If we took all our cues from nature, would we even bother with monogamy?  What else would we do and not do?
611994
Animals tend to do what it is in their nature to do, and I am not yet convinced that it is entirely a part of Human nature to be monogamous. We choose to be monogamous because as humans we have the ability to make decisions based on beliefs rather than desires, but nature tends to be more driven by instinct. So you are probably right. We probably wouldn't be monogamous.\n\nIn fact, looking cross culturally, there are many things which seem to be natural to humans. There are always homosexuals, so if we took our cues from nature, we would be more accepting of homosexuals because it's part of our nature. There are always eccentric people, ...\n\nNo wait, this train of thought might be heading the wrong way because as I consider nature, I see packs led by an alpha, shunning some from the pack, and protecting others, which is not a system which encourages eccentricities. In fact, the more I think about human civilization and the things which most trouble me about it, I can see that much of it has to do with the animal part of our nature. Which means that taking it's cues from nature I have to concede that many human animals (including me) have gone with the pack and accepted monogamy.
511950
we could....would we really want to?
216877
Smiles,,,\n\n   First of all I offer no real defense for my gender as it regards "WANT".\n\n   Monogamy is a practice I believe in, but admittedly haven't been totally faithful to. That isn't to say I haven't loved ONE or wanted to love only ONE.\n\n   I'll go one step further. My gender,,,in general,,, is only about as far out of the caves, as you can reach in stretching an arm. Again, that isn't strictly an attack of my gender, but it's a pretty accurate description of our maturity, evolution, sensitivity, and commitment abilities.\n\n   We,,, males,,, don't want any less than your gender does, truly. We just don't have the tools, often, that it takes to understand, accept, comply with, enjoy similarly, those emotions and designs, that your gender has.\n\n   Are we a "work in progress?" Certainly. Are we worth some effort? Of course. The choice to find, know, enjoy, and hopefully maintain a decent relationship is up to the two people who engage in it. It has rarely worked when the "balance" is so far one sided that the effort is less than the total, to bring it into balance. That applies to both genders.\n   I offer one more thing. An ancient Oriental quote, I hold very close to my belief system.\n\n   "When you stand before IT, there is no beginning, Once in IT, no end."   \n    "It" being appropriate to many things.\n\n    My personal quote, inspired by Aldara,,,smiles\n\n   "Love is, even when it seems it isn't"\n\nRev. Steve
132989
I think that it is possible that a human being can spend their life without a partner, but it is not the normal thing to do because we evolved as social creatures.  I would not say that people are swayed or cave into peer pressure to partner, but that it is against our nature to be alone, and it is impossible to live from birth without some sort of partner because we are not born self-sufficient.  Most people who spend their lives alone do so because they have suffered some sort of trauma, or they have mental health issues.
211797
It depends on your character.For most of us enjoying that "lots of thing in the world" without a partner is impossible specially in long term.Love, support and all other things we take from our partner is the most effective thing on our soul i think.beautiful landscapes, our job and etc are not enough.
133853
Of course you can, but why don't you focus on establishing\na friendship or even a relationship first instead of thinking about marriage again already.
489017
Yes, only with my wife. Monogamy is the only safe sex, physically and emotionally.
858185
No where. Don't believe in marriage, so we will be partners instead.
538697
How about marrying a woman with more than one husband? I could benefit from my brothers, have plenty of time for myself, have plenty of help in caring for my children, but I might have to wait for alone time. \nCheck out the social heirarchy of gorilla packs and chimp tribes. Other primates have this sort of arrangement too, so its definately a part of our social anscestry.
194152
I would host a huge love in with decadent earthly treats for all the senses. We could have as much sex as we want without worrying about pregnancy, disease or even further compatibility. We can confess all of secrets, give away all of our money and destroy expensive things for fun. I would also enjoy some psychedelics, because we wouldn't have to worry about a hangover. Good Question.
