Monogamy versus Polygamy

Prahasaurus

A very interesting discussion (granted, from two males), on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnOzcUMK5IQ&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=9&feature=plcp

Touches on a lot of issues recently discussed here. Including the interesting finding that the greatest indicator of a woman having an orgasm during sex is the facial symmetry of her partner...

I like the speaker at 2:44, I think he is spot on. Summary: we are evolutionary programmed to have multiple partners, even women. It helped during the hunter gatherer phase for women to have children after having slept with multiple partners within the tribe. That way no male could ever know who the father is, and they would want to protect and support all kids born within that tribe. And because the women had multiple sexual partners, the competition happened within the womb: the healthier, faster swimming sperm were the most successful. And that perhaps translated into stronger children.

I just ordered Sex at Dawn on my Kindle, mentioned during the discussion. Looking forward to reading it.

--P

TheKitsune6

Animals, outside of the human race, have evolved interesting developments in making sure their semen is the chosen of the many to choose from. In fact, even monogamous species common amongst birds like penguins and swan have been found to be guilty of infidelity. The purpose, naturally, is to spread as much seed as possible, to raise the best offspring as possible and to breed the best of the best.

In our, human specific society, based on our outcomes... is to have a strong female and male counterpart to base our actions on. we mature slowly, more slowly than any other animal. Our development isn't just based on instinct and belief. Humans have a deeper system of cultural adaption and science that isn't just based on where we developed - but how we developed and where, when, why, how? It's global, because we are so far adapted.

... basically? There is no ONE answer. We will all glean our answers based on our experiences. And while some will be more correct the others, globally (people are not "things" but "individuals" for example") all of that combines into society and culture and acceptance.

TheKitsune6

Also. I am drunk. Yay Wine. I might be more coherent tomorrow. YOU ARE WELCOME!

Katefab26

I've always thought that if men could have sister wives, I should be able to have brother husbands.

Of course, I wouldn't mind a few sister wives either. How do you explain that one from an evolutionary standpoint?

TheKitsune6

I've always thought that if men could have sister wives, I should be able to have brother husbands.

Of course, I wouldn't mind a few sister wives either. How do you explain that one from an evolutionary standpoint?

Pure awesome, mostly.

Prahasaurus

I've always thought that if men could have sister wives, I should be able to have brother husbands.

Of course, I wouldn't mind a few sister wives either. How do you explain that one from an evolutionary standpoint?

You've just described hunter gatherer society. It wasn't just about men having more partners. Women had many men, as well. Sharing of everything was the rule, from food, to sex, to child rearing responsibilities. Vague paternalism helped bind everyone together. Just like the Bonobos of the Congo.

It's only with the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago that the morality changed. This required property rights and clear hereditary understanding, so that the man could pass his acre and ox onto his son. Women then became property. Changes in religion reinforced this. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, etc. This was a radical change that went against human nature. And still does. Since, for the previous 200,000 years Homo sapiens acted differently.

--P

Katefab26

So you mean I was just being an *kitten* and got the right answer? I feel that this takes a special kind of genius. Maybe I should start collecting those brother husbands and procreate -- do the world a favor :laugh:

I was actually thinking about this and wondered if women would be happier if it were more socially acceptable to have multiple partners at one time. It seems that a lot of our anxiety over relationships stems from trying to find happiness with one person. Almost an impossible task.

Eta: I only have a half hour lunch. I'll be back to this...

Danielle_2013

So where does jealousy and possessiveness work into the evolutionary mix? When did we get competitive?
Part of me would be perfectly fine with me having multiple partners..but I cannot deny that if my partner were to, I'd be strongly fighting a "HE'S MINE" instinct..

Katefab26

So where does jealousy and possessiveness work into the evolutionary mix? When did we get competitive?
Part of me would be perfectly fine with me having multiple partners..but I cannot deny that if my partner were to, I'd be strongly fighting a "HE'S MINE" instinct..

