posted
In the Stormy's premarital abstinence thread, I was in the process of typing the phrase "Monogamy is for the birds." when I thought more about it.
Now, I know the "Are Humans Monogamous?" question has been asked many times before, but I thought I'd get a Hatrack opinion.
Are we? Birds are. Large apes(gorillas, orangutans) are.
But chimpanzees, our nearest relatives, aren't. Heck, Bonobo chimps make our pornstars look like Catholic schoolgirls.
If there wasn't such a rigid social structure favoring monogamy, would we practice it? Even with our current structure, most people seem to be struggling with the concept of mating for life.
Did Man invent the concept of Love? Or do we have an overinflated sense of Jealousy? Were men envious of a woman's multi-orgasmic ability, then became monogamous in an attempt to quell such behavior?
If we were truly monogamous, would that entail not having any feelings for anyone other than our spouse, rather than merely repressing those feelings?
quote:Just because swans mate for life, I don't think it's that big a deal. First of all, if you're a swan, you're probably not going to find a swan that looks much better than the one you've got, so why not mate for life?
posted
I don't see monogamy as repressing feelings for people not one's spouse/partner. See, to me, there's no question of polygamy. I don't *want* to be with anyone besides the person I'm with. I don't really think it's a societal thing, because we see the opposite daily. It's a me thing, and I must've gotten it from somewhere. (and certainly not my parents, both of whom cheated on each other)
I have no desire to see other people, and even if I can acknowledge attractiveness or similar interests in another person, I have no interest in pursuing it whatsoever. Then again, I've been called weird before in regards to my romantic feelings.
posted
Actually, most bird species aren't monogamous. It's true that many species, such as geese, have a social bond with a specific partner for life, but "cheating" is quite common among such species.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Third Chimpanzee has an interesting section on the cheating game amongst social birds. A male bird that expends energy protecting and gathering food for chicks not his genetic offspring will not be as successful at reproducing, so they have elaborate behaviors both to cheat and prevent cheating.
A lot of the book is so-so, but the part on bird mating bahavior is pretty good.
posted
You know, I've been wanting to get my hands on The Third Chimpanzee for years, ever since I read Guns, Germs and Steel back in '98 or '99, but I've never quite managed to get a copy. Why do you say that it's only so-so?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think different humans have different inclinations (DUH!), and some of us are basically monogamous, while others aren't. How we react to our own basic inclinations probably does have a lot to do with society.
Like homosexuality, I see it as points on a continuum. If somebody is somewhere in the middle on their sexual preference, society makes it a lot easier to be heterosexual than homosexual-- so there ya go. The farther away from the center you go, the harder the choice.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet brings up a question I'd be interesed in y'all's thoughts on:
do you think someone who is poly-oriented, but willing to try to be monogamous for the sake of their partner's happiness is living a lie? doomed to failure? like a homosexual trying to maintain a straight marriage?
can it really be an orientation issue because, inlike homosexuality, you can be attracted to your spouse, just other people too. Isn't it more like being bisexual? Are bisexuals who settle down for a lifelong monogamous relationship with one partner unable to be satisfied?
posted
I believe a factoid I read once that the more intelligent you are, the less restricted you are by traditional gender roles. Which is not the same as saying you are more likely to be bi. Just that your brain is more flexible. Did you read my landmark about the time my eventual husband cried at the end of "Beaches?"
Edit: We were both born in the year of the Dog, so of course we are very very loyal
posted
there is a book written by a lady scientist of some sort (i learned about it in anthropology, so she may be a pychiscal anthropologist but i don't remember for certain. all my notebooks are three thousand miles away.) about this very question. it upset a lot of people, but sadly seems to be fairly accurate. the book argues that humans are "serial monogamists." that meaning we are largely monogamous for the average of seven years, then we move on to other mates. (seven year itch, anyone?) think about child development - most women need much more help with raising and protecting their children, but then once the child is out of the toddler phase and a little beyond they are much more independent. we had a great discussion that day in class, about the cultural impact on our notions of love and relationships, vs. the physical necessity, etc. it really is a two way street, though. it almost always is. both factors affect eachother and it's nigh impossible to untangle them and sort them out.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sibling parenting is a really important anthropological factor as well. Don't a lot of animals chase away siblings before they have another baby? But in populations where siblings can be tolerated and assist in watching the infants, survival is a lot higher. I was watching a show about Jackals recently.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, did read the landmark and laughed aloud at that point... I haven't seen "Beaches" but will cry at movies fairly often. (latest time was RotK, during Pippin's Song, but I also cried at parts of "Treasure Planet" so I'm pretty easy).
