SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Sisoon,

I read two books during my formative years that I still reflect on.

One was "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris. He tried to show how much of human behavior, and physical characteristics, are driven by nature, by biology, by survival of the fittest. (Nature trumps nurture)

The other was "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" by B. F. Skinner. He was very much in the "nurture trumps nature" camp. He espoused "Cultural Engineering" to solve humanity’s problems.

Morris’s book has been somewhat discredited; Skinner’s is still debated.

But I would say that "nurture trumps nature" has largely prevailed. Most psychologists agree with your statement that human behavior is so variable that it cannot be tied to biology.

This stance, of course, creates room for psychologists.

I find myself a little more in the "nature" camp. But I acknowledge the variability of human behavior.

Nonetheless, when somebody acts consistently with "survival of the fittest", (promiscuity) I am content to blame nature.

And when we act inconsistently with "nature" (monogamy), I credit our big brains for overcoming our dna.

Monogamy ensured much lower risk for disease, higher success and survival of the offspring, longer lifespan for the partners, lower mortality overall.

In modern societies, maybe. I haven't heard this theory before.

Evolution is a fact. It has been proven ad nauseum. The theory of evolution pertains to how it occurs. There are many ways that it can occur that have been repeatedly proven.

The ultimate goal of evolution for any species is to survive and reproduce. Reproduction is the relatively easy part. Survival is the struggle. People generally need other people to survive. Humankind does not necessarily need marriage to achieve either of those goals. Societies might, depending on how they are structured.

Humans are not anymore inherently or innately monogamous than any other species. Many species pair bond, and are still not monogamous.

In modern societies, maybe. I haven't heard this theory before.

We do not die as much for STDs now that are curable (still happens though).

The count of deaths for STDs used to be in the millions until fairly recently.
They can be passed on opportunisticaly in other way than sex, hence more polygamous individual around, the higher the chance.

Side issues also include infertility or sterility.

Diseases are one of the main drivers for human behaviors, in some culture or religion you have several taboos about various things because in that area was a real health risk.

Monogamy in pair bonding drastically cut that risk, so it was "canonized" in most cultures.

You're incorrect that I'm feeling undesirable - I know my self worth. I'm past my childbearing years and I have a disability that requires me to rest a lot. The emotional stress of the past 5 years has not been good for me, and I'd rather have peace and stability going forward. I have lots of wonderful friends and family who love me, and whom I love in return, and I have my child. That's enough for me! I don't feel like getting back on the rollercoaster of romantic attachment, and I disagree that this kind of partnership is necessary.

Good, this is better for your mental fortitude. Usually is one of two things, people either "feel unattractive" or "lose faith in humanity [relationship wise]" after relational shock.

It's not the first so you are in a better place.

The way I read the tone of the post was "how can we prevent or reduce the suffering when the partner unavoidably hurts us?", with a subtext of the first vibe as the premise was 'monogamy is unnatural -> people will naturally cheat'.

So you lost faith in relationships (not humanity at large as you have a close circle of people who you love and love you, and this is good).

It is a choice and perfectly understandable, respectable, it will not automatically mean a life void of happiness.

However, the language you use gives me the feel you might be seeing this still from a place of hurt. You call it "rollercoaster" and "unnecessary" citing people who live the rest of their lives in intimate solitude and still manage to "be happy".

Now what the case truly is only the person who lives that can truly know what they feel and what they show.

I can say I am very happy and fulfilled person in my life, that's what the people who know me more or less superficially (meaning I don't give them access to my most intimate matters) would tell you about myself.

You know perfectly well here that's not the case, or I would not be here. I am happy but something is missing.

With your newly found maturity and understanding, you might find that not every relationship have to be a "rollercoaster" that is the chaos of us choosing one particular type of partner, and ending up in this forum. You dated very little before marriage if I recall correctly, and your experiences seem to fit the "rollercoaster" template.

I know people who never had the rollercoaster, they had stability, partnership, right from the start. Those kind of relationship do exist; low on drama and chaos, filled with care, partnership and selfless giving and receiving.

That's what happens naturally when 2 people with secure attachment find each other.

I respect people choices because only yourself know where is your equilibrium, you don't have to "follow" advice as anything could tip the balance and deprive you of your inner peace. That's why I don't like or try to "change people minds".

I like people who disagree with me, it's character and is valuable.

All I say is simple: look into yourself and feel if vowing to live the rest of your life without intimacy with a most close person is coming from a place of peace or of hurt.

You are taking a decision now that will influence your future, based on the pain of the past.

For your clarity, not to prove anything to anyone.

[This message edited by BackfromtheStorm at 7:36 AM, Monday, February 23rd]