Is an Atheist world polygamist?

Goduznt Xzst

I've been reading quite a few studies that seem to show that humans are naturally polygamist. Some studies show there would be a much greater equality in a polygamist world and others state that on average people from polygamist cultures live longer then those of monogamist cultures.

I'm wondering what the opinions of people here are? Coming off the wake of the *cough* incest *cough* thread I don't think the idea of polygamy is that odd.

But it does raise some ethical questions, just because something may be natural (i.e. the selfish gene perhaps) doesn't mean it is necessarily beneficial always for humanity (i.e. social darwinism)

What are your views on polygamy and do you think a culture of atheists would naturally be polygamist?

Zillah

It has nothing directly to do with Atheism. Atheists are often liberal, and allowing polygamy is a liberal notion, but by no means are they equivalent.

I for one feel it is absurd of my government that I am forbidden from having two wives and a husband if we so desire.

sink

I haven't really thought about it tbh. There can be emotional issues with polygamy but it's debatable as to whether that is a natural instinctive reaction or whether it is something that has arisen from culture.

Hivemind187

utterly irrelevant to atheism.

Atheism, being the absence of a belief in a deity and sometimes further to the opposition to superstitions of any form and the ir organised worship has no real interest, as a philosophical endevour, in ploygamy or ployamoury.

Atheists generally hold the opinion that morality is caused by a combination of social conditioning handed down from generation to generation and/or the result of recipricol genrosity as a method of improving the survival chances.

The argument for whether or not ploygamy or ployamoury is "in our genes" is a question of biology and psychology (possibly sociology) but not one of philosophy or morality.

Whether it is moral is a matter of personal interpretation.

Whether it is ethical is a matter of philosophy and reason.

Whether it should be permitted in society is an issue of politics (I personally have no problem with it and would love the chance to give it a try).

I see no correlation between ones stance on ploygamy and atheism, whereas I can see one where theology is concerned (morals and behavior dictated by some holy book or other).

However, should a society of atheists be naturally polygamist? Doubtful. Personal choice and preference would play a much larger role in determining this than ones position on the belief scale.

AtomicHorror

Are we speaking morally or legally? Morally, it's probably "wrong" in most cases because many people are hurt by polygamous relationships. However, legally it should simply not be a law as it's quite possible that one could find groups of three or four people who mutually have no issue being legally married. I'd personally feel like it should be a law that all parties are aware of the full extent of said marriages before a new one may proceed, but perhaps that's just my subjective morals again.

Atheism comes into it only in as much as we reject the notion that religion should inform law. However we generally do accept the notion that moral philosophy should inform law.

Goduznt Xzst

hmm... I guess I'm drawing the conclusion that without a religious basis for monogamy would a culture who has shed its religious restrictions remain monogamist?

Culturally it is not accepted and I guess I am trying to get at the root of why this is.

I feel it is indirectly related to Atheism as an Atheist world will lead to a rethinking of certain moral and ethical practices that might of been influenced by religion. Like was said, Atheists are, in general, liberal, and more accepting of a persons free will to choose how they live their lives as long as it does not directly or indirectly adversely influence the lives of other humans.

So accepting this an Atheist world should allow for polygamy as well as monogamy, and in this world where humans are given the onus to live by their own criteria of ethics which would the majority choose to live by?

Also, would there be an evolutionary advantage to polygamy? Currently the strength of someones genes are limited to only one mate. In a polygamous world, that persons genes could be passed onto numerous other mates.

AtomicHorror

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, would there be an evolutionary advantage to polygamy? Currently the strength of someones genes are limited to only one mate. In a polygamous world, that persons genes could be passed onto numerous other mates.

Probably yes, but I don't why anyone should feel any particular need to use the theory of evolution as moral or ethical philosophy. The process works on the scale of billions of years. Why would an atheist, mortal and finite, be bothered with the possible future course of his genes? I'm not saying it's a motivation to discard, but I can't see it being an especially important behavioral motivator.

Zillah

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Morally, it's probably "wrong" in most cases because many people are hurt by polygamous relationships.

