Is monogamy social setup or 'our nature'

[0TheSwerve0]

Traditions did have merit and traditions may have merit, but to say that traditions do have merit is, I think, false. Traditions may contingently have merit, but not necessarily.

According to logic sure Do you have an example?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It is not that surprising that the Spaniards managed to topple the Aztecs and Incas. These were EXTREMELY repressive regimes, and the Spaniards cleverly fomented already existing unrest to dismantle them.

Actually, there is archaeological evidence that either one or both (I can't remember which) of these civilizations were unstable already and in the process of collapse before European contact.

 

[verty]

According to logic sure Do you have an example?

How about the tradition that a woman belongs in the home?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

In regards to the Church banning polygyny (and divorce); from Linda Stone's book Kinship and gender; an introduction

According to Goody, some of the church's moves, such as its ban on polygyny and divorce, were aimed at increasing heirlessness--by reducing the number of people who had claims, by kinship, to property...Other of the church's moves appear to have been aimed not at increasing heirlessness as such but at loosening the hold of kin groups on property--that is, by finding ways to prevent property from staying within kin groups over the generations. Of course, whatever the church could do to place a wedge between kin groups and property, it did to its own material advantage since any such loosened property could more easily wind up in church coffers...In essence, the church wanted persuadable individuals, not powerful corporate kin groups, to have control over property and to make uncontested decisions about its ultimate destination. Marriage between cousins or between certain degrees of consanguineal kin was banned, then, precisely because such marriges promoted the consolidation of estates and their undivided inheritance within kinship groups...The church fought for and eventually gained control over marriges in general. It won its battles against endogamy and divorce, and increasingly influenced the marriage ceremony. More and more it came to define not only who could or could not marry whom but what marriage itself should mean. In 1439, marriage became the seventh Sacrament...According to Goody, all the "strategies of heirship" that the church fought against, and conquered, mark the very set of traits (such as monogamy, love matches, and lack of corporate kin groups) that came to distinguish the European pattern of kinship and marriage from the pattern that remained in Asia. Indeed, Goody groups these traits within a single frame, and it is a frame grounded in a single cause: the material acquisitiveness of the Catholic Church. In support of this claim, he presents a wealth of historical evidence. He also demonstrates that other forces were not behind these "reforms," that the church in fact had to fight hard for them, and that several levels of European society strongly resisted them.

Apparently, the origins of the Western ideal of "love" evolved similarly.

How about the tradition that a woman belongs in the home?

I would think that only applies to upper-class women, because most people couldn't and can't afford to have only one spouse bringing in resources. An anthropological theory on this "tradition," more like an ideal, goes like this - with the advent of industrialization, the place of production moved outside of the home. Hence the split between the home and the workplace was born. Among the poor and working-class people, both men and women went out to work. Among the middle and upper classes, women were withdrawn from production. Apparently, this was useful for the perpetuation of capitalism, though not the only scenario that is useful of course. Men were expected to support wives and kids, they became bound to their work because of this (social pressure helped out), and were forced to endure difficult conditions. Women were useful in this scenario by sustaining and reproducing workers (not to mention socializing them). And when women do work, the bosses are justified in paying them less because it's only for "pin money." So, this really benefits the elites - the wealthy owners of these corporations.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Hey, according to sexual selection theory, we do have some control over the pool of potential mates...so let's be more selective!

 

[SF]

I have found that the original ideal of "love" promotes the male as a "provider" instead of a masculine sexual being.
The man is often the romantic dreamer whose greatest ideal is to rescue the "damsel in distress" and live happily ever after (only with her).

I really believe that it was promoted by people who wanted less sex around.
You'd see many "gentlemen" competing for the attention of a "fair lady" by pretending to be as harmless as possible.

This is, of course, mostly theory, as we all know the stories of medieval aristocrat sex habits who resembled their roman ancestors much more than they did the poets' musings.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

For anyone questioning this topic..

Ask why the male penis is shaped the way it is.. then come back and tell us how infidelity is a product of "ego centrism", "immaturity" and all that other crap.

Monogamy is more a product of insecurity and religous dogma than anything else.

Do many of you ever venture out into the real world? Monogamy is NOT a natural human instinct.. step outside your labs once in a while.. you might OBSERVE this in human nature.

 

[SF]

"Love" turns off the male's sex drive and turns him into a monogamous fella' just long enough to help the woman get through pregnancy.
After this, the father instinct (if any) will keep the man around but in no way will he be monogamous.

 

[Astronuc]

Monogamy is more a product of insecurity and religous dogma than anything else.

I disagree. For me it is a matter of duty - a matter of commitment - and free choice. It is also a practical situation.

"Love" turns off the male's sex drive and turns him into a monogamous fella' just long enough to help the woman get through pregnancy. After this, the father instinct (if any) will keep the man around but in no way will he be monogamous.

My wife's second pregnancy ended more than 15 years ago. I love her as much now, as then, and my sex drive has never been turned off. And I'm still monogamous after nearly 25 years of marriage.

 

[Milo Hobgoblin]

I disagree. For me it is a matter of duty - a matter of commitment - and free choice. It is also a practical situation.


