Critical Thinking Problem #3.

Are human beings GENETICALLY monogamous? Whatever your position, can you give scientific and/or everyday examples to support your position?

Some people prefer to focus on the question: Are men monogamous? If you want to focus more on men's behavior, that's fine.

note on edit: i meant to focus only on whether or not humans are genetically designed to be monogamous.

I have no scientific basis for this, only my own experience(and some Discovery channel/NOVA?TLC programs)- but I think women are much more inclined towards monogamy, whereas men are not. Think about it- men are designed so they can spred their, um "seed" often- it's survival of the fittest- the more they spread it, the more of their offspring they'll be, the less of anyone elses. Kind of a king of the hill thing. He who dies with the most [fill in the blank] wins.

Women, on the other hand, don't have that luxury, as they're stuck carrying the kid around for years, and , so it's in their best interest (or at least was, long ago) to stick with one person, who will hopefully care and provide for them in the meantime.

It's kind of a "herd animal" mentality, I assume, left over from a time when it made the difference between who lived and who died. Same thing still happens with horses, goats, lions, etc.


And, with all this said, my husband would be one very sorry SOB if he ever decided he WASN'T monogamous.

There are books out there ("Sperm Wars", etc) that promote the theory that humans have evolved by women engaging with more than one mate and then each man's sperm competes to be first to get to the egg. The going theory states that sperm cells have actually specialized so that some of them take on the role of blocking out the competition.

Regarding the standard story that females have a vested interest in monogamy, DNA testing of offspring often shows some surprising results.

For those who uphold the ideal of monogamy, the movie "Forces of Nature" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141098/) has an excellent message. Basically it is saying that our animalistic urges ("the forces of nature") lead us toward infidelity. If we want to sanctify our primary relationship then we must put effort into keeping a protective bubble around key aspects of that relationship. The couple must build -and maintain- a shelter to protect themselves from the forces of nature.


[Footnote: The movie predates Ben Affleck getting busted at a stripclub!]

Originally posted by Elara
- but I think women are much more inclined towards monogamy, whereas men are not.

Your points are well taken but keep in mind for every guy screwing around there has to be girl. Well...except if there are homosexuals involved or the occasional animal or blow up doll.

Well I have found the only people that are really monogamous are the genetic exceptions. They have low sex drive, or are easily satisifed with having one person forever. Everyone else - are horny, people.....

I think it takes a serious conscious decision and a lot of work to remain with one person, that it is a fight against the natural instinct to mate.

Jen

I just got the call from my dealer that the truck with my RX-8 just arrived. I'm stoked. (It's the buyback replacement I ordered back in early December.)

I figure that this might be a good thread to announce this on since I fully intend to conzum8.

Well I have found the only people that are really monogamous are the genetic exceptions. They have low sex drive, or are easily satisifed with having one person forever. Everyone else - are horny, people.....


I completly agree. it takes tonz of work to be able to be satisfied with a single partner. and when the gets hard that work gets even harder

Actually,
Both sexes are concerned with reproduction in different ways. It is generally agreed that males may be free spread thier seed to reproduce because they are not bound to the offspring for daily care as the female is. However, there are also schools of thought that credit females with searching out multiple partners also. However, females are thought to have such behavior for different reasons.

From the female point of view, the goal of reproduction is not to reproduce as much as possible as that would be incompatible with thier biology. However, what females inherently seek is strong genetic makeup and a stable enviornment to raise her offspring. This is is not always achievable via one male. Therefore there would be a male that she views as the "Providor" and a male she views as the "Gene Donor" who is typically a physically dominating male.

In prehistoric times, it was usually the strongest, fittest males that provided the best home, via his ability to hunt and defend his family physically. However, this is not nessecarilly the case in modern society.


Originally posted by Elara
I have no scientific basis for this, only my own experience(and some Discovery channel/NOVA?TLC programs)- but I think women are much more inclined towards monogamy, whereas men are not. Think about it- men are designed so they can spred their, um "seed" often- it's survival of the fittest- the more they spread it, the more of their offspring they'll be, the less of anyone elses. Kind of a king of the hill thing. He who dies with the most [fill in the blank] wins.