Is this wanton prejudice or have you actually encountered competant meta-studies showing a statisically relevant increase in mental harm caused by polygamist relationships? Lets also remember to factor in other cultural influences such as the general repression of women in the Muslim world.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

hmm... I guess I'm drawing the conclusion that without a religious basis for monogamy would a culture who has shed its religious restrictions remain monogamist?

Muslim men are allowed four wives actually. But yes, I think your question is more about Western Liberalism/Libertarianism than it is about atheism.

Also, would there be an evolutionary advantage to polygamy? Currently the strength of someones genes are limited to only one mate. In a polygamous world, that persons genes could be passed onto numerous other mates.

In many cases, yes. A man can sire virtually limitless numbers of children if he has receptive women. Ghengis Khan, for example, is estimated to have tens of millions of direct descendents due to his, erm, ample supply of women.

Goduznt Xzst

but Atheism isn't just about shedding a belief in deities and accepting our evolution, it is also about a rethinking of where humanity is headed without the forced guidance of religions. In a culture without religion what form will society take? These questions have to be addressed as an Atheist because this is the world we are pushing for.

You can't flick the first standing domino and then say the last one to fall was not affected by you.

It can usually be seen that in religions, past and present that allow for forms of polygamy it is usually widely adopted, and in areas where it is made illegal there is usually widespread infidelity or divorces amongst monogamous couples.

pH

Polygamy is a difficult one, in practice though it could be argued that it goes on, we don't just rub other peoples' faces in it. Rich men have kept mistresses as well as wives for years, albeit without really legitimising the the second 'wife'.

The harm argument (for women) is difficult to agree with, strong arguments have been made that polygamy suits women better than men!

For example

At present, while there is no legal protection for a second wife, the state and the courts would not get involved in prosecuting a man with a mistress, and I dare say that a man living with 2 women in Ireland today would not be interfered with either (legally).

The main argument against it is not a moral or religious one, it's one based on "the good of society". If for example the top 10% of rich and high status males have 2 wives, then all other things being equal the bottom 10% (in terms of status and wealth) of men have no wife, nor any real chance of having one. Having 10% of your population as young disaffected males with "nothing to live for" is a recipe for civil unrest, and in a modern democracy there's no real way of dealing with this.

aidan24326

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

hmm... I guess I'm drawing the conclusion that without a religious basis for monogamy would a culture who has shed its religious restrictions remain monogamist?

Difficult to say. A society where polygamy was standard practice as monogamy now is would be a very different kind of place. That sort of societal shift could not happen overnight.

I wonder at what point in our past did we become monogamous? Who decided that monogamy was the way to go? Perhaps it's a natural tendency for humans?

It would make more sense for a man to be attempting to spread his genes by copulating with every available woman (of course some do!), but as much as I might fancy the idea of regular sex with several different women there would be obvious issues of jealousy, conflict etc.

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I've been reading quite a few studies that seem to show that humans are naturally polygamist.

I'm not sure that is true, though I suppose it depends on ones definition of polygamy.

My understand is that humans as a species are naturally monogamous for the purpose of raising children. In human family units the father plays an important role. He does not abandon the family after copulation like some other mammals.

It would go against this concept if the father was having lots of different families with lots of different mates. This would cause him to be spread thin between different families and woudl have a determental effect on the children.

There is some support for this by the way human sperm acts. In species where the male is expected to have different mates sperm has evolved the ability to kill other sperm from other males, attempting to ensure that his sperm wins out the day.

The idea is also given support by the rather significant amount of emotional range given over to emotions of jealousy and protection we find in humans. Humans guard their mates very carefully, in an instictive fashion.

Polygamy in humans seems to be more of a social construct of modern existence (last 10,000 years) that an natural one, where the more wealthy and powerful men could afford to keep and look after multiple mates and rise their children. It also is helped by the unnatural ability humans have sexual relations without producing childern.

Of course all this is slightly irrelevant becasue what is or is not natural doesn't have a lot of bearing on what is or is not moral.

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course all this is slightly irrelevant becasue what is or is not natural doesn't have a lot of bearing on what is or is not moral.

really? I would of thought the natural tendencies of humans would have a great, if not overwhelming affect on our morals.

