NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.

I remember watching something on this that noted the humans seemed to be wired for both, meaning some men and women are more likely to go out hunting while some seemed to be happy to stay at home.

It also noted that women who were likely to go out looking were more likely to have children by men who were also out sowing them oats, but would seek a stay at home guy to help raise the child.

But, like I said, this was a TLC documentry so take with a large chunk of salt.

I don't think people are naturally monogamous, I don't think there's a "naturally" involved here.
Just my opinion though.

I believe that monogamy is a cultural thing. We are taught that polygamy is immoral. This is likely because traditionally, polygamous relationships involved one man and several women, rather than both men and women having several partners.
From your Wikipedia article:
Culture has clearly increased the incidence of social monogamy. Many modern cultures have passed laws making social monogamy the only legal form of marriage. The passage of such laws in many cases reflects the spread of Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.
Could make sense bread in trait to help extend the lifespan of our young ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.

I'm not naturally monogamous. I know that for a fact.

Chickens and ducks used to be monogamous too...
I think it's a complicated situation. Part nurture, part nature.

I suspect that we tend to both, depending on the population spread. If women outnumber men, then polygeny (multiple wives) would be the norm, if men outnumber the women, then polyandry (multiple husbands) would be the norm. If the population was more or less even, then monogamy and serial monogamy would be the norm. The notion of the "seven-year-itch" would account for that and it would also guarantee more genetic diversity in a relatively small population.

From an article in the Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/)
The average guy would love to bang his neighbor's wife. He just doesn't want his wife banging his neighbor. Fidelity isn't natural, but jealousy is.

I believe that monogamy is a cultural thing. We are taught that polygamy is immoral. This is likely because traditionally, polygamous relationships involved one man and several women, rather than both men and women having several partners.
From your Wikipedia article:

Increased incidence, but that doesn't make it not exist in the first place. All physical indicators suggest a trend towards monogamy. We have the testes of a monogamous mammal. The difference is size between male and female (an indicator of polygamy) is shrinking.

Um...

We are not naturally as monogamous as our current society reflects, but that is no reason for someone who prefers monogamy not to pursue it, nor an excuse for someone who has established a monogamous relationship to pursue other partners. It is, however, a good reason for the stigma against promiscuity and particularly polyamorous relationships to be reduced.

Who cares what is "natural" and what is not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.

i highly doubt your assumption...i was married and all it took was a naked and willing member of the opposite sex to re open my lust...so i dissagree..but then again,i may be weak...lol

"Are we naturally monogamous?"

I know I am. Are we all? Nope.

I dont think we are. I think we naturally want to have as much as sex with as many things as we can. We are afterall one of the few animals that has sex for pleasure and pleasure alone. It is religion that gives us these ideas that we are monogamous, that marriage is between a man and woman, sex outside marriage is bad, and homosexuality is bad and other bullshit like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.


women maybe..as i am not female i cant speak for them..but men...lol....not a chance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.
Based on statistical evidence alone, most people seem to be monogamous, with a sizeable minority who are not.

women maybe..as i am not female i cant speak for them..but men...lol....not a chance

Actually, as Eut properly points out, men don't appear to be as unfaithful as many would have you believe.

as you said, based off of our testicle size and physical statures, we are monogamous. Two of our closest relatives are the chimps and gorillas. Gorillas live in a harem society (one male, many female), and have small testicles, as well as pretty decent level of sexual dimorphism. Chimps, which live in multimale, multifemale groupings, have very large testicles, and dimorphism.

Just looking at our testicles and canines, as well as sagital crest (or lack there of), it is fairly suggestive that we are meant to be monogamous to some degree. There is little chance that males are meant to compete with other males, as our testicles simply don't produce enough semen for postcotial competition.

I dont think we are. I think we naturally want to have as much as sex with as many things as we can. We are afterall one of the few animals that has sex for pleasure and pleasure alone. It is religion that gives us these ideas that we are monogamous, that marriage is between a man and woman, sex outside marriage is bad, and homosexuality is bad and other bullshit like that.

Well, I see a wee bit of difference between saying that at least some people are naturally monogamous and saying that homosexuality (or anything else, for that matter) is "bad."