Women, on the other hand, don't have that luxury, as they're stuck carrying the kid around for years, and , so it's in their best interest (or at least was, long ago) to stick with one person, who will hopefully care and provide for them in the meantime.

It's kind of a "herd animal" mentality, I assume, left over from a time when it made the difference between who lived and who died. Same thing still happens with horses, goats, lions, etc.


And, with all this said, my husband would be one very sorry SOB if he ever decided he WASN'T monogamous.

Human beings don't compare well to other creatures that mate for life, like swans. Our tendency to crave variety and newness, and to become bored with the "same old same old" makes long-term monogamy a real challenge... for women as well as men.

The biology-based arguments do hold some water, and I'm convinced that men are "hard-wired" to be constantly on the lookout for fresh... uhh, targets. But societal mores place pressure on us to practice monogamy, and so we do... more or less reluctantly, and more or less successfully.

I think serial monogamy is the answer. When you're with someone, you're faithful to him/her. But expectations of lifelong fidelity, especially when you're young, are -- let's face it -- unrealistic in light of how things really are.

Originally posted by guy321
Actually,
Both sexes are concerned with reproduction in different ways. It is generally agreed that males may be free spread thier seed to reproduce because they are not bound to the offspring for daily care as the female is. However, there are also schools of thought that credit females with searching out multiple partners also. However, females are thought to have such behavior for different reasons.

From the female point of view, the goal of reproduction is not to reproduce as much as possible as that would be incompatible with thier biology. However, what females inherently seek is strong genetic makeup and a stable enviornment to raise her offspring. This is is not always achievable via one male. Therefore there would be a male that she views as the "Providor" and a male she views as the "Gene Donor" who is typically a physically dominating male.

In prehistoric times, it was usually the strongest, fittest males that provided the best home, via his ability to hunt and defend his family physically. However, this is not nessecarilly the case in modern society.


To go along with this, I think this is why women don't know what they want. Women SAY they want a smart, funny guy, which is what (with the way society is today) a good provider would be. But then those same women go to a bar and end up going home with the tough, big, macho (asshole) guy. Because the instincts that have been built into them for thousands of years say that's what they need. Society (industrialization) is conflicting with instincts.


Men, I think we are like wolves, or lions. We have an "alpha" male, and several females. Once the male reproduces with a female, he still keeps that female around, doesn't necessarily want to get rid of her, but doesn't mean he doesn't want to go reproduce with one of the other many lions around.

Here's what I don't get:

I think most would agree that men have more of a tendency to want multiple partners....and men have mostly been in charge in the history of humanity. So how did we end up with monogamy being the societal norm?

Hey, that's an interesting question, fan.

I'd like to chime in a little at this point. A lot of people have given reasons that are based on science/biology as to why males and possibly females might be genetically polygamous or serial monogamous.

Can anyone suggest how PORN might be used as evidence supporting genetic polygamy for males?

On this topic, recently an old semi flame of a friend called (we have not have not seen her for at least 12 years, since she got married)..just moved back to the state and wanted to catch up...well, went to eat and my married friends flirting may be stale, but he got the feeling she is "available"....little things she said, like "my husband had all of your good qualitys, but was not warm like you are"

Now, If she was old and fat this would be easer, but she really has gotten better with age....and he likes the attention.

Now, he is married, and really is not going to do anything, BUT, did flirt a little..and wants the three of us to go out, like the old days...figures it is safer that way...

So, my question is, why would a single, attractive and smart single women pursue a happy married guy? And when does flirting become cheating? Is it with a kiss? Sex? third base?

Why do I think he is going to end up with a pot of rabbits on his stove?

"So, my question is, why would a single, attractive and smart single women pursue a happy married guy? And when does flirting become cheating? Is it with a kiss? Sex? third base?"

Well my friends it's the human condition. She found him attrative, but and it's always one of two things... she wants what she thinks is a safe one time fling (like with a married man) or she's stupid and has no self respect.. In my rule book, its officially cheating when you resolve in your mind how far it is gonna go. Like hmmm, I'll just let him kiss me, or I better leave cuz I wouldn't be able to stop myself....etc etc etc....