Polygamy would seem to offer an evolutionary advantage in regards to the strong and intelligent amongst us getting to spread there genes to more humans although, as pH said it would increase social darwinism in the sense that there would be no women left for men who are unsuccessful, weak or unintelligent.

I did read some studies into this also, which said that the flip side of accepted polygamy in a society would lead to a rampant increase in prostitution as there would be a high percentage of males for whom there are no women to marry. This in turn would also lead to a spike in STD's as a large majority of men would be copulating with a very small number of prostitutes.

My problem with this would be that why would women choose to be prostitutes when there would be plenty of intelligent and wealthy men out there looking for more wives?

EDIT: Sorry forgot to add, this study assumes a male dominated world. I would imagine women in a polygamist society would also take multiple husbands. There wouldn't necessarily be a lot of men without wives if women also where marrying and taking multiple husbands to take the place of 1 man.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

It would go against this concept if the father was having lots of different families with lots of different mates. This would cause him to be spread thin between different families and woudl have a determental effect on the children.

This doesn't seem to be an argument against polygamy, rather an argument against having too many children. A man with 8 children is spread just as thin whether it's with 1 wife or 2, in fact it could be argued that in the 2 wives scenario the children are better off because even though the father is 'spread thin' they have twice as much mother!

The question still remains, for a woman (and her children) is she better off being the only wife of a lazy drunken poor man, or the second wife of Bill Gates? Say in both scenarios she has 4 children, are those 4 children really better off in the monogamous scenario?

Zillah

pH wrote: »

This doesn't seem to be an argument against polygamy, rather an argument against having too many children.

Essentially the same thing. The limiting factor on couples not using birth control is the fact that a woman can only have one child every ten months or so. A man can sire as many children every ten months as he has wives. There was an article on BBC news the other day about a Muslim who was sentenced to death for having 70 wives or something. He has 150+ children. I don't quite remember the exact number but time and again we see that men who have many wives having a proportional increase in children.

ChocolateSauce

First, I'd like to replace the term polygamy with polyamoury, as one could be considered a legal institution and not a pattern of behaviour.

Next, I'd say it has nothing to do with atheism. Not doing it does play a part in some theisms, but obviously not in others. Thus, I recon it can't be attributed to any faith or lack thereof.

I myself am very polyamourus. I don't mean that in the way of a guy who goes around doing every girl he can, I mean that I form emotional connections with multiple people and don't experience jealousy the way other people do- I don't really mind if my girlfriend is having sex with someone else, just so long as it's not behind by back, so to speak. Most atheists I know are not this way, and only about half of people who share my inclination are atheists-though none are monotheists.

So you see it really is down to person inclination!

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

Is this wanton prejudice or have you actually encountered competant meta-studies showing a statisically relevant increase in mental harm caused by polygamist relationships?

Do I need such a study to suggest that people may be emotionally harmed by polygamous relationships? I would be hurt by one. My partner would too. Most people I know would hold similar views. If you wouldn't, and your partner(s) wouldn't, then it is not wrong for you and my moral objections are gone.

Legally, there should be no restriction at all. Though perhaps there's a practical upper limit on numbers. Imagine the divorce paper work.

Zillah

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Do I need such a study to suggest that people may be emotionally harmed by polygamous relationships?

No, of course not. But thats not what you said. You said many people are hurt by polygamous relationships, not may be. And if your point is may be then what kind of a point is it? There's all sorts of things that may hurt us, that doesn't make them morally wrong, as you've asserted about polygamy. Monogamous relationships hurt people all the time. If you're asserting that polygamous relationships hurt people more often, I'd like to know if thats just prejudice or if you're basing it on some sort of study.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

This doesn't seem to be an argument against polygamy, rather an argument against having too many children.

Well as Zillah says, that is essentially the same thing.

Large families are also largely a modern phenomena. Normal breast feeding naturally attempts to stop a woman having another baby straight after the first, and in the good old days a lot of children would have died. It would have been unusual for a male and female couple to have produced the large "Catholic" families you find in Ireland where someone may have 13+ siblings.

pH wrote: »

The question still remains, for a woman (and her children) is she better off being the only wife of a lazy drunken poor man, or the second wife of Bill Gates?

