These are just some random thoughts that have been going through my head today and I am curious to read other thoughts on the matter. I know a little about the human brain and how driven we are by hormones but not enough to hold a conversation with a Dr. in the field so forgive me if I express an assumption as fact.

I would like to hear who does or doesn't believe humans are meant to mate for life and why? I personally don't think we were, I think it is religious and societal pressure that makes us feel like we are supposed to marry, have kids, and buy cemetary plots next to each other.

I believe it is somewhere in the low, possibly 5% of mammals actually mate for life and even among those, mating for life is a term used losely. Basically they share responsibilities in raising offspring but they also "fool around".

A friend was explaining that we have a tendency to cheat because our brains eventually develop an immunity to the chemical reactions that cause the initial fireworks and we crave that feeling like a drug addiction. When those feelings are invoked by another, some resist but some can't seem to. In a lot of cases, a person's judgement becomes flawed, as if they were drunk, and make heat of the moment decisions that they would normally not think themselve capable. It makes sense that the fireworks would fade, so we can come back down and resume getting things done but what if we are not supposed to work to stay together for life?

By supposed to, I mean; what if our properties don't give us the necessity to stay together forever, rather, what if we are built for variety? Some people seem to fall in love and want to be together but just out of personal experience, after the first few years people seem to have to lower their expectations just to get through daily life with their partner.
What's your opinion?

I don't, but we would have to analyse carefully what we mean by "mate" (love? sex? raising children?)

Of course, all humans beings are not the same -- especially in these matters, regardless of what Hollywood tells everyone.

The hardest part, I think, is the children. You do need some stability to raise them, I guess (ideally). Not necessarily a partnership for life, but an investment of several decades.

Scratch that. The hardest part is that people go into marriage wanting different things. Some want a love story, some want children, some want somebody who'll do their laundry... It's no wonder they end up disappointed so often.

As the song goes, 'some of them want to use you, some of them want to get used by you'...

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

I would have to agree with that, especially. The hardest part of a marriage, IMHO, is learning that compromise and realizing that it is not all about your expectations. It just seems that once you start to lower the bar, it just gets lower and lower till you have two burping, farting slobs laying next to each other that don't even shut the door anymore, when they go to the bathroom.
By the way, mate for life is meant to express the whole marriage package, love, fidelity, and children. Sorry if that was vague.

Animals don't have emotions to feel cheated , humans do.

I don't believe humans are born to fall in love with multiple people at the same time. Others do so , culturally like Muslims , but heck speaking for myself, I can't stand the person I love is loving another at the same time. People who stays together for long time just like our grand parents that as the years gone by its not lowering their expectations but, Companionship enters.

Mating for life is part of human nature. The reason why it doesn't always happen on its own is that there are other parts of human nature too, and sometimes they contradict each other.

Remember, the fact that there are different "systems" in different species (pair bonding, harem-forming, random mating with whoever's there at the right time) means that there must be the possibility of intermediate states because evolution is gradual. Humans have a combination of traits that look like a cross between absolute pair bonding and the behavior of species that naturally form harems (the latter of which is a popular arrangement among mammals). The simplest explanation for this would be that we were forming harems in our evolutionary past and then started shifting over toward pair bonding, but haven't gotten all the way there at this time.

My opinion is that that package is too heavy. Some people are lucky to get it, but many people will never manage to get all those things together. I think it's silly and unfair of our current culture to plant in everyone's minds the expectation that they, too, will one day achieve love, fidelity, and children (and you forgot sex; that's very important too!) Also, not everyone cares so much about fidelity.

I think we would be less unhappy if we had more realistic expectations, and were more honest -- towards ourselves, especially -- about what we really want from a relationship. As it is, we get this idiotic, one-size-fits-all, Hollywood romantic ideal drilled into our minds to the point that we start believing it, and expecting it.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

But you don't think that humans feel cheated because we are told to? I would feel cheated too, if I found out my husband was unfaithful but in more primative human cultures, before we had love stories and eventually Hollywood, did we pick a partner till death?
I get what you are saying about companionship, and it does turn into that for some. The lowering expectations to the last degree I wrote was meant to be comical but I think we have to lower them a bit to find that companionship. Of course, I am sure a lot of it is physical but we take the good with the bad. No one would describe my physical properties as their dream woman, nor would anyone say, "gee I hope I grow up and marry a woman who cries at Alpo commercials," either. I did not dream of growing up and marrying a man that could make the dogs go running when he takes his shoes off. He does have some of the features that I would use to describe my ideal man but not all of them, therefor, lowering expectations, as I am sure he has had to lower his.