For most of us though, it is about knowing we've still got it. Don't need to go all the way, just the flirting is enough sometimes. Well unless your not getting any action at home, like a lot of guys (and some girls)....

Good points, I wonder were it will end.....maybe my friend should just say "wha is up?" ........maybe it is just some harmless flirting fun.........hmmmmm Any of the women out there have a opinion?

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
Critical Thinking Problem #3.

Are human beings GENETICALLY monogamous? Whatever your position, can you give scientific and/or everyday examples to support your position?

No. Scientific proof: there are millions of monogamous people as there are millions of promiscuous ones. Over a lifetime, many have periods of both. There is no genetic imperative here.

I would agree that monogamy has phases - a person married 20 years may be monagamous the first ten, then promiscous for a while, the finally back to monagamy. I personally think it is about getting emotional and physical need met - at a basic level. We all have need for touch, emotional connection, and intimacy. People who do not have that at home and want it get it elsewhere.

Originally posted by klegg


So, my question is, why would a single, attractive and smart single women pursue a happy married guy? And when does flirting become cheating? Is it with a kiss? Sex? third base?



To answer your second question first: It becomes cheating when your friend starts doing anything with this woman behind his wife's back. Cheating is so much more than the illicit insertion of "tab A" into "slot B"... it's really best defined as a betrayal of trust that will cause pain to the betrayed spouse when s/he finds out about it (and trust me, it will be found out sooner or later) . If your friend is planning to hang out with his old flame while telling his wife he's with you, and failing to mention Ms. Flame, he's cheating. He's lying to his wife and is taking advantage of her trust in him (and also taking advantage of you, Klegg).

As for the first question: I'm assuming this lady is recently divorced? She's pursuing him for one of two reasons: She has always had feelings for him that have now re-surfaced, and she's decided to act upon them regardless of his current marital status (she's selfish); or, having been traumatized by a divorce, she's attempting to re-establish her confidence in her own attractiveness, and your friend is someone safe to do this with -- he's a known quantity.

Your friend is playing with fire here, Klegg. Worst case scenario, this "innocent flirtation" could explode into a marriage shattering issue when his wife catches wind of this; best case scenario, your friend gets away with it and then learns that his wife is gullible and easy to lie to.

Have a heart-to-heart with the guy and ask him to consider what he would lose in a divorce. That might cool his jets a bit.

Very good points...he actually told her this girl resurfaced, and wanted to hang out, his wife does not have a problem with that...I am sure he did not stress the flirting part...and you are right, it does sort of make me an accomplice....

Now I feel dirty!!!!! Klegg the helpful, loyal home wreaker enabler!

Not to sound to Metro, but most of these questions are addressed in "Sex and the City". I think is a question of choice and personal morality (not ethicality)........and not getting caught. :D ..............j/k.
I do have to admit, flirting does wonder for one's ego w/o crossing the social boundaries. It is healthy for a relationship when done properly. I've noticed a certain amount of flirting on this forum (See "post your self-portrait" thread). ;)

Interesting thread!!

Originally posted by klegg
On this topic, recently an old semi flame of a friend called (we have not have not seen her for at least 12 years, since she got married)..just moved back to the state and wanted to catch up...well, went to eat and my married friends flirting may be stale, but he got the feeling she is "available"....little things she said, like "my husband had all of your good qualitys, but was not warm like you are"

Now, If she was old and fat this would be easer, but she really has gotten better with age....and he likes the attention.

Now, he is married, and really is not going to do anything, BUT, did flirt a little..and wants the three of us to go out, like the old days...figures it is safer that way...

So, my question is, why would a single, attractive and smart single women pursue a happy married guy? And when does flirting become cheating? Is it with a kiss? Sex? third base?

Why do I think he is going to end up with a pot of rabbits on his stove?

Who cares? Focus on the impending threesome. I'm a little bothered by the fact that it's going to be one girl and two guys. Are you sure you can handle being naked next to another naked guy? I don't know if I could handle that.

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
Who cares? Focus on the impending threesome. I'm a little bothered by the fact that it's going to be one girl and two guys. Are you sure you can handle being naked next to another naked guy? I don't know if I could handle that.

yeah yeah yeah, we know who you are. Give it a rest. I keep trying to be nice to you and let stuff slide, and you keep throwing it back in my face. Get a life.