Some people, quite possibly even most people, unquestionably are naturally monogamous. I myself am certainly an example, and I can assure you that that has nothing to do with any religion telling me I ought to be. :)

I dont think we are. I think we naturally want to have as much as sex with as many things as we can. We are afterall one of the few animals that has sex for pleasure and pleasure alone. It is religion that gives us these ideas that we are monogamous, that marriage is between a man and woman, sex outside marriage is bad, and homosexuality is bad and other bullshit like that.

what he said..lol

I also forgot one important factor. The distribution of the genders.

Within primates, and really, most animals, mating habits are determined in this way.

distribution of food determines the distribution of females. The distribution of females determines the distribution of males. The distribution of males determines the mating style, which impacts the ratio of males to females.

Humans are around a 1:1 male:female ratio. This would imply monogamy.

as you said, based off of our testicle size and physical statures, we are monogamous. Two of our closest relatives are the chimps and gorillas. Gorillas live in a harem society (one male, many female), and have small testicles, as well as pretty decent level of sexual dimorphism. Chimps, which live in multimale, multifemale groupings, have very large testicles, and dimorphism.

Just looking at our testicles and canines, as well as sagital crest (or lack there of), it is fairly suggestive that we are meant to be monogamous to some degree. There is little chance that males are meant to compete with other males, as our testicles simply don't produce enough semen for postcotial competition.

sorry,had to say it..but you aint seen my testicles.....and if you did,i could repopulate a decent sized town,if the womens ovaries were up to snuff.

that said...i like 1 man and 1 women...but i also like women period.

I also forgot one important factor. The distribution of the genders.

Within primates, and really, most animals, mating habits are determined in this way.

distribution of food determines the distribution of females. The distribution of females determines the distribution of males. The distribution of males determines the mating style, which impacts the ratio of males to females.

Humans are around a 1:1 male:female ratio. This would imply monogamy.

I agree with nearly everything you've said. Particularly the way you worded this - "Just looking at our testicles and canines, as well as sagital crest (or lack there of), it is fairly suggestive that we are meant to be monogamous to some degree."

To what degree is the point. All physical evidence does seem to point to a population that has been relatively monogamous for some time and getting more so.

sorry,had to say it..but you aint seen my testicles.....and if you did,i could repopulate a decent sized town,if the womens ovaries were up to snuff.

that said...i like 1 man and 1 women...but i also like women period.
unless you're a severe genetic freak, I can pretty well assume the size of your balls...hate to tell you.

by "large" testicles, I mean that a chimps testicle is almost the size of its brain.

being attracted to multiple women doesn't equal polygamy. Culturally, polygyny is the most popular practice. However, our physical build implies that we are designed for monogamy. A harem society, such as that of a gorilla, has one male and many many females all living together as we would have a married couple.

I agree with nearly everything you've said. Particularly the way you worded this - "Just looking at our testicles and canines, as well as sagital crest (or lack there of), it is fairly suggestive that we are meant to be monogamous to some degree."

To what degree is the point. All physical evidence does seem to point to a population that has been relatively monogamous for some time and getting more so.I would argue that our physical build implies that we, in the wild, would be monogamous. However, with technology and farming practices, food distribution no longer dictates how females are distributed, thereby males, and thereby sexual practices...in other words, we have reached a point where physical build no longer matters...however, if our food and technology systems were to collapse, we would revert to monogamy

women maybe..as i am not female i cant speak for them..but men...lol....not a chance
I'm a monogamous man. Just because you aren't doesn't give you the right to generalize to all of us.

I'm not monogamous because of religion or morals or anything. I'm just not interested in looking elsewhere when I already have my loved one.

I would actually argue that humans are more designed to be serial monogamous than purely monogamous. We seem to be best suited to find a mate for a length of time, then move on.

I would actually argue that humans are more designed to be serial monogamous than purely monogamous. We seem to be best suited to find a mate for a length of time, then move on.
Well, my ex certainly was. Personally, if given the chance to keep the same lover for all my life, I would.

