Humans - Naturally monogomous ?

HarryD

I always thought that Humans were naturally monogomous,
and it wasn't just a product of our society, but recently
I've been questioning this.

I'd love to see how relationships went in the stone age.
For things to have lasted this long there must have been a
happy balanced society throughout the ages.

I think all men would play around if they got the chance:
ie: if society (and hence partners) didn't frown on it.
However I don't think this is the case for women.
(I think they like to stick to one man)

Society can't however have been like this back in stone ages.
The women been constantly annoyed/upset with their men,
out with other women.

Any thoughts ?

Xterminator

I see no reason to believe women are/were more inclined to monogamy.

The fact is i think a stoneage woman would jump harem to a better provider in the blink of an eye.

X

seamus

This is something that can be hmmed and hawed over until the cows come home. There is plenty of evidence, both evolutionary and historically that support both positions.

At the end of the day, it comes down to personal belief. If you beleive that polygamy (in the sense of having multiple partners, not wives - that would be illegal) is OK, then you find yourself some likeminded partners and live happily ever after. If you favour monogamy, get married and settle down. Simple really.

The Sweeper

Most of the great apes operate on the basis of an alpha male with a harem. There probably isn't much reason for us to believe that anything other than culture encourages us to behave differently.

Typical, as soon as relationships are not solely based on the need to reproduce, you get divorce...

HarryD

Xterminator wrote:

I see no reason to believe women are/were more inclined to monogamy.

The fact is i think a stoneage woman would jump harem to a better provider in the blink of an eye.

X

Maybe it's just my personal experiences, but I think women are way more
into getting a long-term partner than men.
Women generally seem content with their man, and don't play around as much, whereas a man never seems to be content, always wanting more..
Grass is always greener...etc
Any woman I've talked to on the subject also says that they want the security and comfort of a long-term partner..

kirn

imo:

from a natural point of view, men's job is reproduce, therefore, find as many mates as possible; while women need men, so they are more inclined to want to hold on to one when they have one.

but nowadays people sleep around and do the dirt on their partners more than ever before. both girls and guys. (well, i didn't live before, but i know <for example> that my parents were each others first kisses, and it was looked down on to sleep around before the turn of the century.)

a lot of it has to do with the fact that everywhere you look there is always someone better looking than your partner, on telly, on the street, in the nightclub... so people often think they can do better..

pretty-in-pink

apparently, it was more common for women to sleep round, as they were looking for the strongest partner to mate with, and even to this day the strongest fittest sexiest men get laid the most.

the most attractive women have the same deal. attraction is based on biological need,

monogomay is not natural but has become an integrated part of sociaty.

o and people have always slept around but they didnt talk bout it.

dont forget what purpose wenches and courtians had, and the little beds at the end of big beds in old houses? same deal.

simu

It's pointless looking for a "natural" way of living when it comes to human beings. Even the most primitive (to us) human groups had complex social behaviour codes. So even if you found that monogamy was prevalent in many pre-historic societies. I don't think that would "prove" that monogamy was more "natural".

For things to last this long (from prehistoric times until now), it's not happiness that was needed but lust!

Georgiana

IMHO there is a lot less actual monogamy than supposed monogamy. Who knows the real statistics, but I think there are very few men who will dismiss a presenting opportunity, in circumstances where it wont be discovered by the partner.

Some of these will only flirt, some will get involved in snogging etc and some will engage in sex. I think quite a lot of women will also take advantage of an opportunity but less so than men. This opinion is based on several years of observing people at office parties etc where partners are not present.

Capt'n Midnight

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Most of the great apes operate on the basis of an alpha male with a harem. There probably isn't much reason for us to believe that anything other than culture encourages us to behave differently.

It varies from species to species.
Chimps are very promiscous and are really quite nasty (except the pigmy ones - they are nice) and eat other primates and kill each other etc. They have large testicles.
Gorillas are faithfull and unless provoked are gentle and quiet. They have small testicles.

Humans are mid way between.

Higgamous hoggamous
Women are monogamous
Hoggamous Higgamous
Men are polygamous William James

Iago

I think it's a case of subconcious needs..

The two most pertinant needs at a subconcious level are self-preservation and preservation of the human race. Therefore men want to sleep with as many women as possible in order to ensure the best possibility of impregnation and therefore preservation of our race, whereas women want to find a single strong partner who will be able to provide for them and the children and will produce strong children to carry on the family... I believe that this is the natural state of things, but due to the constraints of society and good behaviour we have been forced to modify and suppress our natural urges and comply with the monogamus aspect of relationships.

Personally I think this is a good thing, but the other side of the coin has it's appeal as well

HarryD

Iago wrote:

I think it's a case of subconcious needs..