Again that question is a question related to modern existence, and really dragging nature and our natural instincts into that is not going to work very well because evolution could not have caught up to alcohol or billionaires yet to shape the natural equilibrium for such coupling.

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

AtomicHorror: Do I need such a study to suggest that people may be emotionally harmed by polygamous relationships?

No, of course not. But thats not what you said. You said many people are hurt by polygamous relationships, not may be.

"Many people are" vs. "people may be". Should I have provided percentages?

Zillah wrote: »

And if your point is may be then what kind of a point is it? There's all sorts of things that may hurt us, that doesn't make them morally wrong, as you've asserted about polygamy.

I guess I need to put my cautious words in bold. I said probably. As to morality with regards to harm, what I was trying to get across is that many people will find the concept of polygamy immoral on that basis. Never did I say they would be correct to feel so, hence my judgement on whether polygamy should be legal. I stuck "wrong" in quotes to imply that subjectivity and my dubiousness about it.

Zillah wrote: »

Monogamous relationships hurt people all the time. If you're asserting that polygamous relationships hurt people more often, I'd like to know if thats just prejudice or if you're basing it on some sort of study.

I never asserted any such thing. Perhaps I should have chosen my words with greater care in my original post. Had I known I'd be grilled, I certainly would have.

Zillah

One should always expect to be grilled

Goduznt Xzst

But is polygamy (or polyamoury) a natural instinct that we ignore due to restrictions of modern society, which is still greatly influenced by religious doctrines?

When a married man wolf whistles or honks his car horn at a beautiful woman crossing the road he is not doing so because he has rationally weighed up the pros and cons and thinks this approach will attract this female to him. He is also not being consciously unfaithful to his monogamous partner. This could be said to be an instinctive reflex action, one that shows that most individuals are not content with merely one partner. I don't think I know one person who, when in a serious relationship, hasn't turned their head at a seductively beautiful individual of the opposite sex.

If monogamy is natural for humans then why do we have such a problem with it?

Also, in the area of people getting hurt. This isn't even a factor if the society is polygamous. People will only get hurt if the society is monogamous but some choose to practice polygamy in secret.

pH

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, in the area of people getting hurt. This isn't even a factor if the society is polygamous. People will only get hurt if the society is monogamous but some choose to practice polygamy in secret.

As I pointed out above if the top 10% of men (I use the word top loosely - status/money/power/good looks/intelligence - whatever 'attracts' women) have 2 wives then the bottom 10% have no wife, nor indeed much of a chance of getting one.

If the top 25% have 4 wives, then 75% of the male population has no wife and so on. Now maybe you don't consider the people left without a partner 'hurt', but large numbers of young men with no hope of ever marrying and having children would cause an enormous strain on society, it's arguable that a modern western democracy couldn't deal with it, you'd need a dictatorial system.

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

But is polygamy (or polyamoury) a natural instinct that we ignore due to restrictions of modern society, which is still greatly influenced by religious doctrines?

It seems more likely that modern society and religions reflect the natural human instinct to be monogamous.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I don't think I know one person who, when in a serious relationship, hasn't turned their head at a seductively beautiful individual of the opposite sex.

Well yes, sexual desire doesn't switch off just because someone is in a relationship, but then how many end up having children with that person they ogled?

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

If monogamy is natural for humans then why do we have such a problem with it?

Because we have developed the ability to have sex without producing children. For a lot of people we simply have the initial instinct for sexual lust, without the bits that are supposed to follow on from that, such as producing children.

If every man who cheated on his wife produced children from doing so I think you would see a very different attitude to infidelity.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, in the area of people getting hurt. This isn't even a factor if the society is polygamous. People will only get hurt if the society is monogamous but some choose to practice polygamy in secret.

Well no, society has developed along monogamous lines because people tend to get hurt, even back in the day when religion dictated women must be virgins on their wedding days (this was to not make the man jealous or feel insecure).

The society constructs come because of our underlying instincts.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

As I pointed out above if the top 10% of men (I use the word top loosely - status/money/power/good looks/intelligence - whatever 'attracts' women) have 2 wives then the bottom 10% have no wife, nor indeed much of a chance of getting one.