Porce, that book sounds like the book on polyamory that my wife got and we read together...
and with that I've probably let the cat out of the bag... have a really personal stake in this question and, since you guys are debating it anyhow, I'd like to steer it to my advantage.
So, back to my original question: is a "poly-oriented" person unreasonable for trying to keep to one lifelong mate?
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes for less stable homes. I think deciding that you're a person who just can't keep to one person is a tremendously selfish decision. Now, if its just you - no one depending on you - that's fine. It's your decision.
But it doesn't make stable families, and it is sacrficing the kids for the parent's need for novelty. So, for a parent, yes, it's reasonable and necessary to figure out a way to conquer some instincts.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think Hot Monogamy works? I wasn't sure I should link this, but the goofy picture is quite funny. Could you make my arm look a little fatter please? (not I'm not saying that is me in that picture.)
it's not a question of eventually wanting that. I want it now.
Was trying to avoid putting sides up, but for clarity's sake:
1) I'm the one who would be considered "poly-oriented", if, indeed, there is such a thing.
2) I want to stay married and am personally and sexually satisfied with my wife.
3) My wife thinks this is impossible and doesn't believe I could be happy with just her.
I don't need discussions of how I might or might not be sending her which kind of signals or what I might do in the future. I have a marriage counselor for that. I was just trying to see if a group of random, intelligent people, discussing this general issue anyway, would be more inclined to take my view (that it's more of an inclination that can be dealt with) or my wife's (that it's merely a matter of wiring and cannot be changed).
In fact, I don't need this at all. I just thought I could get a show of hands as to who thinks it's possible or not. Sorry for dragging you all into my personal business. Not how I intended this conversation to go at all.
[ February 02, 2004, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think that you know yourself and what you're capable of. In some people this "poly" orientation may not be able to be controlled (if it's at all analogous to homosexuality), but yes, I would agree with your position.
(pooka, looks like she was a member of the German olympic women's swim team)
posted
I didn't mean for it to get personal to you, TAK. I think sexual behavior is part genetic, part upbringing, and part free will. Also ongoing experience and expectation. Simply put, I have a hard time envisioning a situation where someone had no choice about how to behave.
In your situation, it sounds to me like your wife is succumbing to a compulsive fear by insisting you don't have a choice. By compulsive fear, I mean she fears you will leave her so she is trying to control that event by encouraging it. But I don't know her. I just know I do that sometimes.
For instance, it's too painful to resist the temptation of eating the donut, so I'll just get it over with by eating it now. Unfortunately, I don't actually have a donut...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, I've been wanting to get my hands on The Third Chimpanzee for years, ever since I read Guns, Germs and Steel back in '98 or '99, but I've never quite managed to get a copy. Why do you say that it's only so-so?
It's definitely worth reading, but it's consistency varies widely. The basic approach is an analysis of the human animal from an evolutionary perspective, and it is pretty good in that regard.
The problems occur when Jared makes sweeping generalizations about human behavior solely from the evolutionary perspective. It's not that that perspective is wrong - it's that it's incomplete and he never really acknowledges the incompleteness.
Unfortunately, I read it long enough ago that I can't remember a lot of specific reasons behind why I formed this opinion.
If you liked GGaS, you'll like this book. If you liked the historical aspects most, you'll prefer GGaS to Chimpanzee. If you liked the evolutionary/anthropological stuff, you may prefer Chimpanzee.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there wasn't such a rigid social structure favoring monogamy, would we practice it?