Now you're the moral conscience of this place? I've been nice. And you don't know who I am.

:)

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
Now you're the moral conscience of this place?
:)

Yeah, last time I checked, I was, actually.

Um, ok then.

Life is too short plain and simple!

In the vast spectrum of existance, humans are but a mere blink in comparision. All of lives we are bombarded with whats "the right thing to do " and society is to blame.

Conforming to what is proper and refraining from what is questionable by social standards, leds many to "explore".
Being over whelmed by that 9 to 5 or the every day responsibilties that never end, can plant a seed of longing for somthing "new and exciting".
Is this wrong, is it acceptable?

I dare not make that assumtion for the only life I can live is my own.
I personally would not look to cheat on my girlfriend she is my best friend and my lover.
I work to support growth and passion in our relationship.
Yet I realize that I do not know what the future holds for us.
It requries both of us to "bring to the table" what is important or
else it will slip a way.

*stepping off the soapbox*

But what does that have to do with the original question?

Quote "But what does that have to do with the original question?"


My english professor gave us basically the same question.
My post was my reply to my professor.
At the end of my presentation I wraped up with this conclusion =


"Life is too short plain and simple!

In the vast spectrum of existance, humans are but a mere blink in comparision. All of lives we are bombarded with whats "the right thing to do " and society is to blame.

Conforming to what is proper and refraining from what is questionable by social standards, leds many to "explore".
Being over whelmed by that 9 to 5 or the every day responsibilties that never end, can plant a seed of longing for somthing "new and exciting".
Is this wrong, is it acceptable?

I dare not make that assumtion for the only life I can live is my own.
I personally would not look to cheat on my girlfriend she is my best friend and my lover.
I work to support growth and passion in our relationship.
Yet I realize that I do not know what the future holds for us.
It requries both of us to "bring to the table" what is important or
else it will slip a way.

So do I feel that are human beings are genitically monogamous Ms.funchas?
(Ms.Funcas was my professor)
In my opion It does not matter."

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
Who cares? Focus on the impending threesome. I'm a little bothered by the fact that it's going to be one girl and two guys. Are you sure you can handle being naked next to another naked guy? I don't know if I could handle that.

Actually, I would not be involved...my job would be to keep things from getting out of hand......and b/t/w, I could handle it:)

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
Now you're the moral conscience of this place? I've been nice. And you don't know who I am.

:)

Actually, I think she is.....

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
Are you sure you can handle being naked next to another naked guy? I don't know if I could handle that.
Come on, it can't be THAT small. :)

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Come on, it can't be THAT small. :)

LMAO -- too funny, doc!

Anyway, my personal feeling is that natural forces may have had their place (thousands of years ago?) to provide survival mechanisms for the human species, but today I see those issues as moot. Given the human capacity for rational thought, monogamy and/or faithfulness to one's partner are completely matters of choice. No one, other than yourself, can force you to be unfaithful to your spouse and/or your better half. Real love and monogamy are, at times, just as much a matter of willpower, as they are of passion. A healthy relationship NEEDS BOTH!

Furthermore, and by the same token, the issue of "monogamy for life" is far to complex for a human relationship (mutli-variable) to be oversimplified to a genetic/survival instinct/"that's just the way it is" bottom line.

Originally posted by lilbigman
Quote "But what does that have to do with the original question?"


My english professor gave us basically the same question.
My post was my reply to my professor.
At the end of my presentation I wraped up with this conclusion =


"Life is too short plain and simple!

In the vast spectrum of existance, humans are but a mere blink in comparision. All of lives we are bombarded with whats "the right thing to do " and society is to blame.

Conforming to what is proper and refraining from what is questionable by social standards, leds many to "explore".
Being over whelmed by that 9 to 5 or the every day responsibilties that never end, can plant a seed of longing for somthing "new and exciting".
Is this wrong, is it acceptable?

I dare not make that assumtion for the only life I can live is my own.
I personally would not look to cheat on my girlfriend she is my best friend and my lover.
I work to support growth and passion in our relationship.
Yet I realize that I do not know what the future holds for us.
It requries both of us to "bring to the table" what is important or
else it will slip a way.