Impossible. You could never convince any animal to feel feelings it isn't designed to feel in the first place.

Yes... although it hasn't been the "official" system in all cultures, it has been in many, not just this one, and even in other cultures in which the official/standardized customs aren't set up that way and don't recognize it, the tendency still shows up: people picking a favorite from among their collection of mates, people leaving group arrangements or avoiding getting into them in the first place to be with an individual outside the group instead, people who could have multiple mates simply choosing to have only one instead, people feeling jealous if their mates seem to have others, and such.

Cultures reflect the nature of the species that created them; they didn't invent "stories" about people behaving in ways that people don't behave motivated by feelings that people don't feel. Stories that weren't based on the reality of who we are would not have been compelling stories and would not have convinced anybody that that's how it should be.

It depends on what you mean by "humans,: and what you mean by "meant"

If by "meant" you mean, "what works best" or more precisely, "what actions, when taken by a majority of individuals, provide the greatest chance for the continuing success and survival of the species" then this is an interesting question - but you have to be careful because another possible interpretation of "meant" is, "what is god's plan"

By "humans" you might mean, "modern humans" as in, "what works best for us today in 2008" but keep in mind, our species is about 1 million years old and things changed drastically about 10,000 years ago when we invented agriculture. So you might be asking, "what works best for modern humans" or you might be asking, "what works best for humans in general - of which, the last 10k years is just a blip"

What I'm getting at here is, we are modern humans living sedentary lifestyles in an urban environment and a stratified society. What works best in this environment is likely very different than what works best in the environment for which we evolved - small family groups, living as hunter/gatherers.

As a quick example, Dawkins suggests in the God Delusion that love evolved to bond a pair together for about three years, long enough to ween a child. That works great for hunter/gatherers. But in our modern world, I would argue that it takes nearly two decades to really ween a child, because that's how long it takes to fully educate him and then kick him out of the house.

So if you're asking, "what works best for humans" then I'll answer by telling you what works best in a little rift valley in Africa, and I'll ignore the little blip in time since the last ice age. When you look at the big picture, the last 10k years are insignificant.

But if you're asking, "what works best today" then I'll answer by telling you what works in an urbanized culture. And this answer will be pretty much the exact opposite of the other answer.

I suppose it can feel like a fine line, sometimes, between tolerating a few flaws in one's spouse, and settling for second best. But I hope you're not having second thoughts about your choice...

Maybe you should suggest he change his socks more often.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Anyone blaming Hollywood for our current ideals of romance really needs to read their Austen . . . or their Shakespeare. Probably their Chaucer. Or their Greek mythology.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Or maybe he's just being a little hyperbolic.
In any case, it's the modern media/culture that promote romantic myths in the modern world.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

I think you could probably just have left it at that.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

We may have the capacity to feel jealousy or jaded but each individual's sense of that emotion is triggered by what we are raised to expect. It a conditioning by culture. I am sure, even in primative communities people picked favorites but I just wonder if the "bond of marriage" isn't something conditioned in us.

Disinfo Agent, it would be a matter of second best if there was a number 1 but in reality, I don't know anyone who found the one that fits their ideal partner to a degree. And, no this came about over a discussion I had with a friend over the phone, I had recently seen a program on the science of love and he, at the moment, is taking a class that is discussing the biology of human emotions. It was perfect timing for the call. I'm a she, btw, not a he.

Gillianren, I did say love stories first, it's just that Hollywood is the main outlet, nowadays. Even in school, after reading an ancient Greek Poem, you get to see Hollywoods perception. Love stories was just a broad description of everything from the first fireside/bedtime story told to everything that has been printed since.

I used "he" because I assumed Gillianren was referring to me.

I agree with you that there is no one, true number 1 waiting for each of us. That's just an idealisation, a kind of standard or goal we set ourselves. This is not bad in itself, unless we start taking the ideal too seriously. Which, I think, too many people do.