Here's a question: where did that social structure come from? Would we have invented such a structure if it were contrary to our nature?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is evidence that the earliest nomatic tribes were monogamous and matriachs (because the men were hunting/gathering, the women were the ones that satyed in the tribes to take care of the children, and handle administrative/day-to-day affairs of the group). But this doesn't answer the question as to why humans are, on the most part, monogamous. I wish I had my high school Western Civ book because it said a little about it, which I will hit on in a few sentences, biologically speaking, it would be better for males in spreading genes to have more than one partner (ie lion prides), also while one female can only bear one child (minus the point of twins, etc) at a time, males can impregnate as many women has he has time to (not to be crude, it's just biological fact), so it would be to the male's advantage to actually have as many mates as possible.
Until you think in groups and tribes. In of itself this doesn't answer why humans are monogamous, but coupled together with the fact that the probability of having a male and female child are nearly the same (I believe the actual statistics are 53% chance of a female, and 47% male, but close enough that we'll call it 50-50), that means in a group there will be roughly an equal amount of males as females. In the example of lions though, due to mortality, etc the amount of males is much lower (reason we possibly don't kill off male children is because men were physically stronger and were required to hunt, and thusly a crucial asset). Now, if human society was predomenantly female, then pologamy would probably be rather likely because in order to survive, we need to generate babies, so the males would have to have sex with more women, but because we are able to keep a 50-50 men-women ratio, this is the first point where we can have monogomy. Second, because we operate in a society where the ratio of men and women is rougly equal, it makes it hard for a male to have more than one mate without approaching on any other male's chance of having a mate, and possibly causing strife. In the game-theory sense if males go for more than one female, there'll be fighting over mates, and war...in which both parties lose, but if everybody plays by the game of compromise and work together, cooperation allows for greater sucess of all, (because in a group, every member somehow contributes, loose a member and you loose an asset), so possibly it's because of group relation and peace that humans became monogamous...this makes me rather curious if humans would still be monogamous if 1/4th of male youth died before puberty. Satyagraha
posted
I think Uncle Orson Put it best in Xenocide.
I'll paraphrase and use my own choice of words It is all a matter of biology. Females have only a ceartain number of eggs and very few years to get them fertalized. Men Have millions Of little sperm produced untill the day they die. The females want the strongest most successfull males to settle down with them and protect their spawn. Males want to send those millions of little wrigglers into as many females as they can.
here is where i go into my little take on this
Unfortunatley the strongest most succesfull males were usually cads. No way were they going to stick around after the deed was done. Luckily the females did have something the males wanted. (use your imagination cause i know all of us men think about it all the time) The females said "only me or ya wont get it anymore." The males said "Oh baby, come on, please, Ya know your the only one for me and the opthers dont mean a thing. I'm just acting out and trying to get that part of me that you appreciate so much out to the rest of them also. Ya know share a little of that special something i posess. Besides there is no one like you and the rest are down by the river right now washing my furs. She said "Uh huh. Talk to the hand." she shook her head in that annoying little circle and said "If ya dont get rid of them other tramps Now You can just walk right out of this cave and ya wont get nothing from me ever again. And I'll tell the rest of them what a flake and how weak ya are ta boot. If ya don't want to become the weenie of this clan instead of the alpha male then you will do as your told." He said "But...." She glared and pulled he furs tighter around her. He said "yes dear" (imagine droopy dog) She said "Now pour me a could one and oh by the way rub my feet get me something to eat fix me up my favorite treat my heads killing me i need to relax tell me a story give the wolf a bone Hey Hey hey honey your domesticated now." He said "yes dear....Do you think later we could.....?" She said "I'll think about it."
hense monogamy was born
or as far as she knew she couldnt keep her eyes on him 24/7
So you see. Monogomy is god for females and bad for males.
So if ya want to keep the woman you are with ya better do it her way. Or she'll tell all the other girls the truth and add a few embellishing lies that will make you have to move to the other continent.
Now moving ok if ya can manage to find a few hundred stupid girls ya think ya can cowtow into subservience.
But have now doubt that your life will be more miserable with that many women plotting and talking and trying to control you.
Better stick to the one you are with
One can do so much less damage to you ego and psychi than a whoel group of them.
