So, the Playboy ethic was right?
Psychologist Christopher Ryan is out to defeat an archetypal figure in the mythology of monogamy. No, not prince charming; he’s after the widespread belief in a prehistoric hunter who would slay an antelope on the plains and heroically haul it back to his nuclear family.
You might wonder what this has to do with monogamy. Well, Ryan argues that in actuality the meat would have been shared with the entire tribe, because pre-agricultural societies shared everything — including sex. This is a key point he and co-author/wife Cacilda Jethá make in “Sex at Dawn,” which was released last year in hardcover and this month in paperback. Our hunting and gathering ancestors were nonmonogamous, they argue — the implication being that, biologically speaking, sexual exclusivity is unnatural.
sooo can one get this game at your local xtrian gift store?
Monogamy is a defense mechanism evolved to care for children. Can’t speak to the psychology but both sexes appear to be designed for multiple sexual partners. Women have this wonderful ability to have multiple orgasms while men have a penis whose shape is designed to scoop out rival semen before making a deposit.
I believe in love but I know it’s possible to love more than one woman at a time. Marriage, on the other hand, is an unnatural state. Just ask my ex-wives…
I believe Monogamy is also a an evolutionary tactic. Not genetically but socially. We evolved monogamy as a society to cut down on interspecies violence. Humans naturally want to lay claim on items and then protect them. For men women are at the top of that list. Also as stated it works to protect children as other men would seek out and kill offspring of rivals from the same mother.
STOP with the one rule for everybody. Most issues will distribute themselves on a bell shaped curve. So often in fact that you might find yourself dealing with the truth the more often you find answers that fall on a bell shaped curve. Even helps to formulate the questions to get to that shape/distribution.
Not all issues, but thats the trick.
It’s also unnatural for human beings to sit for hours a day behind a computer screen. Doesn’t mean we’ll stop doing it, any more than we’ll stop driving or flying, or mixing drinks.
I won’t suggest sources – because none of you read, anyway. But, this is a simple bit of anthropology that evolves from economics, folks.
You devise monogamy because it supposedly ensures the heir to your property – once society has advanced to the point of having enough surplus to call it property – is actually your’n.
There. Now you’re up to a late 19th Century level of understanding. Finally.
Antelope?
#6 – Moss for brains: Well, ain’t you special? It is never okay to say you have sources but others are to dense to read them. Bobbo, for instance, follows every link provided, it seems. And although he has a real left leaning understanding of the facts, he really often does a good job of understanding and explaining. I don’t have as much time as others, but, in an interesting post, I’ll follow the links and read them. Well, at least skim them. But thank god for you. Your intellect is so great we don’t have to have the opportunity to see for ourselves.
To the rest of us dumb bastards I’ll remind you that western society is not the be all and end all for humanity. I’ve spent a bunch of years living in a society (Islam) where polygamy is just fine. But, it reminds me of two things:
1) It seems only rich Muslim men have multiple wives. One would think, especially in rural areas, two or three wives would be very desirable as they provide more help around the farm and produce more children. A Nubian imam once told me it was immoral to marry more women than you could easily provide for. Hmmm. Or, maybe, after a hard day in the poppy fields, a tired man just can’t put up with more than one nag at home. And riding a camel isn’t that easy on the ole balls! Who needs the added pressure in the bedroom?
2) Ever notice that when we talk about polygamy we mean multiple wives? The word itself encompasses spouses of either sex. (Multiple wives is polygyny while extar husbands is polyandy) When we hear about a man with two or three wives, we wink and snicker and probably admire him a little. When we hear about a woman with two or three husbands, don;t we automatically think “slut”?
By the way, in my experience (mostly Afghanistan) second wives are brought into the family when the first wife just has two much on her hands – children to realize, household to run, farm duties, etc. And, sad fact of life, after four or five births, a woman’s reproductive tract can be seriously compromised. So, the first wife often welcomes the introduction of a young, vital second wife to help out with chores and to produce more children.
Another source of help in countries with a high mortality rate is to “adopt” a deceased brother’s wife and children. They are most often brought into the family as almost slaves. But at least they have a safety net. Otherwise these women would be huddled n the side of the road, cowering beneath their burqas begging for coins.
Just sayin’.
My bed is made of monogamy.
Millions of Americans have open multiple sexual partnerships which can include long term, complex partnerships that are functionally the same as monogamous marriages. Google polyamory or swinging. There is a lot more going on than Fundamentalist Mormon polygamy.