Well, my ex certainly was. Personally, if given the chance to keep the same lover for all my life, I would.
I'd agree with that...but it seems that many are very well able to quickly move from partner to partner...that may be a cultural addition

Is it my imagination, or is there a term "Serial Monogomy," to describe how humans switch partners, but usually have only one at a time? Of course, there certainly are exceptions to that rule, such as my father, and the population of Bountiful. I'm guessing that humans generally like to be monogomous, to a certain degree, simply because of our biological tendancy to form romantic attractions to those we have sex with. Even pologamy isn't quite the same as running about with random mates.

NB: If anyone responds to this, I probably won't respond back. It's not that I am intentionally ignoring valid points, but rather that Carpal Tunnel Syndrome has put my right hand out of use, and I don't feel strongly enough either way to spend a couple hours trying to pluck out a few sentances with my monstrously clumsy left hand.

I would argue that our physical build implies that we, in the wild, would be monogamous. However, with technology and farming practices, food distribution no longer dictates how females are distributed, thereby males, and thereby sexual practices...in other words, we have reached a point where physical build no longer matters...however, if our food and technology systems were to collapse, we would revert to monogamy
The point is there are always people claiming that we and especially men are not made to be monogamous. I find that claim to be spurious. All evidence appears to suggest that is not a societal construct and that society actually enables a tendency toward otherwise. ... basically what you said.

unless you're a severe genetic freak, I can pretty well assume the size of your balls...hate to tell you.

by "large" testicles, I mean that a chimps testicle is almost the size of its brain.

being attracted to multiple women doesn't equal polygamy. Culturally, polygyny is the most popular practice. However, our physical build implies that we are designed for monogamy. A harem society, such as that of a gorilla, has one male and many many females all living together as we would have a married couple.

you got me there,cause i have no clue what you are saying.

i am monogamous by choice..certainly not by influence by females.

i was being a bit tongue in cheek,but really,you dont think the dogma of religous upbringing has no bearing on this?

am i saying we are no more then dogs..of coarse not,but men do view sex differently then women do.why is that?

i can have an extramarital affair and still love my wife...because it is just sex,whereas with women(mostly)they equate sex with love and it is the worst thing you can do..to have sex with another female....baffles me.

then throw the whole religous crap in..whew..enough to give me a migraine.

i can have sex with other women and it changes nothing about how i feel for my wife,,,she can have sex with 1 person and we are divorced..why is that...differing opinions towards sex?

women equate sex with love..in a relationship,men have sex with women to have sex...but with their wives/sig others,it is different.
women have sex to be protected and to feel special,let alone the whole...man takes care of women crap.

men have sex for 2 reasons..1.to get laid
2.to show their love to their mate...women dont differentiate between sex and love.

it's a complicated thing...but i love my girl,but i will always screw around..for sex only..my girl,she screws around,i know she does not love me.

yea..call me apig..i aint,i am human,women have sex(in thwe most part)to have a family,me,i want that also,but i also indulge my proclivity to have sex..meaningless sex...women cant do that.


mostly

you got me there,cause i have no clue what you are saying.

i am monogamous by choice..certainly not by influence by females.

i was being a bit tongue in cheek,but really,you dont think the dogma of religous upbringing has no bearing on this?

am i saying we are no more then dogs..of coarse not,but men do view sex differently then women do.why is that?

i can have an extramarital affair and still love my wife...because it is just sex,whereas with women(mostly)they equate sex with love and it is the worst thing you can do..to have sex with another female....baffles me.

then throw the whole religous crap in..whew..enough to give me a migraine.

i can have sex with other women and it changes nothing about how i feel for my wife,,,she can have sex with 1 person and we are divorced..why is that...differing opinions towards sex?

women equate sex with love..in a relationship,men have sex with women to have sex...but with their wives/sig others,it is different.
women have sex to be protected and to feel special,let alone the whole...man takes care of women crap.

men have sex for 2 reasons..1.to get laid
2.to show their love to their mate...women dont differentiate between sex and love.

it's a complicated thing...but i love my girl,but i will always screw around..for sex only..my girl,she screws around,i know she does not love me.

yea..call me apig..i aint,i am human,women have sex(in thwe most part)to have a family,me,i want that also,but i also indulge my proclivity to have sex..meaningless sex...women cant do that.


mostly
religious dogma does have influence...but I am looking at the human species from a physical stance...I actually think that the way we have developed has enabled us to move away from monogamy, which would explain the need for taboos against that shift.