Ok, can't resist. The point is, if you have more than one man yourself, you won't mind sharing.

Danielle_2013

So where does jealousy and possessiveness work into the evolutionary mix? When did we get competitive?
Part of me would be perfectly fine with me having multiple partners..but I cannot deny that if my partner were to, I'd be strongly fighting a "HE'S MINE" instinct..

Ok, can't resist. The point is, if you have more than one man yourself, you won't mind sharing.

HA! You don't know me very well.

Carl01

I've always thought that if men could have sister wives, I should be able to have brother husbands.

Of course, I wouldn't mind a few sister wives either. How do you explain that one from an evolutionary standpoint?

You've just described hunter gatherer society. It wasn't just about men having more partners. Women had many men, as well. Sharing of everything was the rule, from food, to sex, to child rearing responsibilities. Vague paternalism helped bind everyone together. Just like the Bonobos of the Congo.

It's only with the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago that the morality changed. This required property rights and clear hereditary understanding, so that the man could pass his acre and ox onto his son. Women then became property. Changes in religion reinforced this. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, etc. This was a radical change that went against human nature. And still does. Since, for the previous 200,000 years Homo sapiens acted differently.

--P

While I am sure there is anecdotal cases of small groups having a successful communal system,human nature in general will deny that happening on any large scale however.

Carl01

So where does jealousy and possessiveness work into the evolutionary mix? When did we get competitive?
Part of me would be perfectly fine with me having multiple partners..but I cannot deny that if my partner were to, I'd be strongly fighting a "HE'S MINE" instinct..

Ok, can't resist. The point is, if you have more than one man yourself, you won't mind sharing.

See my previous post about human nature.

Prahasaurus

So where does jealousy and possessiveness work into the evolutionary mix? When did we get competitive?
Part of me would be perfectly fine with me having multiple partners..but I cannot deny that if my partner were to, I'd be strongly fighting a "HE'S MINE" instinct..

As previously noted, with the rise in agriculture, property rights became sacrosanct. And women became property. It was also critical for men to ensure their children were actually theirs, since this new lifestyle meant a more "traditional" family structure (even thought the tradition for 200,000 years was completely different, what we would call promiscuous today). And the man wanted to make sure he passed on his property to his actual sons.

Before, as a hunter and gatherer, he owned nothing, and hence this was not an issue. Besides, he was never completely sure which kids were his. And in fact, in many primitive societies, the concept of one father is foreign. Women slept with many men, and it was assumed that each of the men contributed to the birth of the child. And sex with more men meant the woman was potentially getting the best from many different sources. Even though we know today that makes no sense.

I think this is why new religions and Gods were critical when homo sapiens moved to a more sedentary lifestyle. This was a crucial tool for enforcing monogamy on the masses. Or at least to force it on women. With all of the psychological baggage that is still with us today (see the "women who can't cum" thread, for example, and note how culturally enforced shame plays such a large role)...

--P

Prahasaurus

While I am sure there is anecdotal cases of small groups having a successful communal system,human nature in general will deny that happening on any large scale however.

Not sure what you're saying. You certainly aren't comparing norms of today with hunter gather societies, are you? To not share was to die, period. It's only natural that this carried over into relationships. And we see this in Bonobos, who, with the chimps, are our closest relatives. Even modern, isolated tribes in Africa and South America exhibit the same value systems, and sexual mores.

Walking around naked was also the norm, but clearly you would be arrested nowadays if you did this. Saying it's "human nature" to wear clothes would also be incorrect. It's learned.

--P

Katefab26

So where does jealousy and possessiveness work into the evolutionary mix? When did we get competitive?
Part of me would be perfectly fine with me having multiple partners..but I cannot deny that if my partner were to, I'd be strongly fighting a "HE'S MINE" instinct..

Ok, can't resist. The point is, if you have more than one man yourself, you won't mind sharing.

HA! You don't know me very well.

