Is monogamy social setup or 'our nature'

[Astronuc]

I would add that meaning must be defined to add meaning to your statement.

Good point.

My personal definition of the word meaning would be that when a tradition holds meaning it holds the same sort of cohesive and synergistic efficency as a law of physics or universal law. A meaningful tradition results in the metered progress of an individual as well as the group and provides an environment for the continued growth and evolution of all those concerned.

A meaningful relationship is the result of two individuals who are able to stand on their own yet commit to creating a greater sum of two parts ( not just well looked after children but the synergistic results of "two heads that work well together are better than any other arrangement).

Very good points. A meaningful relationship should entail a positive environment for both participants.

 

[nannoh]

Good point.

Very good points. A meaningful relationship should entail a positive environment for both participants.

So what is to be determined, in keeping with this thread, is whether or not it is our natural tendency to foster positive and supportive environments and whether or not monogamy offers better tools to achieve that environment than polygamous relationships.

Is it in our nature to seek or create positive environments?

Does a monogamous relationship lend itself to that goal?

Does a polygamous relationship lend itself to that goal?

 

[bomba923]

Hmm...couldn't monogamy simply be considered as a naturally selected device for population control?

Early on, I'd imagine primitive human societies might have found it easier to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number (of humans)" if that "number" (of humans) was kept below excessive levels (i.e., if they otherwise practiced sex anywhere/anytime...leading to many births...leading to resources problems...and other issues...)

So "early on", primitive societies/cultures who encouraged monogamy "succeeded" over societies/cultures that did not.

Perhaps?

 

[nannoh]

Hmm...couldn't monogamy simply be considered as a naturally selected device for population control?

Early on, I'd imagine primitive human societies might have found it easier to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number (of humans)" if that "number" (of humans) was kept below excessive levels (i.e., if they otherwise practiced sex anywhere/anytime...leading to many births...leading to resources problems...and other issues...)

So "early on", primitive societies/cultures who encouraged monogamy "succeeded" over societies/cultures that did not.

Perhaps?

Tell that to Nana and Gigi Malkovitsch who had 13 children to keep the homestead going. I don't know if they had a culture other than the monthly get together they herded their children to across 27 miles of snow. Other than that it was survival by numbers and a good 20 percent of the family was sure to die over any given 5 years.

But, I think you have a point. It was probably a "survival of the fittest" social system in this case. And as we know, one system will work during a certain condition where the same system won't in another condition or environment.

Today, with a progressive amount of ethnic and technological diversity beginning to accumulate on every continent what is the best marrage model for surviving as a family? Or will the "family" unit go "Global" the way the "Global Corporations" would like to see happen?

Without a focus or ankor of a family its much easier to feed mis-information to inexperienced workers who will work for slave wages because they have no idea that there was/is/could be an alternative - such as in the "good old days" their parents may or may not have told them about.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Geez, I gave a bunch of examples at the start of this thread to show that lots of humans have organized themselve in ways that contradict any supposed inborn monogametic impukse, and here people are speculating about it being an evolutionary adaptation. Yesh, sure, just like the green hair and wings we all have!

 

[verty]

However, some people enter into marriage or make promises with good intent, but perhaps without thinking thoroughly regarding the promise, or perhaps without full internal commitment, hence the marriage fails and the promise is broken.

But society frowns on people who have children outside of wedlock. Therefore, people are likely to marry before or shortly after having children whether or not they have thought it through or whatever. They'll do it because supposedly it's 'the right thing to do'.

So they follow the tradition because it is traditional. Traditions have that effect, so saying that traditions can be meaningful seems to miss the point that traditions have 'social merit' pretty much regardless of what they mean. Any meaningfulness is largely irrelevant.

It's like when I read books on etiquette, perhaps by Dale Carnegie or Peter Post, and I read that one should "be genuinely interested in listening to people" or "show people that you are genuinely interested". They typically follow it up with something like "I don't mean that you should lie, I mean that you should be genuinely interested". This seems very similar to "you should marry if you have children and you should mean it". It all seems rather disingenous to me.