BS article. Check other species. There is monogamy (even in surprising species were it looks pointless – birds who don’t see each other but for the mating and raising of the young) and there are all variations on polygamy. However, each species is genetically driven to one particular option which dominate that species.
Than look at the archaic but still living cultures of humans. Again, you stumble on variety but now it is dominated by monogamy (followed not by “sex with all” as article implies but with non-PC one husband-many wives as a second most dominant).
We lean to monogamy (and we lean toward cheating and possessing more). Genetically. Without genetic drive society would evolve way differently. It didn’t. Social trends do not dominate genetics – it s other way around (or we’d be able to change eye color for social purposes quite easily).
I also believe monogamy is for financial and emotional needs.
Not being married and living alone in a trailer can end up like this fellow.
http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020560/Man-76-blames-Satan-sexually-assaulted-maid.html
How about we state the obvious? (I’m surprised no one has mentioned it yet.)
Sexually transmitted diseases.
Syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS, and who knows what else?
“Whether or not AIDS could have been contained may have depended on the population it was affecting. If so, the fact that AIDS hit the homosexual population first may have been particularly unfavorable … the gay male population was considerably promiscuous in the early 1980s as a result of their recent sexual revolution. Sexually transmitted disease such as syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV ran rampant through public bath houses, where gay men would engage in anonymous sex with other men. These factors contributed significantly to the spread of AIDS.”
Monogamy is at least partially due to biological preservation of the species.
http://duke.edu/~mht/Papers/AIDS%20&%20homosexuality.html
Oh, and another reason for Monogamy is to avoid the “Tragedy of the commons” as it relates to the rearing of children.
In other words, as the human populace grows, taking care of children cannot be left to the commons because the commons will select the “best” (most gifted and enjoyable) children to raise and leave the others to their own devices.
And civilization falters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
It’s pretty simple. It’s possible even a liberal can understand it.
People can be manipulated to accept a bad situation if the manipulator is interested enough and has the energy.
HENCE PIMPS.
For the rest of us, a one on one pairing is all the makes sense.
Manipulators, by definition, are psychopaths (or sociopaths).
Choose your posion.
Then why do eagles and lots of other species form bonded pairs for life? Ditto dusanmal.
#8–Well, thank you Animby. You sure did piss off Ah Yea though. He’s so upset, he can’t even respond to the idea I read at all. Ha, ha. I do skim and read about as well as I type though==that is a drawback.
funny that morals has nothing to do with nature. Nature is simply what works, how it works.
If you take monogamy and plot it across sexually reproducing creatures, I’m sure it falls on a …………… bell shaped curve. Hahahahahaha. I don’t even care if it does or not. Point is–if you is, you got one set of benefits and burdens, and if you isn’t, then you got a different set. Its all the same and different at the same time: pro’s and con’s to all we do.
How many more catchphrases can I lump in here?
VOTE ALL “NO NEW TAXES” POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE. Yea, verily.
#11–dismal==you say: “Without genetic drive society…..”//// There is no genetic drive such as you posit. In fact, as you are using the dynamic, you are really pointing out ENVIRONMENT as the “driving” characteristic shaping this behavior in man/animals. Genetics has no values/no direction/no drives. Genetics is either more or less adaptive TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
A little read is always informative:
Monogamy
Ok, so if polygyny is so great then why do some end up being monogamous? It’s certainly not very common:
Birds- 90% monogamous.
Mammals- under 5% monogamous
Primates- 37/200=~18% monogamous.
(Traditional human societies are about 20% monogamous.)
Very short:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/mating.html
There are many things that are “unnatural” and many that are natural. That doesn’t mean we can’t improve or, God forbid, evolve. Two natural things but one shouldn’t be allowed, although bums do it all the time 🙂
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zy1Zsg8mLD0
Below is what should be consider “God forbid”, and seriously…you don’t want this craziness running our country.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IAaDVOd2sRQ
Monogamy exists because:
It takes 18 years to raise a child. Strangling teenagers can be averted if a man knows the doofus is actually his child.
Women
arewere property. Ogg the Mighty hunter might think he should be entitled to all the women but, he had to keep in mind that he was easier to kill than the antelope he brought in. A lot jealousy results in hunting accidents. Probably still does.Women need someone to complain to and about.
Women are much better at spreading their genes into later generations than men. That’s your clue.
I stay married because I’m terrified at the prospect of learning my my way around a new kitchen.
Perhaps he’s right, however, examine any Evolutionary Psychologist and you’ll find a pervy nerdy professor who wishes to justify his (yes, usually his) fascination with women 20+ years his junior…not that there’s anything right (sic) with that.
