There are some who say that monogamy is unnatural and cite as evidence the abundance of promiscuity in the animal kingdom (while ignoring the number of examples of life mates). It is my contention that monogamy is neither unnatural nor natural, and promiscuity is equally acceptable in the grand scheme of things. For the survival of most species, it is best that males impregnate as many females as possible in order to maximize growth.

However, the human species has come further. We don't need to worry about keeping our numbers high because we have no predators, and relatively few offspring die before maturity. Besides, sex among humans is mostly for recreation and not for procreation. I think that's enough evidence in itself that promiscuity is no longer necessary to the survival of our species.

The question I want to pose is:

Is monogamy superior to promiscuity or the other way around? Or is it somewhere between having sex with only partner in your life and with having many upon many?

This is a purely philosophical question, I tried to clear away as much "scientific argument" as I could. In your experience, which is a better way to live?

To me, monogamy makes much more sense. If you have only one partner in your lifetime, you never have to break up with someone you've had sex with (which is much harder than if you hadn't had sex). You don't need to worry about any sexually transmitted diseases, and you never have to deal with the problems that come with casual sex (which I've only read and heard about, never experienced).

I'll admit, my experience is limited to one partner so far, and while some would say "You need to see what else is out there," but when it comes to sex it seems like it's all the same thing. I'm probably saying that because I'm a guy and, admittedly, easy to please. But if you are patient enough, I think it's possible to find someone you can be comfortable with for the rest of your life without ever having sex with them. And isn't that the real goal?

superior? I dont know if I would use that word.

It has been proven that monogomy is healthier if it's anything. Being monogomous prevents STDs and also the consistancy of a partner to care for and be cared for by is extremely healthy emotionally and mentally.

the need to partner with a mate, to be in love, for both men and women is something we, as the more evolved of the animals, seem to always strive for. animals don't look for "love, compassion, friendship, a sense of humor, etc," in mates. Thank goodness we can understand that there is much more than the "need to impregnate and needing to BE impregnated " that seperates us from the lower species.

The emotions need satisfying just as much if not more than base instincts for humans to be happy and content. when these things go lacking, then yes, other possible prospects will look attractive. But at the end of the day, it's LOVE that conquers all. Sex is the bonus and works the best when all areas are covered.

That doesn't mean that men and women must stop looking at the opposite sex after we marry. THAT would be unnatural as we are all visual beings as well.

edit: pheeler, there is nothing wrong with discovering other people before you settle down if that is what you'd like to do. I would tell my daughters to do the same (if I had daughters). Others, for religious or other reasons may want to obstain until after marriage. That is fine also.

Monogamy is better...and even animals think it's better. Polygamist animal species have female members which only mate during heat cycles (for a human, that would be about 3 days a month). It is then necessary for the male to run around and expend energy finding mates if he wants to copulate more than 5 percent of the year. In some species of herding animals, you could imagine the vicissitudes of such a strategy. I don't know a lot about animal husbandry, but I know that a group of females living in the same house will all mense around the same time. The sex-only-in-heat policy probably leads to a very few but exhausting series of days for the one lead male (who has earned the right to mate by bloodshed). Not exactly a romantic, compelling argument for sleeping around.

Monogamist species like humans, birds, others, have sex during other times of the month. When given the choice of a steady er....relationship, animals will go for the reliable piece of tail rather than expending energy chasing many flighty ones. The males in these species tend to stick around longer, and the result is a lifetime relationship span, closer bonding, trust, and a nurturing environment for offspring. It's the same for human relationships.

I've never regretted settling down young, and monogamy works for me. When we were in college, my husband's friends told him he was 'already six feet under ground' because he was committed so early. I don't know a single one of those friends who had better sex lives or short-term relationships than we. Those we've stayed in touch with who remained single or divorced found the thrill of going on strange dates and attempting to meet women got old about a decade ago. The only happy ones are married, or in stable long-term relationships. The ones that go home to an empty house, or wake up in the morning next to someone strange and wonder how they can get them to leave gracefully are not as happy as the ones who wake to munchkins jumping on the bed and a lover, confidante, and best friend.

Yes, monogamy makes much more sense.
I wonder the type of personality that could
be promiscuous......what about love??

Maybe some men can go to a night club and
fall in love for very short periods of time.
Like one night.

The thought of having sex with someone that one
doesn't truly love is very unappealing, if not animalistic.

I have very mixed feelings about this. From a strictly practical point of view, obviously the biologically healthiest thing to do is to have no sexual partners at all. Few human beings are willing to make this choice, so minimizing your risks with one partner only (or one long-term partner at a time) makes a lot of sense.

Aside from the practical aspects, minimizing your number of partners avoids a lot of emotional messiness. People seem to have so many problems just having one partner, that having more than one seems to be inviting trouble.