And honestly, it makes evolutionary sense for men and women to view sex different. The more people a male has sex with, the more children he can be the father of. His genes are more likely to be spread. Women, on the other hand, would have the best chance of genetic success by being selective and choosing the best male she can find. She will carry the child for 9 months, plus years of raising. It would be about three years before she could mother another child. A man could father hundreds a year if he had the stamina.

that doesn't equate not being monogamous, however. That comes in when the child is born. Once a human child is born, it will require two parents to survive (in a strict caveman culture...not todays world). That is where the monogamy comes in

that doesn't equate not being monogamous, however. That comes in when the child is born. Once a human child is born, it will require two parents to survive (in a strict caveman culture...not todays world). That is where the monogamy comes in
I think you hit it right there. Given the incredably long time it takes for a human child to reach the point where they are able to survive and leave their parents, and how helpless they are, you need to have two people to raise that child.

I also remember reading somewhere that women may have devloped a hidden mating cycle to encourage this as well.

I really thought this topic was going to get more airtime and spark more debate but there doesn't seem to be much disagreement.

I really thought this topic was going to get more airtime and spark more debate but there doesn't seem to be much disagreement.


Use the word 'gay' a few times. It ain't controversial enough like this. Or link it to Marxism, Christianity, or Terrorism. Maybe Israel?

Are we naturally monogamous? I know I am NOT.

One thing I always think about when a topic like this comes up, is the length of time we're alive these days.

Back in the day, when you chose a partner and married them, the average life expectancy was about 36 years - it's now double that, and then some.

Personally, I dont think we're wired to be natrually monogamous, but I do think we're capeable of it when given the choice.

Are we naturally monogamous?
No, "we" are not. Mostly because there is no "we" when it comes to human sexuality. "Our" sexuality is not determined by innate biological factors to the same extent that sexual behavior is for most other species. Human sexuality is far more plastic than anybody seems to want to hear about, since it is now fashionable to blame one's sexual hangups and misdeeds on biology.

"We" aren't a we at all. "We" are all so radically different that it is plum foolish to try to make any blanket statement about human sexuality, other than that it exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.
some people are and some people aren't.

No, "we" are not. Mostly because there is no "we" when it comes to human sexuality. "Our" sexuality is not determined by innate biological factors to the same extent that sexual behavior is for most other species. Human sexuality is far more plastic than anybody seems to want to hear about, since it is now fashionable to blame one's sexual hangups and misdeeds on biology.

"We" aren't a we at all. "We" are all so radically different that it is plum foolish to try to make any blanket statement about human sexuality, other than that it exists.

So we're not a species? I'm talking about our trend as a species as evidenced by the evidence presented. We're talking about the human species and not individudals, and unless you're suggesting a human species doesn't exist, then your 'we' comments are misplaced.

i suspect if I said "are dogs naturally monogamous", you'd have an answer tht didn't include saying there is no such thing.

We are radically different in terms of personalities. I'm talking about a physiological tendency toward monogamy. All evidence appears to point to it, but feel free to present some evidence that is more than indignation that I'm incorrect.

I'm not suggesting we can't choose to not be monogamous or that an individual can't be have a natural inclination toward something other than monogamy, but the species can described in certain physiological ways and to pretend it can't is just absurd.

I think you hit it right there. Given the incredably long time it takes for a human child to reach the point where they are able to survive and leave their parents, and how helpless they are, you need to have two people to raise that child.

I also remember reading somewhere that women may have devloped a hidden mating cycle to encourage this as well.


Thats does'nt mean you need two parents for a child..thats why "tribes " and other social groupings exist. As far as the physical evidence for monogamy , how does it figure in the much higher divorce rates we see in this particular time ? And why doesnt it figure in any of the " studies " or polls, that show both men and women tend to have multiple partners...married or not ?

So we're not a species? I'm talking about our trend as a species as evidenced by the evidence presented. We're talking about the human species and not individudals, and unless you're suggesting a human species doesn't exist, then your 'we' comments are misplaced.

No, what I'm saying is that the actual manefestation of human sexuality ISN'T SHARED ON A SPECIES LEVEL. Because human sexuality is determined by so much more than our mere genetic relatedness to one another.


i suspect if I said "are dogs naturally monogamous", you'd have an answer tht didn't include saying there is no such thing.