But I would like to ask, if the social structure is based on our nature, why is it changing so drastically now?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guess that would mean it's not solely based on our nature, but other things as well. Right? But I still think that our social structure encourages our nature. I'm afraid that it will soon be *discouraging* our nature.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read through my post and saw how rambling it was, so I think I'll attempt to rewrite the gut of what I said. Reason 1 as to why humans are monogamous: Male-Female ratio is roughly 50-50, everybody can have a mate. Reason 2, dependent upon Reason 1: Because the male-female ratio is pretty much equal, and the nature of small tribes (where every body was an asset), it was better to not have anyone fight over mates because any injured person became a liability, and any dead person (due to fights) was a loss. Reason 3, (brand spankin' new!): There is evidence that marriages were arrianged between tribes as a sign of peace and cooperation, and when there are only so many men, or women...it's rather hard for any man or woman to have a harem without tipping social dynamics and making someone jealous. Satyagraha
PS. Jenny: US law isn't against having a harem, you just don't get any tax breaks beyond your first. :-P
posted
Yes, but "current morality". My hubby wouldn't like it much. If he'd been brought up to think that women having several husbands was NORMAL, it might work out easier.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had a harem of men, they would all dote on me and my offspring. I'd have to keep them from fighting, though. I'd have to share my favors equitably, and divide labor in a fair fashion.
One guy to care for the children. One guy to be a wage-slave. One guy to fix up the house.
I think I could keep about 3 or 4 men. That should do nicely.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many of you men really want to go through life and death dominance fights that would come with the lion's pride scenario?
When Mormons used to practice polygamy, it apparently required an application to the church hierarchy. At one point. There were different policies at different times. But I'm saying in the ideal situation you would have to get approval from the older and wiser before you went into mass reproduction.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it doesn't make stable families, and it is sacrficing the kids for the parent's need for novelty. So, for a parent, yes, it's reasonable and necessary to figure out a way to conquer some instincts.
Referring to it as "sacrificing the kids" seems a bit like hyperbole. Anyway, I realize the benefits of stability, but I don't agree that a monogamous family is the only way to stability--it's just the most common and accepted one at this point in time. Sure, running around spreading your seed all willy-nilly is a bit less stable (but could still, arguably, work), but polygamy and serial monogamy are all stable states.
quote:Here's a question: where did that social structure come from? Would we have invented such a structure if it were contrary to our nature?
Why are there such strict rules governing something you seem to imply we wouldn't be doing, anyway? I mean, what good would the ten commandments be if they didn't condemn things we were inclined to do?
Why would "Thou shalt not commit adultery." be any more relevant than "Thou shalt not milk three goats before breakfast on Thursdays."?
posted
I always thought that the majority of the big 10 C's were just plain old common sense. For instance "Thou shalt not kill" - It prevents us from damaging and possibly destroying the community.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" - It limits the spread of STD's.
Abstinence was my choice as a young adult because I didn't want to get some kind of nasty illness and I didn't want to get pregnant.
I demand monogamy of myself and my husband now because: 1- We made a promise 2- I am loyal to my husband and don't want to make him feel bad 3- Learning to live with someone is alot of work; why would I want to learn a whole new set of game rules 4- I'd like to stay healthy
and most importantly
5- Children of unbroken homes have a much better chance of growing-up to b well-educated, happy, confident adults. (I've looked-up the stats on this before, but I'm too tired to do it right now.)
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I always thought that the majority of the big 10 C's were just plain old common sense. For instance "Thou shalt not kill" - It prevents us from damaging and possibly destroying the community.
I agree. I was just saying that if humans weren't inclined to do these things in the first place, why bother chiseling them into a stone tablet and making an old guy trudge up a mountain for them?
quote:5- Children of unbroken homes have a much better chance of growing-up to b well-educated, happy, confident adults. (I've looked-up the stats on this before, but I'm too tired to do it right now.)
Certainly, that's true now. But I think it has less to do with the broken home itself than it has to do with the people who're getting the divorces. The divorce rate is highest among the poor and uneducated (the people I believe are the least inclined to go along with societal norms), so these kids had quite a bit of catching up to do, anyway.
quote:I demand monogamy of myself and my husband now because
See, that was my main question. We, as humans, have to try so hard to become and remain monogamous that I wonder if we've become so because of a greater good, or because at some point, the majority or those at the top of the heirarchy decided that it would be best and have been perpetuating the idea of monogamy.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Conjugal visits???? Just what kind of husbands are we trying to get for Jenny, anyway?