All of that said, I believe that those people who are genuinely able to avoid the emotional turmoil of multiple partners (for example, "swingers") are not doing anything morally wrong if all persons involved agree. I don't think such a lifestyle is "inferior" or "superior" to monogamy in any way.

Not necessarily. Married people live longer.

Promiscuity is like having several partners to scratch an itch; it doesn't mean much more than that. Performance of the act itself takes center stage. A man's or a woman's performance is measured against the performance of another sex partner. The term "sloppy seconds" means something to a person who dates this way.

What is at stake includes the anger of a spur-of-the-moment date's significant other (if there is one, or if someone thinks s/he is a significant other!), the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and possible pregnancy. Feelings get hurt if one party develops feelings for the other that are not returned. Jealousy causes rivals to fight one another, and people have been hurt or killed in these encounters.

A monogamous relationship in which partners are genuinely committed to each other provides more peace of mind, less insecurity. Of course, it helps when the couple knows each other's mind when it comes to possible pregnancy, etc. The greater the trust, the better the relationship. I think marriage is the best relationship of all.

From an emotional standpoint, I really think the only ones who can decide what is right are the people involved. From the standpoint of disease it should be pointed out that recent studies indicate that serial monogamy is actually more risky than promiscuity.
I think an awful lot of us spent a few years in our youths "sowing wild oats" before settling into a monogamous relationship, and I think the monogamous/promiscuous dichotomy is false for that very reason.

I think monogamy is better, but only as the end result of promiscuity, not as default. Monogamy is great, and one of the things that make it great is when you meet a person that you are willing to give up promiscuity for. I, for one would not be able to trust a woman who hasn't "been there done that." I beleive in informed decisions . I would never have married a woman who was a virgin, or just inexperienced. I would not be able to trust a wife who has not been with anyone else. I wouldn't want the chance of them wondering what it would be like. Basically, I beleive in total promiscuity until you meet the "Right One", and 1000% commitment from that point on.

What does a person's sexual ability have to do with their goodness of character? What I mean is, why would she have to explore sexually? I would have no problem settling down with a virgin provided that she had met and gotten to know many other men and realized that I was the one she wanted. From what I can tell, the biggest factor in the enjoyability of sex is the trust and compatibility between the two people involved, not their skill or any other physical factor (although I'm sure it always gets better when 2 people have more practice with each other). So if a woman knew me very well and had gotten to know several other men equally well, she would know who she would enjoy sex with the most.

First of all, I never said anything about goodness of character. I am not judging anyone's character, just stating my own preferrence.
Second, I don't think that simply meeting other men is the same thing as being in intimate relationships. If you were around pizza your whole life without eating it once, I don't think you would claim to know how it tastes.
Third, the biggest factor in the enjoyability of sex is sex (not to downplay the emotional aspect of it, but so many people downplay the physical aspect of it, as absurd as that sounds).

I just think that it is a lot more likely for someone who has never had "experiences" to be curious about them. If you've already been there, done that, there isn't much to be curious about. I just would not trust an inexperienced person to know what they want. Not to mention that any woman who wanted to stay a virgin until marriage would most likely be incompatible with me for many other idealogical reasons.

So basically, my opinion is that promiscuity is something you do until you marry, or are in a serious relationship. No reason to deny yourself.

In an information age filled with talk shows, concealed weapons and sexually transmitted diseases, I don't think there is any doubt as to the superiority of monogamy as it relates to personal safety. Sex with only one partner will greatly reduce the risk of emotional and physical harm inflicted by sexual partners.

That being said, I do feel there is something to Looms' ideas about promiscuity as a means of achieving monogamy. While it may not be safer for the promiscuous individuals, it may be significantly more rewarding emotionally. For those who limit themselves to only one sexual partner their entire lives there is a good chance of wondering what might have been, whereas those who achieve monogamy through promiscuity can feel a deep sense of appreciation for finding the one they truly felt to be superior to other potential mates.

Of course, I'm sure there are those monogamous couples who rest easy at night with no wonder or doubt to speak of. So while monogamy is certainly safer, the promiscuous path to monogamy isn't always without its own rewards.

I didn't say that she hadn't had intimate relationships. If she knew me as well as she knew other men, then she had to have been in other intimate relationships. But a relationship can be extremely intimate without sex. But I also think that you can get to know people really well without having a romantic relationship and be sure that you could never be happy with them. In fact, 9 times out of 10 you could never be happy with that person.



What I meant was that you choose your mate based on the goodness of their character. Therefore, having sex with many partners doesn't tell you anything about which one you could be happy with, so why have any partners until you've gotten to know one really well and have some idea that he or she is a person you could be happy with.

So aside from "it's fun," what good is having sex without commitment?