If the top 25% have 4 wives, then 75% of the male population has no wife and so on. Now maybe you don't consider the people left without a partner 'hurt', but large numbers of young men with no hope of ever marrying and having children would cause an enormous strain on society, it's arguable that a modern western democracy couldn't deal with it, you'd need a dictatorial system.

Why are you assuming that our hypothetical polygamous society allows men to have multiple partners but not women? If this were my atheistic polygamous society, unions of all compositions would be permitted. Mixed sexuality relationships would work too. On average then, the result is pretty much the same as a monogamous system. Some people won't have partners either way, but most probably will.

I'm pretty sure we don't need a dictatorship to account for any of that.

seamus

pH wrote: »

This doesn't seem to be an argument against polygamy, rather an argument against having too many children. A man with 8 children is spread just as thin whether it's with 1 wife or 2, in fact it could be argued that in the 2 wives scenario the children are better off because even though the father is 'spread thin' they have twice as much mother!

Not necessarily. If you go waay back, for every wife/mother a man has, that's another fully-grown adult that the man has to support. It's another full-grown adult who can't/doesn't get involved in the hunt but still consumes the same volume of resources. By far it makes more sense to have one wife with more children rather than more wives with fewer children - children consume less resources than an adult, and young males can get involved in the hunt when they reach a certain size.

Seeing however as we're social animals and I imagine we very rarely operated as individual family units, it's likely that the community would take care of the community's needs, if there was one person who was struggling. That said, in order for the community to function, it's unlikely that any individual male would have more than one wife, unless there were more women than men, perhaps.

In a modern context, I don't think monogamy has any link whatsoever to one's belief in a God, as has been mentioned.

I imagine an ultimately secular society is one that would probably permit polygamous marriage, even so the vast majority of relationships would continue to be monogamous. We live in a largely secular society as it is, here in the West, and polyamorous relationships aren't illegal (and not largely stigamatised), yet the majority of us prefer monogamous relationships (as opposed to fantasies of threesomes).

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

It seems more likely that modern society and religions reflect the natural human instinct to be monogamous.

I feel this is a chicken and egg debate. Do we get jealous because we are forced to live in a monogamous society or are we monogamous because of our tendencies to be jealous? My opinion would be the former, I do not think jealousy would be that big of a problem in a society where polygamy was allowed and not taboo. I feel this jealousy also tends to rise from a sense of inequality between the sexes, where it a society where male and females where truly equal, there would be no reason to get jealous. This jealousy, amongst males at least, tends to come from a sense of ownership or sole duty of protection of the female.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why are you assuming that our hypothetical polygamous society allows men to have multiple partners but not women? If this were my atheistic polygamous society, unions of all compositions would be permitted. Mixed sexuality relationships would work too. On average then, the result is pretty much the same as a monogamous system. Some people won't have partners either way, but most probably will.

I'm pretty sure we don't need a dictatorship to account for any of that.

dammit I was just going to make that point also . Like AtomicHorror said your statistics come from a biased system where men can only take multiple wives and only heterosexuality is allowed. In a system with bi/homo sexuality and one where a woman could take multiple husbands I do not think there would be as large a level of "hurt" as your statistics would show.

all the stars

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I've been reading quite a few studies that seem to show that humans are naturally polygamist. Some studies show there would be a much greater equality in a polygamist world and others state that on average people from polygamist cultures live longer then those of monogamist cultures.

I'm wondering what the opinions of people here are? Coming off the wake of the *cough* incest *cough* thread I don't think the idea of polygamy is that odd.

But it does raise some ethical questions, just because something may be natural (i.e. the selfish gene perhaps) doesn't mean it is necessarily beneficial always for humanity (i.e. social darwinism)

What are your views on polygamy and do you think a culture of atheists would naturally be polygamist?

think its more of a social issue that...
Its perfectly ok in some cultures.

Government has ruined everything

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I feel this is a chicken and egg debate. Do we get jealous because we are forced to live in a monogamous society or are we monogamous because of our tendencies to be jealous?

Not really chicken and egg because evolutionary emotional systems came long before human society. I think there is quite a lot of reason to believe it is the later of the two options. It would not be at all surprising if evolutionary emotional systems shaped society, but very surprising if it was the other way around.