If you want to keep the meaningfulness of marriage, then divorce it from the matter of having children and from the matter of it being the right thing to do. If you want to keep the children-connection, forget about the eternal commitment. I don't see that one can keep both.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

no problem son, its not offensive to me.
I showed that they make not valid point, and nobody has refuted it yet.

because it was a jest, and I have refuted it.

? no point taken?

ditto

With utmost absolutness not. We should not do whatever we want. Its very big blunder think everything is relative. It is not. Just because in afganistan women are treated the way they are treated we cannot say 'oh, its just the way they do things'. We are to change their setup! by reasonable means!

What I mean, is we should do what we want as long as it brings no harm. I don't see how homosexuality does harm. Plus, I think some of us have acknowledged that people don't choose to be homosexual, but are born that way. I don't think it'll bring down civilization.

Ok, imagine entire population homosexuals. Then imagine entire population according to nature, ie opposite sex partners.

Homosexuality does seem to be naturally designed, not learned or chosen.

If you do not see a difference on the impace on society, we cannot have discussion on this.

Who said all the population had to have one type of sexuality? Hello, we are related to the bisexual bonobos...

I am not against homosexuals, i just hold opinion its not 'natural setup'.

There is evidence to the contrary.

There is more to it. Pheromones, VNO, brain, etc. But trust me, I am not uneducated on this.

Seems you have selective knowledge.

Its reasonable to all ppl who think. I dare you to explain to me in what points its unreasonalbe.

Because it is ignorant and completely ethnocentric assume that the way things are in your culture are the reasonable normal way. Hello, did you miss the chapter on colonialism?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Geez, I gave a bunch of examples at the start of this thread to show that lots of humans have organized themselve in ways that contradict any supposed inborn monogametic impukse, and here people are speculating about it being an evolutionary adaptation. Yesh, sure, just like the green hair and wings we all have!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

But society frowns on people who have children outside of wedlock. Therefore, people are likely to marry before or shortly after having children whether or not they have thought it through or whatever. They'll do it because supposedly it's 'the right thing to do'.

Are they? Are you familiar with the term "my baby's daddy"

So they follow the tradition because it is traditional. Traditions have that effect, so saying that traditions can be meaningful seems to miss the point that traditions have 'social merit' pretty much regardless of what they mean. Any meaningfulness is largely irrelevant.

And how did they become traditions? Traditions do have merit, and they change rapidly when environments change. Case in point - change in Kwakuitl potlatching and social hierarchy when they came into contact with European fur traders.

It's like when I read books on etiquette, perhaps by Dale Carnegie or Peter Post, and I read that one should "be genuinely interested in listening to people" or "show people that you are genuinely interested". They typically follow it up with something like "I don't mean that you should lie, I mean that you should be genuinely interested". This seems very similar to "you should marry if you have children and you should mean it". It all seems rather disingenous to me.

I think this is speaking to the Asperger's syndrome exhibited by our cultural practices at times.

If you want to keep the meaningfulness of marriage, then divorce it from the matter of having children and from the matter of it being the right thing to do.

Social practices usually become social practices because they're useful, though sometimes not for the individual. Meanings are attached to keep those practices in place. I think you're right about divorcing marriage from children - marriage is really useful as a social alliance and subsistence practices.

 

[verty]

And how did they become traditions? Traditions do have merit, and they change rapidly when environments change.

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.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe traditions evolve because they provide some 'stability' or 'assurance' in society, and societies usually prefer stability/predictability. However, there are exceptions to the rules, and therein lies the uncertainty. Too much uncertainty can lead to anxiety and worry, which can lead to negative/detrimental behavior.

Then there is the matter that traditions became arbitrary or dogmatic or automatic, in which case the original meaning seems lost.

How does one find the right mate/partner? Many or most people get married with the expectation of having children. The marriage is supposed to form a stable relationship in which the couple agrees to establish and provide 'mutual support'. However, in practicality, we observe that more than 50% of marriages end with divorce, and in some fraction one or both spouses engage in extramarrital relationships.