So do I feel that are human beings are genitically monogamous Ms.funchas?
(Ms.Funcas was my professor)
In my opion It does not matter."

Yeah, that's what I thought, that you felt the question was meaningless. But let me ask you something. Why did you bother posting a response?:D

Originally posted by klegg
Actually, I would not be involved...my job would be to keep things from getting out of hand......and b/t/w, I could handle it:)

I was afraid you'd say that. Quite frankly, you are scaring me. When you say you could handle it, do you mean two guys focusing ONLY on the girl? Or do you mean (gulp) three-way interaction?

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
Or do you mean (gulp) three-way interaction?
What was that you just swallowed? Just curious.

Originally posted by SpacerX
LMAO -- too funny, doc!

Anyway, my personal feeling is that natural forces may have had their place (thousands of years ago?) to provide survival mechanisms for the human species, but today I see those issues as moot. Given the human capacity for rational thought, monogamy and/or faithfulness to one's partner are completely matters of choice. No one, other than yourself, can force you to be unfaithful to your spouse and/or your better half. Real love and monogamy are, at times, just as much a matter of willpower, as they are of passion. A healthy relationship NEEDS BOTH!

Furthermore, and by the same token, the issue of "monogamy for life" is far to complex for a human relationship (mutli-variable) to be oversimplified to a genetic/survival instinct/"that's just the way it is" bottom line.

I'm not sure you're exactly correct here. Humans have the reptilian brain down by and including the brain stem (subcortical regions). It still serves the same basic life functions. In addition, humans have two additional layers of stuff on top (cortex and neocortex), believed to house the rational pieces of humanity. We essentially have two brains and we can NEVER completely separate the two, no matter how strong we think our conscious, rational brains are. Basic external and internal stimuli (e.g., the sight and smell of a woman) will start being processed at the subcortical regions. In complex human cognition, the processing will travel in vertical fashion and eventually reach the cortical regions but will NEVER bypass the subcortical regions. Metaphors such as the "unconscious brain" are presumed to be represented by the subcortical regions and, thus, the unconscious brain is ALWAYS online, ALWAYS influencing the conscious, rational brain.

Earlier, I hinted at PORN. Porn and how males respond to it tells us a lot about how our brains are genetically wired. I'll wait a little longer before I "spill the beans" on this topic.

Originally posted by klegg
Actually, I would not be involved...my job would be to keep things from getting out of hand......and b/t/w, I could handle it:)
I have a feeling it wouldn't be Klegg's first time "handling it".

HE meant human beings to be monogamous, seeing that there is a near equal no. of males and females. But His children did not behave too well and we all became bastards.

doc,

I'd like to see Elara give you a "lickin'."

qoute: "Yeah, that's what I thought, that you felt the question was meaningless. But let me ask you something. Why did you bother posting a response?"

Part of enjoying a discussion (for me any ways) is seeing different sides of the coin, as it were.
I was just adding my past experience,
being that I have been out of college for 6 years now its was enjoyable to see such a post.

I commend you for bringing up such a topic :D

best regards

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
I was afraid you'd say that. Quite frankly, you are scaring me. When you say you could handle it, do you mean two guys focusing ONLY on the girl? Or do you mean (gulp) three-way interaction?

Well, I think we are well on our way to a closed thread, BUT, I would think the GIRL would be the point...Three way interaction is NOT my cup of tea...but to each his own..

Originally posted by J.U. Stone Day
I'm not sure you're exactly correct here. Humans have the reptilian brain down by and including the brain stem (subcortical regions). It still serves the same basic life functions. In addition, humans have two additional layers of stuff on top (cortex and neocortex), believed to house the rational pieces of humanity. We essentially have two brains and we can NEVER completely separate the two, no matter how strong we think our conscious, rational brains are. Basic external and internal stimuli (e.g., the sight and smell of a woman) will start being processed at the subcortical regions. In complex human cognition, the processing will travel in vertical fashion and eventually reach the cortical regions but will NEVER bypass the subcortical regions. Metaphors such as the "unconscious brain" are presumed to be represented by the subcortical regions and, thus, the unconscious brain is ALWAYS online, ALWAYS influencing the conscious, rational brain.