My wife's second pregnancy ended more than 15 years ago. I love her as much now, as then, and my sex drive has never been turned off. And I'm still monogamous after nearly 25 years of marriage.

Well a few hundred thousand years of evolution and a lot of science disagree with you... if ANYTHING.. as many of the old social taboos which have their roots seated deeply in religion die off.. we are becoming a much LESS monogomous society.

 

[Smurf]

Well a few hundred thousand years of evolution and a lot of science disagree with you...

Ah yes, Evolution. Women have a lot of incentive towards monogamy I think since being attached to a man (the stronger the better) was their only way of ensuring survival. Granted, this reality hasn't existed in a really long time, but hey, evolution is slow, and I think the disposition is still there.

we are becoming a much LESS monogomous society.

Which is really really weird!

 

[Astronuc]

If anything, modern societies are more monogamous than those of the middle ages and earlier. My wife was pointing out that in the Germanic tribes, men sometimes wives (plural), concubines and mistresses - the number may have depended on the status of person, particular a warrior.

Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne) apparently had 5 wives (4 sequentially) and at least five concubines - all of whom produced 20 children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne#Marriages_and_heirs


I was intrigued by a professor of sociology (a social anthropolygist) who asserted that serial monogamy is a form of polygamy (polygyny by males and polyandry by females).

 

[light_bulb]

i look at it like this, if two are willing to give into each other then you meet them up to the point where both are happy with the stalemate. plus everything else that's been said so far :!)

 

[SF]

Monogamy became popular when it was picked up by religion as a way of controling our sex life.
I'm interested, what's the history of poligamy in Judaism and Islam?

 

[Crosson]

In addition to polygyny and polyandry, I will introduce into the thread the term 'polyamory' to mean a form of polygamy in which a group of people are mutual spouses.

I think we choose monogamy because polyamory is too difficult to do properly. Love and attention take a lot of an individuals energy, and I have found myself so far incapable of behaving as I should in even a two-person relationship.

I can readily imagine a female who acts a certain way such that I would be delighted to be one of her husbands. Who wouldn't want to have a spouse who is superior to themself, but who is not bitter as they have been granted a freedom that they in this case deserve?

 

[arildno]

Harald Hairfair, as portrayed by Snorri, had at least 4 or 5 wives some at the same time.
Apart from marriage used as a coupling of noble dynasties, the institution of marriage had little else hold on individuals.

For example, as long as the female was of reasonably good standing, EACH child had a legitimate inheritance claim on its father.
This caused a number of problems, since "bastard" children of kings had an equally valid claim on the throne as the ones born in "wedlock".

 

[Tosh]

I am not going to give explanations as to what I think best, mostly questions and statements (some of them are leading), but I ask you to think over them.

Polyandry vs. Polygamy
- Which spouse is generally more likely to commit adultery?
- Who undergoes pregnancy for 9 months and therefore becomes quite dependent during that period? Would that cause problems for another partner(s) who isn't the father of the child? During pregnancy there clearly isn't mutual input into the relationship, but it is worth it for your own child (or another man's child but only if they are not still together!).
- Watch a chat show (actually, don't!), you will see the concept of polyandry gone wrong, where people call for a DNA test to sort out the child's need for their father...and FUNDING has to be someone's legal responsibility for society to function. Unless
- Can we leave children to fend for themselves from birth?
- "Remove children from the argument, we have no need to procreate because we just live our lives having protected sex and we will be all fine and dandy, and have a party of a time, because we only live once so let's make the most of it. There is no personal benefit because they are purely reliant on us anyway" Reality: many have the urge to have children. Heavy partying-drugs-no aims lifestyle isn't what it is made out to be.
- Whose child is it? Polyandry vs. Polygamy, you always know the woman but not always the man!
- People only find it interesting to watch other peoples affairs and adultery on TV and know the gossip about everyone, they don't consider if it was their own marriage at stake. Providing for all desires (like="are aroused by")
- Some people want to hurt others
- Some people 'like' animals
- Some people 'like' children
- Children can't choose if their parents commit adultery

Free communities e.g. 60s India - This describes where partying, free dancing, drugs, sex are promoted and monogamous relationships discouraged, the most apparent concept of "freedom" (we don't want that sort of freedom)
- Children had little concept of parents and discipline
- Girls as young as 13 were slept without of wedlock. Not precisely raped but they were taught by their environment that there was nothing wrong with it. Is there anything wrong with it if religion is not taken into account? Why?
- We cannot escape death

Thanks for reading, I hope that was mentally stimulating in some way. Does that make you think differently at all?

 

[Smurf]

It's alive! It's ALIVE!

 

[Tosh]

It's alive! It's ALIVE!

I don't understand, how is that helpful to this thread?

 

[EnumaElish]

I think of this as social setup. I have not heard an argument that would show otherwise. Is there any research done on this?

Im asking in relation to our laws. (western). WHy is polygamy explicitly prohibited then? Isn't this pure religious demand?

Monogamy ---> social setup.
Polygamy ---> social setup.
Anything in between, or to the left, or to the right ---> social setup.

Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums > Philosophy & Social Science > Social Sciences ---> soc. sci. forum.