Society frowns on children out of wedlock, because society often bears the burden for the care of the children. Certainly there are those who are more concerned about the moral aspects and there are those who are more concerned about the economic aspects.

As for monogamy, it works for me. I prefer to fall asleep beside the same woman every night (when I'm not traveling). When I'm away from home, I miss my wife and kids, and I look forward to being home.

It just wouldn't work for me to fall asleep with a different spouse each night, nor would it work for me with conjugal visits with other women. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

 

[sneez]

Plus, I think some of us have acknowledged that people don't choose to be homosexual, but are born that way. I don't think it'll bring down civilization.

No body said it will bring down civilization??

I don't know why you provide me with evidence of you uncaring and selective reading of posts, just trying to make your view the correct one.

I never said homosexuals are not born. On the contrary my post about pheromones proves that they are born with this misfunction of this apparatus of sexual attraction.

On the same time, there are gays who chose to be, due to various psychological reasons. (and i made an interview couple yrs back with one such a guy.)

And that's not even the issue. And please, if you have nothing to say, its better to say nothing, than your one-sentence-directed-'smart' remarks which make no point but one, which is not appropriate for educated discussion.

 

[JasonRox]

I think monogamy was a good direction for us. It seems like it was an evolution of our social order, but then again, it has it's faults.

I don't believe in "pure" monogamy. I think that's just absurd and leads to many insecurities. What I mean by "pure" is that once you are with someone, you don't even check out the opposite sex because it betrays the relationship or something. Or when your partners asks if you think so and so is attractive, you're expected to say that your partner is more attractive than so and so. This is just freaking ridiculous. Or you can't have friendly fun conversations with the opposite sex because you might end up falling for that person, but what if you do? Then you believe their exists a better partner, so tough luck to your other partner. Exploring the world is how you will find the best partner, and being the best partner you can be is how you avoid your own partner from finding better ones. For example, lots of guys act like freaking idiots in relationships, then they complain that their girl fall for another guy. Well, if you act like an idiot, it won't take very long to find a better guy. Similarly, for girls.

On the other hand, if you choose to get married, then you technically think there is no one better, so there is no worries in friendly conversations with the opposite sex. That is true marriage! Marriage, I think, is not just loving each other, but simply that this is the most love you'll get from anyone! So, don't go and marry someone just because you fell in love with them (like 90% of people out there).

Of course, I also think as a married man, you can still check out other girls, but not to an excess or in your wife's presence. Of course, let your wife know your philosophy of marriage, because then she might not even want to marry you. Who knows.

Anyways, "pure" monogamy is just crazy. Yes, I've had my girlfriend ask me if I thought a girl was attractive, and I said yes. I didn't lie. She got a little upset, but I simply responded with the idea that I'm not going to give false security by telling you I think no other girl is attractive. I think bigger problems come from false security because then she thinks she's number one and does not have to do anything to stay there. But like I said, you always have to be the best partner. She knows I think she's attractive, so I don't see why she wants me to lie and say "Nope, she's not that attractive."

To not check out girls would be like impossible! And to even deny their attractiveness seems absurd. Sure, she can feel like I might cheat on her or something, but that's a result of lack of trust in me. I can cover up that trust problem by hiding everything, but then that's "fake" trust. Attractive girls will always exist, so you just have to trust your man around them. Of course, a lot of that trust was lost because 90% of males can't control themselves, but don't put that out on me. I'm better than that, and I expect better myself.

Anyways, carry on.

 

[nannoh]

Geez, I gave a bunch of examples at the start of this thread to show that lots of humans have organized themselve in ways that contradict any supposed inborn monogametic impukse, and here people are speculating about it being an evolutionary adaptation. Yesh, sure, just like the green hair and wings we all have!

selfAdjoint. I missed your contributions at the beginning of this thread and of course I suffered for that!