Earlier, I hinted at PORN. Porn and how males respond to it tells us a lot about how our brains are genetically wired. I'll wait a little longer before I "spill the beans" on this topic.

Interesting, but these anatomical intricacies do not supplant the fact that willful choice is the central issue. As I said, there's always a choice to be made, regardless of how much INFLUENCE the subcoscious has on the conscious thought process -- these are still only "recommendations." Relationships and actions we take to either preserve or destroy them are the product of conscious choices.

Originally posted by lilbigman
qoute: "Yeah, that's what I thought, that you felt the question was meaningless. But let me ask you something. Why did you bother posting a response?"

Part of enjoying a discussion (for me any ways) is seeing different sides of the coin, as it were.
I was just adding my past experience,
being that I have been out of college for 6 years now its was enjoyable to see such a post.

I commend you for bringing up such a topic :D

best regards

Best regards? Are you using a form letter?

Originally posted by SpacerX
Interesting, but these anatomical intricacies do not supplant the fact that willful choice is the central issue. As I said, there's always a choice to be made, regardless of how much INFLUENCE the subcoscious has on the conscious thought process -- these are still only "recommendations." Relationships and actions we take to either preserve or destroy them are the product of conscious choices.

But check out some other behaviors that seem clearcut at first glance. Consider, a human infant learning to walk. Did you know the infant will try to walk and eventually succeed EVEN IF no adults are ever present to help? Is that a conscious decision or innate behavior or a combination of both? See how the conscious decision/behavior piggybacks on top of the innate predisposition? Genes make the infant WANT TO TRY to get up onto two feet. Another example is that people tend to assume that brutalizing and killing another human is a learned behavior. But early studies (which are not allowed anymore) have shown that when infants are left in a room unattended, the bigger and more aggressive ones will brutalize the weaker ones. Someone in your position would insist that attacking another human being is black-and-white a conscious decision. But again you can see that it's not so clearcut. Do you begin your focus from the end behavior that you see and work backwards OR do you try to infer some nonphysical beginning and work from that direction?

Much of how the brain works defies existing common sense. One reason is because we see things through our own eyes, notably physical behaviors, and label them as discrete events (words) as that is the nature of language symbolic representation. One way to overcome this bias is to think about the event, the whole process as Nature or God might see it. So the idea of an emotion as defined by the visible end behavioral response is no big deal for us to accept. And the idea of an emotional memory defined as an emotion (visually observed) connected synaptically to a memory (something traumatic, for example, that happened in the past) also seems plausible. But the recent discovery that some emotions are themselves memories doesn't register (good luck). One way to help us visualize things better is to, instead of starting at our eyes, flip the whole thing around and think about how Nature or God might see the whole process unfold.

Sure, we can operationally define cheating (for legal purposes, for example) as requiring the act (just like human emotion was once arbitrarily defined as requiring a behavioral response) but that won't get us into the NATURE of cheating, of what is BEHIND it, which is a critically important issue. The question "Are we genetically monogamous or not?" gets at the NATURE of cheating. With this question, we're not even worried about seeing the end behavior. We already know that it happens and we're interested instead on WHY it happens. Unfortunately, with the operational definition that it's not cheating until someone consciously does it, many people automatically assume that cheating has nothing to do with genetics. We don't even need to care about anyone's operational definition. The question I ask bypasses the decision to perform the end behavior entirely.

Because men had to have someone at home to cook and clean for him and to care for any babies he had with other women who couldnt take care of them.

Actually, I think it became the norm because of religion.

Originally posted by fan
Here's what I don't get:

I think most would agree that men have more of a tendency to want multiple partners....and men have mostly been in charge in the history of humanity. So how did we end up with monogamy being the societal norm?

guy321:
Because men had to have someone at home to cook and clean for him and to care for any babies he had with other women who couldnt take care of them.

Actually, I think it became the norm because of religion.
Well I hope we can agree that religion is a product of the ruling class (evidence the pervasive stereotype that "God is an old white man").