Haha, well, I was going to say that I look forward to getting to know you better, but then realized that sounded like a creepy pick up line and thought better of it :flowerforyou:

Do you really think, though, that if you were in a situation where you could have multiple men and it was socially acceptable, even encouraged for the preservation of society, that you would be worried about with whom one man was sleeping? I'm really not sure -- I'm inclined to think that I really wouldn't care.

Here's my issue with this sort of society, however. What happens to people who are beyond child-bearing years? Are they just considered to be worthless and cast out? From a purely evolutionary standpoint, they have no use, after all.

Carl01

While I am sure there is anecdotal cases of small groups having a successful communal system,human nature in general will deny that happening on any large scale however.

Not sure what you're saying. You certainly aren't comparing norms of today with hunter gather societies, are you? To not share was to die, period. It's only natural that this carried over into relationships. And we see this in Bonobos, who, with the chimps, are our closest relatives. Even modern, isolated tribes in Africa and South America exhibit the same value systems, and sexual mores.

Walking around naked was also the norm, but clearly you would be arrested nowadays if you did this. Saying it's "human nature" to wear clothes would also be incorrect. It's learned.

--P

First off,no one really knows how prehistoric populations existed,whether there was a hierarchy or paternalistic or communal.
I am sure there is evidence for all as of course no doubt all could be found in third world locations today.

What may happen once (a benign commune) is not evidence that it was or is the norm however there is plenty to suggest that the opposite is just as likely or moreso true unless one simply throws that evidence aside to satisfy wishful thinkings.
There have been wars for others stuff as far back as recorded history,very little evidence of happily sharing exists on any kind of large scales.
It is presumed that modern man basically killed of the Neanderthals over food sources,if so there has always been a sense of territory ownership.

Danielle_2013

Haha, well, I was going to say that I look forward to getting to know you better, but then realized that sounded like a creepy pick up line and thought better of it :flowerforyou:

Do you really think, though, that if you were in a situation where you could have multiple men and it was socially acceptable, even encouraged for the preservation of society, that you would be worried about with whom one man was sleeping? I'm really not sure -- I'm inclined to think that I really wouldn't care.

Here's my issue with this sort of society, however. What happens to people who are beyond child-bearing years? Are they just considered to be worthless and cast out? From a purely evolutionary standpoint, they have no use, after all.

Looking forward to getting to know you better too! I always like reading what you write!
Hmm.. you may be right. If it was purely for sex and the emotional/intimacy/protection needs are actually met by the group, as opposed to one individual, that might change things. I could NEVER be a sister wife though.. LOL.

Jennifer2387

I am waaaaay too possessive to share any man of mine. Hands way the fock off my man. lol

I wouldn't have survived long in the communal sex pot.

dbrightwell1270

When I read Prahasurus' description of prehistoric society I have two thoughts: the first is about all the episodes of Maury where the moms are on the show for the 6th to 20th time getting the news that the current claimant is not the father.

The second is that I had no idea that socialism was such a giant orgy and capitalism killed all the fun. If agricultural society led to the need for property rights why is it that communal societies didn't form. Also, I recall from anthropology courses that there were African tribes that weren't aware that sex is what caused pregnancy until around 1950. They thought the women became pregnant from bathing in the river. How can you reconcile tribes that did not undersand the origins of pregnancy as late as 1950 with the notion that creating the "modern traditional" family was necessary for passing land from one generation to the next over 100,000 years ago?

Prahasaurus

While I am sure there is anecdotal cases of small groups having a successful communal system,human nature in general will deny that happening on any large scale however.

Not sure what you're saying. You certainly aren't comparing norms of today with hunter gather societies, are you? To not share was to die, period. It's only natural that this carried over into relationships. And we see this in Bonobos, who, with the chimps, are our closest relatives. Even modern, isolated tribes in Africa and South America exhibit the same value systems, and sexual mores.

