely made. Thus, God cannot see any merit in the violation of
the Divine law. Even though celibacy per se is not a meritorious
state, it becomes such when it constitutes a sacrifice made on
behalf of humankind by the renunciation of the joys of family life.
- Every personal sacrifice with a view to doing good, and without
selfish ulterior motives, elevates the individual above his or her
material condition.

Polygamy
700. Is the approximate numerical equality between the sexes an
indication of the proportions in which they ought to be united?
- “Yes, for everything in nature has a final purpose.”

701. Which of the two, polygamy or monogamy, is more in harmony
with the law of nature?
- “Polygamy is a human law, and abolishing it is a mark of
social progress.
- In God’s view, marriage should be based on
the love of the individuals who join hands.
- In polygamy, there is no true love; there is nothing more than sensuality.”
- If polygamy were in accord with the law of nature, it would be
universal, which would be materially impossible due to the
numerical equality of the sexes.
- Polygamy must be regarded as an institution or particular
legislation appropriate for certain customs,
but which, social perfection* will make disappear little by little.
.
2u2
( * Last line, I will comment to clarify - ONLY if that 'society perfects' & veers from hedonistic practices )
.
.

.
Posit :
~ Are we humans, as twice removed - sentient beings ( homo-sapien & homo-sapien-sapien) yet, who still have & exercise a basic survival nature- call it instinct,... not a more developed 'consciousness' leading in some, to a moral/ethical determination, and hence, more ability to restrain such ' base passions' ?
- PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE

Your hundred-and-fifty year old Q&A about societal development sounds stifling and awfully God-heavy. Perhaps the actual mark of human and societal progress is the development of, and ability to freely make our own, choices on all matters.

.
- Thank you for your points. The age of the information does not determine the reality nor truth of content.
- As you may deduct... I preempted two aspects within the title 'people will seek' info which will bolster their position, rather than think about a perspective on 'other' available information. And,... that it is not my formulated perspective. It is a block of information related to the - Subjects under consideration in the blog.

- Stifling: A sub - bound & gagged - enters into 'constraints, rules and punishmemts/rewards ' under strict control... yet finds it 'liberating"... once she accepts the submission (in Trust) and the protection apparently given. Is there not a parallel ???
.
- Regardless,... if you negate the religious context, and study the words... in each Q&A individually and as a whole, there is an overall theme. ( Indicated by my only point made - to clarify... which may also answer your question on 'free will choice'...
- I mentioned if 'society as a general whole' i.e. en mass does not choose wisely... the result would be indicated as Hedonistic.
- Therefore BDSM and Kink - also being free-will choices... cannot also be considered as a 'majority participated activity'... but one can observe if it leans more towards hedonism or not... and if the Q&A points made have any cohesive relevance.
.
I am not here to beat a drum as stated... But if the the series is studied, one can determine, there is a 'juxtaposition' between EACH INITIAL question posited... and a diametrically opposing answer.... The following question is then constructed based on that response & the 'knowledge of the day'. (1856-69 - hence context )
- Those 'semantics' of the Q&A series, therefore indicate a Human perspective in questioning... So, where did the apparent 'correction' and 'indication' as to the DIRECTION of society come from ???
( again think of the parallel in D/s - guiding the 'subject' forward via punishment & reward )
.
There is greater depth in the series than may at first be noted.
.
Once again, each can decide... like the 'free will' choice of a kid in a candy store... what option it's going to take. *smile
.
Have a great day... I ain't judging nor pointing the finger at anyone... I'M here remember. LOL
.
Each can determine which direction society as a whole leans to... and the Q&A series sort of predicts that. ( Hedonistic )
.

i read, and re-read, and re-re-read both posts (i.e., i made the effort to try and 'hear' and understand). i think one can 'posit' from all sorts of different directions, and appreciate the distinction "posit." I.e. assuming a fact as part of an argument, but we honestly acknowledge the assumption part of the posit and put adequate weight on the the fact that we are assuming.

