amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Evolutionary-Logic-Love/dp/0465081800

Spent some 90 mins on an answer, then Chris protected the question. See chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/61915/…

My personal reasoning has always been that we are not monogamous by nature because what makes the members of any non-human monogamous species behave monogamously can only be instinct, certainly not social expectations. What makes them behave monogamously can only be lack of attraction towards the other individuals (otherwise I can't see why wouldn't they pursue more partners). Instead, in our species, being in a relationship - even deeply "in love" - does not make us stop being attracted to other individuals; at best it just makes us not pursue that attraction for fear of losing our partner.

Polyamory is a thing, as are open relationships or swinging. Are you saying all practitioners are "unnatural"?

Could this also be related to r/K selection?

@DevSolar I don't think OP is calling anyone unnatural, but he may be asking that (knowingly or unknowingly).

Biology (all science, even) is descriptive, not proscriptive. Most human cultures throughout most of history are/were largely monogamous, therefore humans are monogamous by nature. As pointed out elsewhere on this page, exceptions exist.

@fredsbend: I disagree. Various cultures prohibit or require things that are by no reasonable definition "natural", up to and including poking holes in or cutting off pieces of one's self or one's children. We need only look at the statistics on e.g. extramarital affairs (even in cultures where they incur severe penalties if discovered) to realize that humans are not naturally monogamous.

@jamesqf I would submit, then, that arbitrary social behavioral requirements is natural for humans. Monogamous plus occasional cheating is still monogamy.

I'm sure there's cheating in other monogamous species.

@fredsbend "Monogamous plus occasional cheating is still monogamy." That sounds like the start of an intense dinner-table conversation.

@George Lol. Maybe. I mean to say that monogamy is more than who you have sex with. More successful child rearing is clearly the evolutionary benefit of monogamy, especially in a species where maturity takes over a decade. Having sex with one other than your mate doesn't included child rearing inherently.

@fredsbend: So you'd say humans are also peaceful and non-violent by nature. Peace plus occassional war or homicide is still peaceful, right?

Why was this closed? I doubt any anthropologist would argue that this question is opinion based.

@DevSolar compared to most apex predators and apes... I'd say we're somewhat peaceful. Adult male humans from different tribes can usually enter a room without trying to kill each other. I believe that it's quite difficult to provoke most humans to lethal violence - although wars are excellent examples of how violent humans can get once they reach that point.

@canadianer I voted to close this because of these two words: "by nature". Neither the question nor the answers define what on earth is "by nature". While OP or someone else don't do it, this question must remain closed.

@GerardoFurtado I don't think questions should be closed because we don't understand the meaning of two words that are well defined in the dictionary, especially when every word thereafter makes the distinction being abundantly obviously. Furthermore, the classification of primates based on mating behaviour is a scientific endeavour, not something mired in opinion.

@GerardoFurtado Please don't mistake bluntness for rudeness. It was not a critique of you but rather of your reason to close. Good day to you as well.

@canadianer: Beyond a certain point, bluntness is rude.

@DevSolar Most humans act non-violently most of the time, yet most humans will act violently at least a few times in their life, usually when young. But these aren't comparable things. Monogamy is a state, violence is action.

@GerardoFurtado wording has been changed