Walking around naked was also the norm, but clearly you would be arrested nowadays if you did this. Saying it's "human nature" to wear clothes would also be incorrect. It's learned.

--P

First off,no one really knows how prehistoric populations existed,whether there was a hierarchy or paternalistic or communal.
I am sure there is evidence for all as of course no doubt all could be found in third world locations today.

What may happen once (a benign commune) is not evidence that it was or is the norm however there is plenty to suggest that the opposite is just as likely or moreso true unless one simply throws that evidence aside to satisfy wishful thinkings.
There have been wars for others stuff as far back as recorded history,very little evidence of happily sharing exists on any kind of large scales.
It is presumed that modern man basically killed of the Neanderthals over food sources,if so there has always been a sense of territory ownership.

There is a lot of evidence about prehistoric populations. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that tribes were promiscuous, both men and women.

I didn't say anything about communities living in harmony with other communities. Not sure where that came from. I said that from within the tribe, sharing was a must (food, sex, responsibilities). Otherwise, you die, or the strife is too great to coexist. With other tribes, I'm sure aggression and what we call "war" was quite common.

You are confusing intra-tribal with inter-tribal behavior. Very different.

--P

Prahasaurus

When I read Prahasurus' description of prehistoric society I have two thoughts: the first is about all the episodes of Maury where the moms are on the show for the 6th to 20th time getting the news that the current claimant is not the father.

Excellent point. You missed your calling in the field of evolutionary biology and forensic anthropology.

The second is that I had no idea that socialism was such a giant orgy and capitalism killed all the fun. If agricultural society led to the need for property rights why is it that communal societies didn't form. Also, I recall from anthropology courses that there were African tribes that weren't aware that sex is what caused pregnancy until around 1950. They thought the women became pregnant from bathing in the river. How can you reconcile tribes that did not undersand the origins of pregnancy as late as 1950 with the notion that creating the "modern traditional" family was necessary for passing land from one generation to the next over 100,000 years ago?

Sorry, I have no idea what this has to do with anything I wrote earlier. Is it supposed to be a refutation?

--P

Carl01

While I am sure there is anecdotal cases of small groups having a successful communal system,human nature in general will deny that happening on any large scale however.

Not sure what you're saying. You certainly aren't comparing norms of today with hunter gather societies, are you? To not share was to die, period. It's only natural that this carried over into relationships. And we see this in Bonobos, who, with the chimps, are our closest relatives. Even modern, isolated tribes in Africa and South America exhibit the same value systems, and sexual mores.

Walking around naked was also the norm, but clearly you would be arrested nowadays if you did this. Saying it's "human nature" to wear clothes would also be incorrect. It's learned.

--P

First off,no one really knows how prehistoric populations existed,whether there was a hierarchy or paternalistic or communal.
I am sure there is evidence for all as of course no doubt all could be found in third world locations today.

What may happen once (a benign commune) is not evidence that it was or is the norm however there is plenty to suggest that the opposite is just as likely or moreso true unless one simply throws that evidence aside to satisfy wishful thinkings.
There have been wars for others stuff as far back as recorded history,very little evidence of happily sharing exists on any kind of large scales.
It is presumed that modern man basically killed of the Neanderthals over food sources,if so there has always been a sense of territory ownership.

There is a lot of evidence about prehistoric populations. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that tribes were promiscuous, both men and women.

I didn't say anything about communities living in harmony with other communities. Not sure where that came from. I said that from within the tribe, sharing was a must (food, sex, responsibilities). Otherwise, you die, or the strife is too great to coexist. With other tribes, I'm sure aggression and what we call "war" was quite common.

You are confusing intra-tribal with inter-tribal behavior. Very different.

--P

The bottom line is we just don`t know and the assertion that there was not a group dominated by someone (presumed male) and that all were equal and sharing is simply not supported by much other then the assertion itself.
Human nature will almost always lead to this sort of hierarchy in the long term.