Dogs aren't humans. Dog "sexuality" is quite different from human sexuality.


We are radically different in terms of personalities. I'm talking about a physiological tendency toward monogamy.

And I'm telling you that "physiological tendencies" actually play a remarkably small part in the complex manefestation of human sexuality. Sure, they play some part, but when it comes to something as broad as mate-bonding it is as pointless to turn to "physiological tendencies" as it would be if we were talking about preference in automobile.


All evidence appears to point to it, but feel free to present some evidence that is more than indignation that I'm incorrect.

There's no evidence one way or the other, frankly. Or, rather, there are piles and piles and piles of elements that can be assembled to support whichever side you feel like supporting.

If you want to try to compare humans to our closest primate relatives, and if you want to try to use "animal" standards like sex dimorphism or testes size, then you basically get a null. There are elements that indicate we are "supposed" to be monogamous, and others that say we are "supposed" to be promiscuous. None of which matter in the slightest, since the actual manefestation of human sexuality has been demonstrated time and again to have virtually nothing whatsoever to do with any of the elements that correlate in other species.


I'm not suggesting we can't choose to not be monogamous or that an individual can't be have a natural inclination toward something other than monogamy, but the species can described in certain physiological ways and to pretend it can't is just absurd.
You're trying to divorce our species from itself. You're trying to look at physiology in a vaccuum, which is impossible (not to mention useless, in this case). Whether or not human physiology predisposes us to monogamy or polyamory or anything else is not going to give you any useful information about what we are "naturally" geared for, since our "natural" state is to have our sexuality shaped far more by environment than by physiology.

*snip*


Wow, what a load of sexist crap. As a woman, I can assure you that neither I, nor anyone I know, equates love with sex. Some of us do think that sex should be reserved for love, but I know an equal number of men and women who think that. Is that partly from religion? Possibly, although I know atheists who believe it as well. But there is hardly as huge a difference between male attitudes and female attitudes towards sex as you would obviously like to think.

She will carry the child for 9 months, plus years of raising. It would be about three years before she could mother another child. A man could father hundreds a year if he had the stamina.

You are certainly correct that a man can father more children in a given period of time than a single woman could mother, but 3 years? Where the hell are you getting that. A woman could possibly (although her body would eventually give out) get pregnant very soon after birth. She could be giving birth every nine months, if the cards fall just right - at least until her body gave out from the strain.

And honestly, it makes evolutionary sense for men and women to view sex different. The more people a male has sex with, the more children he can be the father of. His genes are more likely to be spread.

Unfortunately, this is simply false when you realize that an individual's reproductive fitness is NOT defined by how many biological offspring they produce...it is defined by how many offspring they produce WHICH REACH MATURITY AND REPRODUCE IN TURN.

This is why you see so many species in which males are monogamous; because the males benefit by helping rear offspring, and they will lose out if they try to fuck around too much.

At any rate, none of this has the least thing to do with how men and women "view sex." Our views on sex are dictated by environmental factors and by our massive cortex, not by our relatively timid hindbrain. :)


Women, on the other hand, would have the best chance of genetic success by being selective and choosing the best male she can find.

Actually, women benefit most from having multiple male partners, due in part to a really wacky process of "sperm competition." A female will often be best off if she selects several quality males, mates with all of them, and produces offspring of doubtful paternity. She increases the likelihood of male-assisted brood care, she increases the genetic diversity of her offspring, and she improves the odds that her offspring will have high quality genes. In many primate species, she also will be helping to ensure that there aren't as many males who want to kill her offspring to make her available sexually, because the males in question can't be sure if the offspring is their own or not.


She will carry the child for 9 months, plus years of raising. It would be about three years before she could mother another child. A man could father hundreds a year if he had the stamina.

And if he could find mates who found that sort of behavior desireable. The problem is that there are TWO genders involved in the process of mating, and each is somewhat limited by the drives of the other.


that doesn't equate not being monogamous, however. That comes in when the child is born. Once a human child is born, it will require two parents to survive (in a strict caveman culture...not todays world). That is where the monogamy comes in
100% false. Human offspring do not require two biological parents to care for them, and they never have.

