'Not natural', as in genetic caveman instinctual stuff, not as in 'we shouldn't be doing it'.

There was a show on years ago about how relationships work etc. About our genetic scent attracting our most suitable partners, and how that is responsible for not being attracted to our siblings - excluding some - and explaining that 'seven year itch', and why we do what we do based on our gender and instincts.

Going by memory - obviously fallible - they went on about how 'way back when' the male would mate with the female and hang around long enough for the child to be mobile. This makes sense when you consider the Alpha Male stuff. The survival of our species was based on breeding and monogamy by instinct wouldn't have done us any favours at our origins. IMO anyway. Could be totally wrong, I'm not an expert.

Another interesting question Foxy .
Mr Hume, I think we should presume, is correct.

The answer to your question is THEREFORE yes ( quantum test morality?) . The reactionaries ( the ones who keep trying something different) , in historical reality, are proved wrong in the long term. Read history, not just the ever present reactionary media .

The reasonable thing THEN is not to be a reactionary.( or give up our childish ways cause we all seem to be a bit that way when we were teenagers ) ; find the working models and prove everything in between. http://dogood.blogspot.com

To believe that " what's natural" provides the imperative is to be predictably reactive and worse --stuck with whatever imperative "you think natural tells you to be" - noone should tell you what to be! you are free (eg stuck in a marriage where that marriage is in name only?)
Far more liberating to see that life calls us to make the choice to pick the idea apart: to be faithful ; to resist temptation ; to deal with my emotions not live off them ( anti- natural) and so on .
. http://knowlove.blogspot.com
. What really works for happiness is I think , and have experienced , a bit hidden. Take a natural like "aggression" ; on the surface its frightening so many now try to deny its natural or fail to deal with it openly ; Deeper down its a useful and powerful istrument for BOTH good and evil. We are naturally aggressive , but does that MEAN WE SHOULD fight back, bully or be wusses . Nature provides only the structure and the tools - not always "the right choice ". Thats the freedom we have within structure.
What can inspire us in relationship objectives is to model ourselves on real people and how deal they effectively with aggression ( and a range of other emotions like jealosy , guilt etc) Using ideals to drag us beyond the mere mechanics.
Did anyone see hear Elizabeth Gilbert at the Sydney Writers festival? What was she saying?

Foxy

My comment was an *old* joke.Perhaps not the *best* joke being base on stereotyping as it was.
However, I assumed the comments would be based on stereotyping of one on one relationships which they are. No mention of gay relationships or non sexual ones in sight.

It was to avoid a very long and complicated dissertation. On what "natural" means. i.e.From biological imperative to the cultural mores.
One needs to understand the nature of personal relationships through the lenses of time, experience and health and subsequent wants and needs.

Most of the comment's tend to focus on child rearing and sexual availability but as previous neither are necessarily the be all and end all.

In the absence of a truly deep kinship old age is difficult enough but without a partner it would be a lonely end.

Suffice it to say that in the final analysis it comes down to the wants and needs of the people involved.

Kind regards
Examinator

Dear Proxy,

There are no right or wrong answers.
The whole point about this thread is
to get opinions expressed to what you
feel about the issues. However people
are entitled to disagree with you.

However, as I and others have pointed
out, there are all sorts of other
"marriage-like" arrangements that
already exist in societies around the
world.

Dear Pelly,

From my research I would say that human
beings throughout time sought partners
according to their culture and traditions and
what was considered "right" in their society.

Dear Opinionated2,

Examinator would probably agree with you.
He too thinks that anything apart from monogamy
would tire him out.

As for your having a face only for radio?
That may or may not be true. However as the old
adage goes - "Beauty fades, but stupid is forever."
In other words, it's personality that matters!
And by the sound of it - you've got one that makes
gorgeous women want to kiss you, so I wouldn't be
complaining if I were you. ;-)

Dear Suze,

Totally agree with you about polygamy.
It won't happen here.

Dear benk,

Love your reasoning.

Dear Anti,

It's not "Foxy's ratio," it's what sociological
surveys indicated. And, I agree with you. It's
great that changes are being made in the way of
gender equality.

Dear StG,

Thanks for explaining further.
It makes sense.

Dear Hanrahan,

Is there such a thing as objective history?
I'm not sure. A historian can establish that
an act took place on a certain day but this
only constitutes chronology. The moment the
historian begins to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other considerations,
the product becomes unacceptable for one or another
camp of readers.

You say that no one should tell you what to do?
But they do don't they? From parents, teachers,
and society in general. We tend to follow the
norms and values of the society in which we live.

Dear Examinator,

Thanks for explaining the "old joke."
I tend to take things at face value
and believe what people tell me.

However, I do agree that the final analysis
comes down to the wants and needs of the
people involved. The heart wants what it wants,
right?

The trouble is we are all products of our socialisation and culture. What would happen if we removed all of those constraints and let people develop and mature as 'nature' would have it. It is not possible to know the outcome for sure, but human nature seems to gravitate to one main partner every time even if later there is infidelity.

Polygamy is just another human construct but reading about polygamy in Islamic societies it would seem jealousy and rivalry is a big thing indicating it is not a natural need for spouses to share their partners around.

Men would I am sure be unlikely to desire their wives take on another husband in the family home. Although he may enjoy that to do list on the fridge door being shared around. :)