Really?
Our whole society is "fighting nature". The way we live together in cities, the way we travel in cars, the way we communicate on the internet could all be interpreted as "fighting nature". Long gone are the days when you could forcibly drag the woman of your choice back to your cave for shagging, and many people see stable relationships as beneficial to their children (and so advantageous to their own genetic legacy). As such, monogamy could be considered an entirely natural response to the "nature" of our current social situation.

Also, just because you stare at other women's tits and arses, it doesn't mean that you have to do anything about it.

So congratulations on your poorly thought out suite of sweeping generalisations.
(flimflam_machine, Tue 19 Oct 2010, 15:23, 2 replies)

You could also argue
that it is in our nature, as humans, to create physical and social structures that confound or complicate basic biological urges. So, it is entirely natural for us to create cities and mating conventions (without suggesting that any particular model of marriage/cohabiting/promiscuity is any more natural than any other).

We are part of nature; nothing we do is unnatural*

* With the obvious exception of "Keeping Up With The Kardashians"
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Tue 19 Oct 2010, 16:21, closed)

.
You could never drag a woman back to your cave. That's not human nature. Where it did happen, it would have been the same reason as it is in modern times - dominance and control.

That's not part of our breeding strategy.

On the other hand, I wouldn't dispute those are generalisations. Doesn't mean they're wrong.
( Not Pineapple anymore, Wed 20 Oct 2010, 14:00, closed)