You are certainly correct that a man can father more children in a given period of time than a single woman could mother, but 3 years? Where the hell are you getting that. A woman could possibly (although her body would eventually give out) get pregnant very soon after birth. She could be giving birth every nine months, if the cards fall just right - at least until her body gave out from the strain.
yep, Irish twins ;) My friend once got pregnant 5 weeks after she gave birth to her other child, but she seems to excel at getting pregnant, she is 25 with 5 kids and didn't start having sex until she was 19.

Wow, what a load of sexist crap. As a woman, I can assure you that neither I, nor anyone I know, equates love with sex. Some of us do think that sex should be reserved for love, but I know an equal number of men and women who think that.

Indeed. There's nothing about men that, innately, makes them more or less likely to associate sex with love, and anybody who tries to tell you otherwise is selling something. (Or trying to get into your pants, more likely.)


Is that partly from religion? Possibly, although I know atheists who believe it as well. But there is hardly as huge a difference between male attitudes and female attitudes towards sex as you would obviously like to think.

It's actually pretty impressive how close male and female attitudes about sex are, considering how many people expend so much energy trying to convince us all that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if men and women weren't brought up having these societal notions about "masculinity" and "femininity," then male and female ideas about sex would be completely indistinguishable.


You are certainly correct that a man can father more children in a given period of time than a single woman could mother, but 3 years? Where the hell are you getting that. A woman could possibly (although her body would eventually give out) get pregnant very soon after birth. She could be giving birth every nine months, if the cards fall just right - at least until her body gave out from the strain.
Ahh, but he's assuming that a male will "father" children by fertilizing and running, while a woman must "mother" her offspring by nursing them, potty training them, and otherwise nurturing them. Because, see, men are biologically designed to shoot their wad and run off to find more cooter, while women are designed to want to cuddle widdle babies.

No, what I'm saying is that the actual manefestation of human sexuality ISN'T SHARED ON A SPECIES LEVEL. Because human sexuality is determined by so much more than our mere genetic relatedness to one another.

So there are no trends in sexuality as a species? The evidence would disagree with you.


Dogs aren't humans. Dog "sexuality" is quite different from human sexuality.

Dogs aren't humans?!?! What?!?! We're animals. Deal with it. We're not magical creatures.

We're a bit more complicated than many animals in terms of cognitive abilities and we have self-awareness so our decision-making is a bit more complicated, but we still have a physiology that gives us clues into our most basic nature. Much like we can choose to be vegetarians or not, but we still have a physiological bent toward being a particular type of diet (carnivore/herbivore/omnivore). It doesn't mean if we discovered we are built for eating only vegetables that every human being on the planet would or should give up hamburgers.


And I'm telling you that "physiological tendencies" actually play a remarkably small part in the complex manefestation of human sexuality. Sure, they play some part, but when it comes to something as broad as mate-bonding it is as pointless to turn to "physiological tendencies" as it would be if we were talking about preference in automobile.

Yes, because that's even remotely related. A much closer comparison is our eating habits, and, yes, it's not just appropriate, but silly not to, talk about physiological bent in terms of eating habits. You may not want to act like humans have major physiological factors in their psychology but I'd like to see any evidence that suggests that we are not largely affected by our physiology.


There's no evidence one way or the other, frankly. Or, rather, there are piles and piles and piles of elements that can be assembled to support whichever side you feel like supporting.

Good, then you should have no problem presenting evidence, because thus far the only evidence presented is by me and it's suggestive.


If you want to try to compare humans to our closest primate relatives, and if you want to try to use "animal" standards like sex dimorphism or testes size, then you basically get a null.

Actually my source does compare us to our closest primate relatives and it gives little to no suggestion of our nature because we are so physiologically different from them and we have clearly evolved down different paths on that end.

You only get a null if you put unnecesary weight on closeness to us genetically rather than on all of the physiological factors that would indicate closeness to us in terms of this particular topic.

There are elements that indicate we are "supposed" to be monogamous, and others that say we are "supposed" to be promiscuous. None of which matter in the slightest, since the actual manefestation of human sexuality has been demonstrated time and again to have virtually nothing whatsoever to do with any of the elements that correlate in other species.