Nature/nurture…Id/Ego/Superego…Miss Right versus Miss Right now…the same old story. Go ahead and cheat around but be ready for the consequences. 😉
# 11 dusanmal “(or we’d be able to change eye color for social purposes quite easily)” I know a young lady who changes her eye color to match her clothes. “Easy Peasy” -Bobbo 2011
# 13 Ah_Yea said, “(I’m surprised no one has mentioned it yet.)”
Maybe no one has mentioned it because it’s a non-starter. STDs were almost unknown until the 15th century. In fact, Columbus has been (arguably) credited with bringing it back from America. I’m sorry to report to you, monogamy was strongly entrenched in European society by then.
I’ve read about the theory that the bathhouse culture was responsible for the AIDS epidemic. I think most medical people just sort of shake their head and sneer at the idea. See, the thing is the HIV is pretty difficult to contract. The reason the gay population had a higher incidence is more likely due to the type of sexual activity they engaged in and less to do with where or how often they copulated. Even well-lubed and gentle anal intercourse is prone to small anal tears. And those rips give a nice entry into the blood stream for the HI virus. I even heard an argument once that gay men who have frequent anal intercourse lose sphincter tone and become less prone to tearing. Therefore, promiscuity could be a defense against AIDS!
You can make a case for almost anything.
#21 Fubar – And how do these women spread their genes without a man to help them??? Behind every woman there’s a man rubbing up against her…
Having been exuberantly married for 3 years, my guess is that most people think monogamy doesn’t work because they don’t follow the biblical model: no sex before or outside of marriage; I love, respect, and submit to my husband; and he loves and takes care of me. There is no happier marriage relationship.
And I don’t submit to my husband because I’m too dumb to make my own choices: we both have Ph.D.’s.
“The Unnatural State of Monogamy” Hell guys have been telling this to girlfriends and wives for years. They haven’ bought it yet.
I don’t understand all the fuss. My wife and I have practiced monotony for over twenty years now.
#24–seeringache==I was gonna let it pass, but you are too much. Lets parse:
Having been exuberantly married for 3 years, /// Huzzah! Good on you. I am happy for you and yours.
my guess is that most people think monogamy doesn’t work /// who said that much less “most people?”
because they don’t follow the biblical model: no sex before or outside of marriage; /// My sister, a born again virgin followed this precept and got a very boring antiseptic lover as a husband. She complained to our mother one day and Mom said: “You married him without giving him a test drive, now you’re stuck with him.” My love for my mother doubled right on the spot.
I love, respect, and submit to my husband; /// Submission huh? Sounds like you and my sisters husband would make a good pair. Haw, haw!!!!
and he loves and takes care of me. There is no happier marriage relationship. //// You can always be happier. Its a matter of balance. Amusing you can commit the sin of pride when no one else envies you?
And I don’t submit to my husband because I’m too dumb to make my own choices: we both have Ph.D.’s. /// I was going to disagree, but since you “both” have Ph D’s, there’s no argument against that. So often, the root of unhappiness in a marriage is that only one person has a Ph D. I certainly hope and do assume you submitted to your husband and as such only followed his example? Do you ever initiate anything? What was it???—the last time. Please remember that non-Ph D’s read this blog as you frame you response.
Everything is a benefit / cost ratio.
You and your employeer, for example. Husband to wife (each way). Children.
There are no “zero costs” because the ratio would be infinity. Even Heffner has to pay (cheaply) for his (cheap) toys.
Life is a state of selfishness, and receive no benefits.
#28–What== you say no zero costs? Everyone knows that. didn’t you miss the elephant: there are zero benefits? Imagine a relationship where the wife always submits to her husband for instance. That equation also raises a definitional question. some guy was saying that the singularity cannot be made sense of because when the radius of the universe equals zero, then you have infinity an infinity number of times which cannot be made sense of.
when I was a kiddie, we were taught that a number divided by zero was “undefined.” When did that change to infinity?
How do we “know” that the Big Bang started with a singularity so defined? How do we know/think/theorize it wasn’t the size of a lemon? What “changes” if that was the case?
If the speed of light is a constant, how is there a doppler shift in observing stars/systems flying away from us?
Is physicas playing games with us in calling the spin of an atom “information” and information cannot be destroyed? Why the analogy rather than just saying what they are actually talking about? What are they talking about?
Maybe some PhD married to a PhD can make clear the meaning of happiness?
#24 Proof that education does not equal intelligence. I wonder if she received her Mrs. degree before or after the doctorate? Now go fix your loving hubbie his sammich like he told you.