I'm not really following how you think society can form an emotion as fundamental as jealously. I remember from my younger years (so old!) getting jealous around puberty about things I didn't even understand, such as my mate walking with a girl I liked home from school (it was totally innocent, but I wanted to walk with her and was so pissed off at my friend).

Jealousy and protectionism towards "mates" seems hard coded into us from an early age, I would be very surprised if it is a construct of society.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

My opinion would be the former, I do not think jealousy would be that big of a problem in a society where polygamy was allowed and not taboo.

Yes but again we have an instinct to be annoyed at polygamy long before we have been taught what that is. Just look at an average teenager. He/She probably can't even spell polygamy but they are sulking around the house because a girl or boy they are going out with snogged someone else around the back of the bike shed.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

This jealousy, amongst males at least, tends to come from a sense of ownership or sole duty of protection of the female.

Yes it does, and this itself is an evolutionary instinct, the purpose of which is bind the male with a responsibility to the female and her children and to stop the women producing children and a family with another mate while producing children with the male. That is after all pretty much what jealous is.

The very fact that we as a species appear to have the concept of ownership built in a very fundamental level (both men and women) suggests we are not naturally polygamists.

anti-venom

Jealousy must be the greatest obstacle to polygamy. Sexual jealousy and possessivness are hardwired into us and there is no way to legislate against that. Polygamy seems to work best in religious communities and socities where adherence to a religious code suppresses any natural misgivings a partner might have. A free minded, more secularised person might find it more difficult, in a polygamous relationship, to quell any instinctual tendency to be jealous; they are not afterall worried about offending any religious sensibility or breaking a religious code.

In order to quiten the natural impulses of possibly jealous partners, a certain amount of oppression and dominance must be employed. That would not sit too well with most Westernised people.

ChocolateSauce

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

But is polygamy (or polyamoury) a natural instinct that we ignore due to restrictions of modern society, which is still greatly influenced by religious doctrines?

I don't think so. I think the base instinct is to smash the skull in on anyone who tries to take your mate.

Zillah

theozster wrote: »

I don't think so. I think the base instinct is to smash the skull in on anyone who tries to take your mate.

Take, yes. Share, maybe not. According to Caesar the Celtic tribes in Britain had a system whereby several brothers would share a group of wives between them and they would raise all the children as their own.

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really chicken and egg because evolutionary emotional systems came long before human society. I think there is quite a lot of reason to believe it is the later of the two options. It would not be at all surprising if evolutionary emotional systems shaped society, but very surprising if it was the other way around.

I'm not saying that jealousy as an emotion was formed by forced monogamy, that would be absurd, I'm saying that the jealousy around monogamous relationships has formed because of this.

I can't remember the study's name but it was shown that if you give an individual a sum of money and everyone else in the room nothing they will be content with what they received, however if you give everyone else in the room a greater sum of money they will be discontent with what they received and jealous that they to did not receive an equal amount, even though nothing had changed for them their emotive response could be manipulated depending on what was happening in the microcosm around them.

The same is true in society, people get jealous if their partner seeks another mate because it is expected that they should only have one in a monogamous society. This jealousy comes from this expectation of a system that is implemented by either a religion or government. If you expect your partner to seek multiple other partners there would be no jealousy, it is only when you believe you have a copulatory ownership over another individual that this jealousy will form.


On a side, more4 will be showing an interesting documentary on a polygamist relationship tomorrow (Tuesday) at 22:00 called "Four Wives, One Man"

http://www.channel4.com/listings/M4/index.jsp?offset=1&position=1

Dave!

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Goduznt Xzst

Dave! wrote: »

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

good study, but there are equally as many studies, if not more, that seem to show that humans are naturally polygamist. I guess we won't really know for sure though until a society exists where there are no restrictions and people can choose to form either a polygamist or monogamous relationship.

Why does the final sentence unnerve me? Why can I see this being used as a weapon?

"next task is to test how a nasal vasopressin spray affects altruism and jealousy."

Dave!