As far as whether there was a more animalistic regards to sexual encounters then well maybe but that does not carry with it any sense of bonding/intimacy or for that matter enjoyment...just an instinctual reaction to a female and would suspect the dominant male of the group was controlling of who or when got to mate with the most desirable females.

Prahasaurus

Also, the point wasn't to discuss jealousy per se. The point was to discuss why so many relationships fail. We have been programmed to have multiple partners, typically amongst those we know. Think of close friends, neighbors, co-workers. Although that's not completely correct, either, since in prehistoric times, you would be much, much closer to these other tribal members than you are to your co-workers. But in any case, sex was not with random strangers, at least not the women. Perhaps the men, yes, when they interacted with other tribes (but this no doubt involved war).

The other interesting thing is that women were not possessed by one dominant alpha male, and there was certainly not the modern construct of one man one woman. Women almost certainly slept around within the tribe, and this was considered desirable behavior to keep the harmony.

And this is the way it was for approx. 200,000 years, or about 95% of our species existence. About 10,000 years ago, societal norms radically changed. And we are a product of that, with our bodies evolved for sex in stark contrast to what is now considered civilized. Hence, the root cause of friction within so many relationships.

--P

Carl01

The other interesting thing is that women were not possessed by one dominant alpha male, and there was certainly not the modern construct of one man one woman. Women almost certainly slept around within the tribe, and this was considered desirable behavior to keep the harmony.

.

--P

Listen,am not trying to have an argument but what are you basing such assertions on?
Just saying it doesn`t make it so especially when it does fly in the face of recorded history.

Prahasaurus

The other interesting thing is that women were not possessed by one dominant alpha male, and there was certainly not the modern construct of one man one woman. Women almost certainly slept around within the tribe, and this was considered desirable behavior to keep the harmony.

.

--P

Listen,am not trying to have an argument but what are you basing such assertions on?
Just saying it doesn`t make it so especially when it does fly in the face of recorded history.

Modern hunter gather tribal behavior, which is very promiscuous. Women are shared, both men and women have multiple partners.

We see this behavior in Bonobos, which share 98% of our DNA. And who, unlike chimpanzees, are the only other primate, except for man, to have sex in the missionary position (actually they do it in all kinds of positions, again like man). Sex is the main way Bonobos avoid strife within their tribe. They love sex, homosexuality is also common. Their sexual behavior is remarkably close to homo sapiens.

As to "recorded history," that is by definition the past 4000 years or so. And as I've said, it was 10,000 years ago that society and societal norms radically changed. Hence, of course you won't find a record of this in "recorded history". Hunter gathers didn't write, although they did paint pictures.

By the way, I don't see why this is so controversial. Men want to have multiple sex partners. Anyone want to refute that? Women enjoy sex, and also have multiple partners. Women have affairs. Women get bored with their husbands. Half of all marriages end in divorce. I recall a study of DNA analysis from Italian communities that revealed a shockingly high percentage of children were not from their legal fathers, implying the mothers were secretly sleeping around much more than expected. And so on, and so on.

Are you seriously trying to tell me it's normal for one man and one woman to be together, faithfully, all of their lives? That this is how our bodies are programmed?

--P

Carl01

The other interesting thing is that women were not possessed by one dominant alpha male, and there was certainly not the modern construct of one man one woman. Women almost certainly slept around within the tribe, and this was considered desirable behavior to keep the harmony.

.

--P

Listen,am not trying to have an argument but what are you basing such assertions on?
Just saying it doesn`t make it so especially when it does fly in the face of recorded history.

Modern hunter gather tribal behavior, which is very promiscuous. Women are shared, both men and women have multiple partners.

We see this behavior in Bonobos, which share 98% of our DNA. And who, unlike chimpanzees, are the only other primate, except for man, to have sex in the missionary position (actually they do it in all kinds of positions, again like man). Sex is the main way Bonobos avoid strife within their tribe. They love sex, homosexuality is also common. Their sexual behavior is remarkably close to homo sapiens.