As for the so-called "science of love", my advice is don't believe any of it. Well, maybe give the benefit of the doubt to 1% of it. Science just hasn't come that far yet, despite what its enthusiasts like to boast.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

True, true. But it's fashionable to blame Hollywood, no matter how many other influences society is under. This has been true for longer than people realize.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

They don't? Now admittedly self reports are rather thin on the ground, but many animals do appear to get rather emotional when it comes to "cheating."

Then to even HAVE an "ideal" is to have an inherently negative attitude that sets you up to always disapprove of everyone and everything as falling short of it.

Disinfo Agent, so you don't think it is mostly chemical? I dont think they will ever fully understand personality, moods, behavior, and emotion, but it seems simple enough, although I do wonder why some people can cause the reaction and others can cause the opposite.

I suppose you are right, Delvo, it is setting up for disappointment if you hold to it, but doesn't everyone talk about to what they are attracted? I think the "ideal" is more of a matter of thinking we know what we want, but not really knowing until we have it.

Someone should write a book about a hypothetical intelligent civilization that has a mating season lasting a couple weeks in August rather than a constant state of courtship etc. Would that society be more productive because they weren't distracted by the constant quest for love and companionship and sex? Or would they be less productive because people wouldn't have the motivation of impressing prospective mates year around? I do know one thing that would be different. Lot's of May birthday parties to attend.

Do animals that find a new partner every mating season end up with STD's? Or would the risk be lower by having several different partners, but only getting together once a year? What about Bonobo's? Any STD's among them?

The OP raises many questions.

__________________
Spock Jenkins of the Vulcan Jenkins'.

I take it you had never seen on a nature show what happens when a male elephant seal discovers one of his mates being mounted by another bull. He is furious -- and not just at the other male.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

The Race in "Warworld" series by Turtledove. Unfortunately, he did not think through the implications well. The Race ended up a hodgepodge of incompatible aspects... as is the entire series, really.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

Let me turn that question around: can chemists currently explain all about love, or attraction in general? Can they even explain part of it?

If your answer to both questions is "no", as mine is, then I don't think we should say that "it's all chemistry" (or even "mostly chemical"). I mean, I understand that what people mean by that is that there are probably natural causes for attraction. That's a reasonable assumption, but, by itself, it teaches us little that we didn't already know.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Didn't the Vulcans have some such arrangement?---but why August; it can be 'too darn hot' in a lot of places that time of year.

__________________
*

Given the chance, by meeting someone i truly loved and who loved me back, i would have no hesitation in compromising to stay together - till death do us part. I think its a mixture of all the things posted on this thread. Survival instincts are what drive living things to mate in the first place. For a species to survive, mating with as many different partners as possible is a very basic instinct. Humans can work both ways but as with some other animals the welfare of our current offspring becomes the most dominate instinct, more so than having multiple offspring. Love between partners is a strong emotion that humans seem to have developed greater than any other species . I guess the "till death do us part" is down to individual emotion and and social upbringing. I'm all for it with the right person.

__________________
ooops..... wrong forum!!!

And yet this so called "Love" is so complex that we still don't know much how to deal with it without ending up hurting .

August because your children will then be born in May when you have a long period of warmer weather and access to food when your babies are infants. It would stem from our hunter / gatherer period. Also, harvest would be abundant in the fall allowing for expectent mothers to be as well nurished as possible during the critical early months of a pregnancy.

I believe you're correct on the Vulcans. It was only once every seven years or so. Wonder how they lasted as a species.

__________________
Spock Jenkins of the Vulcan Jenkins'.

Yes, but late pregnancy, when a woman is hungriest (I should know), would come when there was the least food.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

A lot of this depends upon one's social milieu.

Growing up in the '70s hardly anyone was divorced. Extra-marital affairs were still shocking and only carefully discussed amongst adults. Etc.

Our society is now very different, obviously.

Is it possible for just 1 person to be your (entirely) "all in all"...for life? I doubt it. However, if vows have been made they should be honored.

I'm faithful to my significant other; have been for 15 years. I do have a "friendly flirtation" who is 11 years my junior; we've collaborated on writing projects, etc. We mutually enjoy each other's online companionship. There is creative and intellectual interaction with him that I don't have with my SO (who does know about my friend). However, it's all kept within strict boundaries of decorum and propriety for the 3-1/2 years we've been "pals" and will continue to be.