They did a few studies on oxytocin and trust (turns out it does affect us, increasing trust and generosity in alot of tasks), and check it out :

http://www.verolabs.com/

Goduznt Xzst

Dave! wrote: »

and check it out :

http://www.verolabs.com/

finally! they are releasing products to help pedophiles get children into their cars :rolleyes: what a great world we live in

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The same is true in society, people get jealous if their partner seeks another mate because it is expected that they should only have one in a monogamous society.

I think there is a bit more to it than that. You are drawing comparison between studies of resources and food (I've seen these studies, particularly in children, and they are very interesting) with sexual partners. There seems to be evolutionary reasons why we act the way we do with resources and food and they are a bit different to why we act the way we do in terms of sexual partners.

Connecting the two is a bit of a jump. I think it would be better to stick to studies that actually deal with sexual relationships.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

This jealousy comes from this expectation of a system that is implemented by either a religion or government. If you expect your partner to seek multiple other partners there would be no jealousy, it is only when you believe you have a copulatory ownership over another individual that this jealousy will form.

Again that doesn't appear to be true. People experience feelings of jealousy and possessiveness of romantic partners from a very early age (early teens), well before society could structure their feelings in such away with things like marriage laws or religion.

Again I think it is far more likely that society reflects our natural instincts than society shapes are natural instincts. This appears to be reflected in Dave's article.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

On a side, more4 will be showing an interesting documentary on a polygamist relationship tomorrow (Tuesday) at 22:00 called "Four Wives, One Man"

I've seen documentaries like this before (we seem to be rather fascinated by stories like this). Interestingly enough in the programs I've seen the problems really start to occur when the man starts having children with the multiple wives, as I think is the case with this documentary from reading the blurb.

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that doesn't appear to be true. People experience feelings of jealousy and possessiveness of romantic partners from a very early age (early teens), well before society could structure their feelings in such away with things like marriage laws or religion.

Really? You don't think being raised by monogamous parents, having friends with monogamous parents and knowing the world to be monogamous has any affect on the fact that this teen will also expect a monogamous relationship for themselves?

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Really? You don't think being raised by monogamous parents, having friends with monogamous parents and knowing the world to be monogamous has any affect on the fact that this teen will also expect a monogamous relationship for themselves?

Not really. How many 12 year olds are given lectures about being monogamous to te girl they are pulling hair with in the play ground by their parents? Most parents keep silent about sex and relationships until their children are much older.

We in the western world are bombarded by sexual imagery all the time, but if you look at what the "sexy celebrities" are actually doing, they are all rushing to get married. People with the freedom to shag around for decades end up getting married in their late teens or early twenties (look at Angelian Jolie, Peaches Geldof or Britney Spears). People rebel against what society tells them but if you look at those who have rebelled so much they actually have what could be considered freedom from society norms, they all get married. And we are shocked and appalled, not applauding them.

It is hard to believe that this is society forcing them, they largely decide what is society in this celebrity obsessed time.

Goduznt Xzst

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. How many 12 year olds are given lectures about being monogamous to te girl they are pulling hair with in the play ground by their parents? Most parents keep silent about sex and relationships until their children are much older.

monkey see monkey do. A child does not need to be told to start a monogamous relationship when they can clearly observe it in their parents. I realized from a very young age that I only had 1 mother and 1 father and that this was the norm. Also speaking of teens, many teens, at least amongst the friends I knew, liked multiple girls at the same time, but they chose the best of these girls to ask out because it was accepted you could have only 1 girlfriend. I postulate that in a world with accepted and practiced polygamy a child raised with multiple mothers, fathers or both would view it as normal, and when they would start to be attracted to the opposite sex they wouldn't have to limit their interests to only 1 person.

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

monkey see monkey do.

Well monkey see monkey do doesn't actually hold very well.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

A child does not need to be told to start a monogamous relationship when they can clearly observe it in their parents.

Well yes but if that was the case children of divorced parents would most likely end up having multiple polygamist relationships. The opposite appears to be the case, children from divorced parents are more likely to marry young (and probably because of that more likely to themselves divorce).

There is an instinctive need for this family unit, the break up of it can effect not only the adults but the children as well, who often go on to seek out a "perfect" family unit later in life to compensate for the absence of the one they had growing up.