As to "recorded history," that is by definition the past 4000 years or so. And as I've said, it was 10,000 years ago that society and societal norms radically changed. Hence, of course you won't find a record of this in "recorded history". Hunter gathers didn't write, although they did paint pictures.

By the way, I don't see why this is so controversial. Men want to have multiple sex partners. Anyone want to refute that? Women enjoy sex, and also have multiple partners. Women have affairs. Women get bored with their husbands. Half of all marriages end in divorce. I recall a study of DNA analysis from Italian communities that revealed a shockingly high percentage of children were not from their legal fathers, implying the mothers were secretly sleeping around much more than expected. And so on, and so on.

Are you seriously trying to tell me it's normal for one man and one woman to be together, faithfully, all of their lives? That this is how our bodies are programmed?

--P

First off,comparing humans to any animal is a flawed proposition at best since there is no comparison,they don`t posess reasoning,a concious or even a defined thought process.
To say this is what an animal does today so must be what we did then is simply speculation.
I have no problem with that but to assert it as a known fact with also what seems to be the suggestion that we are somehow regressed is what I take issue with.

I am just as likely accurate and have observed human behavior on my side to paint a blank canvas of before recorded history as I have.

You are pushing a belief you have and that is fine,your right but the way you are doing it is intellectually flawed because it simply asserts facts not possible of knowing.
Perhaps humans are genetically wired to be monogamous more then not...we certainly are different from all other forms of life in innumerable ways.

Prahasaurus

You don't believe observation of modern hunter gather tribes is evidence? What about written descriptions from Europeans' first encounters with hunter gatherer cultures in Tahati, North America, etc. Eskimo behavior. Etc., etc.

Animals do have reasoning, especially other primates. Bonobos share 98% of our DNA, so yes, I do think it's relevant. Certainly not conclusive, but part of the anecdotal evidence. Yes, anecdotal.

However, because it's prehistory, nobody can know for sure. I do believe, however, that the roots of our desires for multiple sexual partners comes from our 200,000 existence, where monogamy was most likely nonexistent.

--P

Danielle_2013

Also, the point wasn't to discuss jealousy per se. --P

Sorry for derailing discussion! (Discussion is, in my opinion, quite interesting despite my input)

Carl01

You don't believe observation of modern hunter gather tribes is evidence? What about written descriptions from Europeans' first encounters with hunter gatherer cultures in Tahati, North America, etc. Eskimo behavior. Etc., etc.

Animals do have reasoning, especially other primates. Bonobos share 98% of our DNA, so yes, I do think it's relevant. Certainly not conclusive, but part of the anecdotal evidence. Yes, anecdotal.

However, because it's prehistory, nobody can know for sure. I do believe, however, that the roots of our desires for multiple sexual partners comes from our 200,000 existence, where monogamy was most likely nonexistent.

--P

Anecdotal is just that though and one can show just as much suggesting otherwise.
I have no problem with the notion that in primitive existence was far more instinctual rather then emotional or social,that seems reasonable but to suggest that somehow we took a wrong turn in our existence seems based more on a personal agenda then a truly impartial one.

Carl01

Also, the point wasn't to discuss jealousy per se. --P

Sorry for derailing discussion! (Discussion is, in my opinion, quite interesting despite my input)

I think it is perfectly legitimate because it does weigh in on my premise that the intricacies and failings of human nature,among them is jealousy,is what defeats the theory that we originally lived in happy share all things alike communal systems.

jenbit

I personally am not entirely sure we are meant to be monogamous. More than 50% of relationships end in divorce. Think about it, it would be like eating only chocolate everyday all the time (yummy chocolate gooeyness) Sure its great but you need a change. I personally have never cheated but as most of you know while I was single I had a FWB ,a **** buddy and a bootycall all on standby with more applicants coming out of the wood works. Currently I am monogamous and enjoying my partner. Should that change I would break up with him and be single again.