At the end, and beginning, of any argument, i cannot get away from, what seems to me a fact, that we depend on our senses to formulate and build on "a moral/ethical determination." The quoted author attempts to authorize their premiss by attributing it to "God." For me, what is missing from the assertion is our human dependence on our senses to determine reality? I.e., people often assert and authorize their ideas by attributing them to "God," using authority instead of evidence (i.e., stuff that can be substantiated by our five senses).

i come from a fundamentalist Christian religious background, i read the bible a lot, and am more familiar than average. There's a story about Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the bible where the Judeo and, fundamentalist Christian too since they accept the Tenach as part of their religious scriptures, argue about "God." As the story goes, the prophets of Baal call on their "God" to consume a sacrifice as a demonstration that their God is real. Doesn't happen in this story. In the story, Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, telling them to pour water on the unconsumed sacrifice... three times. Then Elijah calls on his God and fire comes down from heaven and consumes the sodden sacrifice. It's a great story!! To me, it acknowledges what many religious folk today skip: i.e., a demonstration from the "God" who they use to authorize their assertions that we humans can see as real. There's a 'law' in the ten commandments that one should not take the name of the Lord in vain. It seems to me that attributing ones assertion to "God" without "God" actually demonstrating agreement, is using Gods name in vain.

i am guessing you see my dilemma? To me, assuming "moral/ethical determination" does not go back far enough. I.e., Identify a specific moral, then determine its origination to try and understand why it is or is not valid as a premiss for behavioral choices?

If you cannot understand - the original text... then wait until you have reached sufficient aptitude to do so . Considering 150+ years ago at its publication ( aproximatly 7 generations ago ) - The readers understood the text & it's implications.
.
Accept it or reject it... but I am not going to try and change your points of view or misconceptions, or inability to understand - LOL
.
Get over it.

I've taken the time to read and re-read (much to my own sensible protestation) and all I've drawn from the text (aside from a newfound disdain for gratuitous verbosity) is blatantly critical judgement, thinly veiled in faux intellectualism and self-proclaimed moral superiority.

When we’re interested in human social behavior it is a mess, a subject involving brain chemistry, hormones, early experience, sensory cues, prenatal environment, genes, both biological and cultural evolution, and ecological pressures, among other things.
We tend to break down the behavior into buckets of explanation. Putting facts into nice cleanly demarcated buckets of explanation has the advantage that it can help you remember facts better. But it can wreak havoc on your ability to think about those facts. This is because the boundaries between different categories are often arbitrary.

In addition to the interesting comments I have read above, I thought I'd mention another bucket that influences our predispositions towards (or not) monogamy. The following paragraphs are extracted from the book Behave the biology of humans at our best and worst written by Robert Sapolsky.

Oxytocin and vasopressin facilitate mother-infant bond formation and monogamous pair-bonding, decrease anxiety and stress, enhance trust and social affiliation, and make people more cooperative and generous. But this comes with a huge caveat—these hormones increase prosociality only toward an Us. When dealing with Thems, they make us more ethnocentric and xenophobic. Oxytocin is not a universal luv hormone. It’s a parochial one. (BTW female aggression is facilitated by oxytocin, estrogen, progesterone).

….circulating oxytocin levels are elevated in couples when they’ve first hooked up. Furthermore, the higher the levels, the more physical affection, the more behaviors are synchronized, the more long-lasting the relationship….

One study suggests that oxytocin unconsciously strengthens the pair-bond. Heterosexual male volunteers, with or without an oxytocin spritz, interacted with an attractive female researcher, doing some nonsense task. Among men in stable relationships, oxytocin increased their distance from the woman an average of four to six inches. Single guys, no effect. (Why didn’t oxytocin make them stand closer? The researchers indicated that they were already about as close as one could get away with.) If the experimenter was male, no effect. Moreover, oxytocin caused males in relationships to spend less time looking at pictures of attractive women. Importantly, oxytocin didn’t make men rate these women as less attractive; they were simply less interested.

The last example….the visual spectrum is a continuum of wavelengths from violet to red, and it is arbitrary where boundaries are put for different color names (for example, where we see a transition from “blue” to “green”); as proof of this, different languages arbitrarily split up the visual spectrum at different points in coming up with the words for different colors. Show someone two roughly similar colors. If the color-name boundary in that person’s language happens to fall between the two colors, the person will overestimate the difference between the two. If the colors fall in the same category, the opposite happens. In other words, when you think categorically, you have trouble seeing how similar or different two things are. If you pay lots of attention to where boundaries are, you pay less attention to complete pictures.

Monogamy has been a predominant relationship model for centuries, but there is evidence to suggest that this model is shifting. Non-monogamous relationships, such as open relationships and polyamory, are becoming more visible and accepted in society. This shift is in part due to changing attitudes towards sexuality, gender, and individualism. In the future more people will explore non-monogamous relationships, and these relationships may become more normalized in society. Technology and social media have also made it easier for people to connect and form relationships outside of their local communities, which may contribute to the rise of non-monogamous relationships. At the same time, there will likely still be people who prefer monogamy and value the emotional and physical intimacy that comes with it. As with any relationship model, communication and consent will continue to be essential for healthy and fulfilling relationships.