Yes, subconcious needs are there because of instinct.
And instinct is what we followed back in the stone age.
(and what other animals follow today)

...men want to sleep with as many women as possible in order to ensure the best possibility of impregnation and therefore preservation of our race, whereas women want to find a single strong partner who will be able to provide for them and the children and will produce strong children to carry on the family... I believe that this is the natural state of things,

I agree, but some part of this doesn't make sense to me.
What was the balance back then ?
If men were always searching for other women, and women
were always wanting to keep one man it doesn't balance out.

... due to the constraints of society and good behaviour we have been forced to modify and suppress our natural urges and comply with the monogamus aspect of relationships.

Personally I think this is a good thing, but the other side of the coin has it's appeal as well

Sometimes I wonder
Should we have to supress our natural instinct ?
Do any other animals ?

gom

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

Most of the great apes operate on the basis of an alpha male with a harem.

There are also a sizeable amount of Primate spieces that have a Matriarch or Head Female. SHe would have several males but all would be faithful to her. I say some Discovery Channel type program on the origin of man. They think that ancient civilisation is most similar to the primate families that operated with a Matriarch Moneky instead of a Alpha Male Ape type. Basically the type of social interaction of the Matriarch structure was more Human than that of the more well known Chemp and Great Ape

gom

A Patriarchical Society grew out of Judaism and Hellinistic societies. There is a long tradition of Female led tribes in Pre-Christian Western society. It makes more sense from a Social Democracy civilisation point of view.

Ever hear the phrase:

It takes a Village to raise a child

This grows from the type of social structure that existed on a pagan(panthieist) tribal level. A woman would be highly sexually active and a monogomous relation would not suit this. Seen as know one really knew who father which child the child would take the surname of the mother. And if the shild knew for some reason who their father was they would say(much like a Klingon) "Son/Daughter of Micko" for example. In most cases the father was unknown as the mother would be at it with all the fit lads of the village. The child would then be raised by many people in the village much like a child will have uncles and aunts involved in their family(but increasingly less often these days). The Tribe/Village was the family.

Monogomous relationships were greated by men as a means to control society. It was used by empires such as the Spartans, Greeks, Romans and then Christianity as a means to control. The Church continued this as it viewed anything otherwise as a path back to paganism.

Hence today monogomous relations are seen as the norm
I don't think that they are and don't agree with them. While I have been in a monogomous relationship for 5 years we both feel strongly about this. It is just a case of going off and shagging someone else. You must take on the committment that that involves also. YOu make love with someone then you got to have a level of care otherwise its just using someone. The old Matriarchical societies were ones of love and hippy commune living. Modern Hippy communes all brack down because of the fact that sex is not seen as a committment. Just an act. They imploded and still implode on jealousy.

gom

Male interest in maintaining a Monogomous Society

Men have an interest in monogomy. If society is organised so that one man has one female who is loyal to him, Patriarchical Society is created. Seen as its Mono-Mono and not a communal society as I previously posted women are isolated from one another and can't organise society in public. Their sphere becomes a private domain. The home. The home becomes the family not the village. This leads to Male dominence of society as it is men who go and hunt/work/politicise away from the home in the Public domain. Women are left to raise children alone at home without help. As they get no assistance they have no power within public life and are dominated by the patriarchical agenda.

Here is the Monogomous idea.

Man marries virgin Woman as early(when she can bear children) as possible. Woman has children and stays in the home to raise them(but implicitly to avoid other men and temptation). Child takes fathers surname and is awarded with inheritence from father. Seen as the mother is ment to be monogomous it is possible to know that the father of the child is her husband, therefore inheritence is possible. Under a Matriarchical society inheritence passes via women and is usually alot less as men would have been more individually productive in a pre-Hellinistic society.

Mothers if their child is really theirs as it comes out of them. Fathers on the otherhand can never 100% know that their child is actually theirs unless they chain their woman in a cell and have the sole key(hence suppression of women). Today the advent of DNA testing may help men relax a bit more but its a cultural thing that will take no doubt hundreds of years to chance attitudes so deeply engrained that people have it all mixed up. Monogomy was invented by men. Its not natural for humans anyway from what I see, Just a rational choice. Capitalism as we know it heavily relies on the patriarchical system to function. Specialisation of Labour is a fundemental tenite of Capitalism. Putting men in the public sphere and women in the private allows for this.
It doesn't have to be this way. To further the capitalist cause and liberate women all we need is a very progressive system of child care

I'm tired and i'll won't to know your opinions on this

mrhappy42

I tought that I had read somewhere that while a man who has several relationships can have more offspring those who work with their partner have a better change of seeing their young getting to reproductive stage which is the real aim.

http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/life/Monogamy-as-Prisoners-Dilemma.html