439953
I believe the reluctance is fear. As you say, we were all raised to be monogamous.  In short, raised to hate or judge negatively any romantic relationship that is not monogamous.  Which, is no different than many of us being raised to hate, making negative judgments about Catholicism (or Protestantism), Jews (or Christians), Blacks (or Caucasians), Gypsies, gays or bisexuals, family members, psychics, organic food (smile–but true) and etcetera.  \n\nSo, it comes down to the problem being “conditional” relationships—all about conditional love.  Monogamy stickily is based on conditions. . .  Stating, “I will love you and only you, but only as long as you only love me and in the way I want your love.  Otherwise, I will stop loving you and hate you and make your life as miserable as possible as I obsess on destroying you.”    \n\nAnd, monogamy is called true love, I beg to differ. . .  Not to suggest that many who are in monogamous relationships are not truly in love—they are.  That is, until one or the other of them meet another soul-friend and fall in-love.(smile)  \n\nSo, to my reasoning the reluctance of bisexual ladies is about fear based jealousy---wanting to own the relationship even if it is owning one relationship with their man and owning another with their bi-lady friend and not to mix them.  There are many bisexual women married or in a relationship with a man that will not allow their man to come near their bifem-friend.  Of course, this possessiveness extends to their other female friends as well.\n\nSeems that conditional-monogamy raised us to be egotistically and emotionally immature, demanding “ME-ME-ME. . .MINE-MINE-MINE!”  \n\nSad that we cannot see how much more fulfilled we would all be if we would open our hearts and minds to nature and the loving intentions of GOD rather than the small-minded dictates of men and women.    \n\nKeep smiling. . .  True Unconditional-LOVE will overcome.
314891
Only 10 percent of all animals in the animal kingdom mate for life, so the odds against humans being monogamous.And love has nothing to do with sex,as the worlds oldest professions can attest to!
589433
Less is sometimes more!\nDon't mess with nature! \nAnd yes, what one guy said is true. My gf had the same experience..
623018
Yes and I agree that you should use considerable judgment if you find yourself in this situation...on either side of the formula!\n\nFAQs/Polyamorory (see link below) says this about the question of jealousy:\n     "Some people seem to have no jealousy; it's as if they didn't get that piece installed at the factory.  Others, including some long-term polyamorists, feel jealousy, which they regard as a signal that something needs investigation and care, much as they would regard depression or pain.  Jealousy is neither a proof of love (and this is where polyamory differs from possessive or insecure monogamy) nor a moral failing (and this is where polyamory differs from emotionally manipulating one's partner(s) into relationships for which they are not ready)."\n\nPolyamory (noun) is defined as being in love with more than one person at the same time.  Polyamorous (adjective) means loving more than one person, usually refering to being in that state currently, but not necessarily.  If you're asking the question, you're probably already feeling this way.  Polygamy is actually marrying more than one person, as in the original Mormon belief in taking more than one spouse so as to increase their number.  \n\nAnother example...rare, by the way...in movies was the Clint Eastwood musical (yes, he made musicals too!) called "Paint Your Wagon!"  In an unusual state of the goldrush crazy of mid-1800's California, two very different men, friends, decided to share a wife (there were very few women anyway).  Problem was that JEALOUSY reared its ugly head.  If you can find it, rent it...it may give you a better idea of the inherent difficulties of this kind of relationship!\n\nThere are also moral implications; however, most morals arise out of the necessity to protect the integrity of society at large, rather than the passing whims of individuals.  If you choose this direction, be careful, you will find that many states actually have laws on the books that 'discourage' the active practice of polygamy...whether or not you go through with a marriage.\n\nBlessings, Rev Debi Brady
226035
Why would anyone want to do that?  Are you a naturalist or something?
209569
Wouldn't consider it.  I'd like to be natural...
1057273
That would be so much fun to do. But i suggest that it would be better to start off slow...maybe the childhood sweetheart wouldn't want a b/f g/f relationship.