The many examples you gave of various cultural relationship models are enlightening. There really is no way to say that a partcular tradition will survive longer or predominantly because of its efficiency in a society. Its more a case of whether or not the society has bigger guns or more people or more resources that will most likely determine if it survives.

The surviving and conquering society will then be able to impose its ideas about marrage and other traditions on the conquered populice. Take the Spanish invasion of South and Central America for example. I'm always amazed that in a few short centuries the whole Aztec and related cultures (which had lasted thousands of years) lost their traditions and willing accepted the traditions and religion of the Spanish.

Its hard to say if the survivablity of a tradition is tested by time or by the evolutionary survivability of its practitioners. Most likely it is the latter.

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[sneez]

The concept of romatic love at least operates on monogamy. It was introduced into Europe via the troubadours, influenced by Persian tradition

For those interested on view on romantic love from Jungian point of view, an interesting read.

An elegantly constructed, superior inquiry into the psychology of love."

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062504363/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[nannoh]

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.

The records describing the Aztecs and Incas were written by extremely repressive regimes. How can we be certain about their unbiased view of these cultures?

 

[sneez]

But entering into marriage, means the fulfilling of certain duties and obligations, one of which is loyalty to the spouse. Otherwise, why get married?

It seems polygamy is viewed as something 'dirty'. Where loyalty and fullfiling of duties go aside. Monogamous relationship can turn into seeking other partners. There is horendous statistics on cheating in US, children out of wedlock, etc. Even married couples go into 'swinger' relationships. I don't see why polygamy is automatically viewed like this, there is no justification that such 'higher values' of monogamy not present in polygamy.

Anyway, it seems that argument against polygamy only ideological in nature. I asked at the beginning why would we need a law that explicitly prohibits it. So to ask other way around, if there was non-religious state, would it be rational to prohibit such a marriage?

Sneez you quoted me just as I was rewriting my message!

Quoted you to introduce further reading on the point you made, for those interested.

 

[nannoh]

Anyway, it seems that argument against polygamy only ideological in nature. I asked at the beginning why would we need a law that explicitly prohibits it. So to ask other way around, if there was non-religious state, would it be rational to prohibit such a marriage?

In recent years the Americian News Industry has dwelt only upon the polygamy perceived in the polygamous practicing religions of the mid west. What we're told about these sects is that polygamy leads to child abduction, run aways, child molestation, incest and abuse of spouses and syblings. The reporting may be bias or a misrepresentation of the situation but several independent reports have confirmed the earlier ones.

I'm sure there are nice people who are able to maintain a multi-person-relationship ie: polygamous marrage. But, when it is allowed in the case of child predators, psychos or whatevers the ensuing problems seem to magnify when compared to a monogamous marrage. This is obviously because there are more people in the marrage to keep secrets or be kept in the dark about what is actually taking place. Perhaps two heads are better than 5 when it comes to staying on top of the actions of the "alpha male" or female.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

No body said it will bring down civilization??

This is what I'm referring to -

With utmost absolutness not. We should not do whatever we want. Its very big blunder think everything is relative. It is not. Just because in afganistan women are treated the way they are treated we cannot say 'oh, its just the way they do things'. We are to change their setup! by reasonable means!

You compared homosexuality to the way women are treated in Afghanistan. The slew of exclamation points and the mention that doing whatever we want (including homosexuality) was unreasonable communicated a feeling of imminent disaster.

I don't know why you provide me with evidence of you uncaring and selective reading of posts, just trying to make your view the correct one.

Alrighty then.

I never said homosexuals are not born. On the contrary my post about pheromones proves that they are born with this misfunction of this apparatus of sexual attraction.

Ah, I see that now. You're posts were a "bit" unclear.

And that's not even the issue. And please, if you have nothing to say, its better to say nothing, than your one-sentence-directed-'smart' remarks which make no point but one, which is not appropriate for educated discussion.

I'm evaluating your assertionsn and evidence. Feel free to report my posts if you find they are inappropriate.

 

[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.