Regarding the "cook and clean" explanation for monogamy, there are plenty of people in Utah who would argue that multiple wives make for the ideal family unit (and there are many men outside of Utah who would agree).

More to the point, there are examples from many popular religions where polygamy is advocated. The Koran, for example, explicitly condones having up to four wives. And there is Muhammed's own example, or King David's "hundred wives", etc.


Maybe the monogamy standard is a product of democratization.

The rich and powerful men marrying most of the women left the other men without female partners. Early trends toward monogamy were simple restrictions on the number of wives that one man could have. When weaker men were given a stronger vote (trend toward democracy), then rules became established that only one wife per guy was the limit.

So that's my best guess. The democratization issue is a matter of societal stability. Laws that are unpopular with the masses lead toward disgruntled mobs. A standard of polygamy leads toward a society with many frustrated bachelors.

A law of monogamy helps to level the playing field for the non-alpha males.

Well, by religion I ment specifically the Catholic church..

Originally posted by HIX8
Well I hope we can agree that religion is a product of the ruling class (evidence the pervasive stereotype that "God is an old white man").

Regarding the "cook and clean" explanation for monogamy, there are plenty of people in Utah who would argue that multiple wives make for the ideal family unit (and there are many men outside of Utah who would agree).

More to the point, there are examples from many popular religions where polygamy is advocated. The Koran, for example, explicitly condones having up to four wives. And there is Muhammed's own example, or King David's "hundred wives", etc.


Maybe the monogamy standard is a product of democratization.

The rich and powerful men marrying most of the women left the other men without female partners. Early trends toward monogamy were simple restrictions on the number of wives that one man could have. When weaker men were given a stronger vote (trend toward democracy), then rules became established that only one wife per guy was the limit.

So that's my best guess. The democratization issue is a matter of societal stability. Laws that are unpopular with the masses lead toward disgruntled mobs. A standard of polygamy leads toward a society with many frustrated bachelors.

A law of monogamy helps to level the playing field for the non-alpha males.

guy321:
Well, by religion I ment specifically the Catholic church..
This might actually support the notion that the societal ideal of monogamy precipitated from democratization, because the Catholic Church adopted monogamy from Roman law.

Today we call this ideal Roman'tic love.

Makes sense to me


Originally posted by HIX8
This might actually support the notion that the societal ideal of monogamy precipitated from democratization, because the Catholic Church adopted monogamy from Roman law.

Today we call this ideal Roman'tic love.

This is an interesting question.

I noticed a lot of people talked about biological or evolutionary theory. I wanted to add something here. Most non-human animals reach an age when they can take care of themselves within a year or so. That's pretty quick to human perception of time and it's clear these animals are not monogamous. But humans and chimps take a little longer. Chimpanzee infants take about five years and humans take about five to seven. So evolution has made sure that human women wait a little longer than most other animals before looking for other men. The human man doesn't need to be there that long and he starts looking for other women much earlier than five years, as we all know! But my point here is that eventually women start "looking around" as well. And even though the timing is stretched out a little bit longer than most animals, human are not monogamous.

JU Stone Day made an interesting point about porn that no one seemed to go after. I'd like to give my two cents here. If you ask just about any man who looks at porno mags and videos how long does a single issue or video remain interesting, he'll say he gets bored after one or two viewings. This is called habituation, which is when a natural stimulus loses its ability to elicit a response over time. Wouldn't this phenomenon cause the porn industry to collapse? No, because men look forward to next month's issue or another video, showing a renewed response equally as powerful as before. What gives and what exactly has and hasn't changed about the stimuli (nude women)?

Not much has changed really. Same bodies. Same shapes. Same "thingies." The only things different are the FACES. Intra-species and inter-species recognition has been studied for ages. Primatologists have particularly focused on facial recognition, because individuals of one species or race are especially sensitive to the minutest differences in facial characteristics of the same species or race. It appears that nature has programmed our brains to be extra sensitive to differences in facial features, and this seems to be the factor behind the renewal of response mentioned above. When a response habituates and then comes back so strongly with only the slightest changes in the stimulus, that is a strong, strong sign of innate wiring. The message here is that men are most likely not programmed to stay with the same woman, and a change in facial features is all it really takes.