They matter in a intellectual discussion of our natural tendencies toward monogamy or not, which is what we're having. No one is talking about what an individual is supposed to do. If you think some scientific topics are off-limits becuase you don't like them, then you are no scientist. I'm not making a policy statement, I'm fostering a discussion of our physiological tendency in regards to monogamy. We're not talking about the whole of human sexuality, we are looking at specific physiological factors relating to a specific topic.


You're trying to divorce our species from itself. You're trying to look at physiology in a vaccuum, which is impossible (not to mention useless, in this case). Whether or not human physiology predisposes us to monogamy or polyamory or anything else is not going to give you any useful information about what we are "naturally" geared for, since our "natural" state is to have our sexuality shaped far more by environment than by physiology.

Ha. Look, I get it. You don't like the topic so rather than address it you attack the mere discussion.

I'm not trying to look at physiology in a vacuum. I'm trying to look at physiology. Other things exist. They just aren't the topic. I'm not particularly sorry that upsets because your indignation is silly.

And I'm not trying to divorce our species from itself. You're trying to divorce our species from every other species and each of us from every other one within the species. Need proof... now let's see where did I leave that...

Dogs aren't humans.

nothing whatsoever to do with any of the elements that correlate in other species.

"We" aren't a we at all.

Care to project your issues on me a bit more or can you admit that the only one treating our species as a unified species and as related to all other species is me.

I know you've had issues with people trying to claim that trends in humans suggesting that all humans should be the same so you're resistent to the idea, but your problem with properly addressing humans in a scientific manner because you've been hurt before and their problem with addressing it because they want to justify bigotry is not my problem no matter how badly you want to make it my problem.

I don't care what individuals do or don't do. I really don't. It's none of my business as long as it's consenting.

You can pretend this is about anything you like, but I'm talking about we physically work and what we're physically geared for. Close your eyes and claim the sky doesn't exist, but when you open them it will still be there.

Well, the interesting thing is that apparently evolution has equipped us to be doing the exact thing we ARE doing...that is, a lot of us are monogamous, but we have constant urges to go outside the relationship, and some of us act on it. That's the way things are supposed to be!

...now, if my boyfriend is reading this...that doesn't mean cheating is allowed.

We're a bit more complicated than many animals in terms of cognitive abilities and we have self-awareness so our decision-making is a bit more complicated, but we still have a physiology that gives us clues into our most basic nature. Much like we can choose to be vegetarians or not, but we still have a physiological bent toward being a particular type of diet (carnivore/herbivore/omnivore). It doesn't mean if we discovered we are built for eating only vegetables that every human being on the planet would or should give up hamburgers.

I think part of the problem with this discussion is our cognitize abilities and decision making, however. In creatures with little cognitive ability, it is simple to point out that their physical trends must have come about by evolutionary pressures and the like. In humans, however, we must wonder, "Do we have physical markers of monogamy because of outside evolutionary pressures, or have they developed because we chose to be monogamous?" Your source is clear that getting much information on this subject about ancestors is difficult, as we can't check things like testis size or behavior.

It could be that human beings began to choose to be monogamous (for whatever reason - emotional, religious, etc.) and taught that behavior to their children, without any real outside evolutionary pressures. Because they did so, we developed the physical markers generally associated with monogamy.

A much closer comparison is our eating habits, and, yes, it's not just appropriate, but silly not to, talk about physiological bent in terms of eating habits. You may not want to act like humans have major physiological factors in their psychology but I'd like to see any evidence that suggests that we are not largely affected by our physiology.

But, once again, we run into the choice issue. Human beings can choose to be vegetarians, whether there is outside pressure to do so or not. If many humans did so, don't you think that our bodies might adapt to that over time, so that a new study in the future might turn up "vegetarian-specific" physiological markers?

I think part of the problem with this discussion is our cognitize abilities and decision making, however. In creatures with little cognitive ability, it is simple to point out that their physical trends must have come about by evolutionary pressures and the like. In humans, however, we must wonder, "Do we have physical markers of monogamy because of outside evolutionary pressures, or have they developed because we chose to be monogamous?"

Certainly a good question and a worthwhile discussion, but I think you have to settle on the physical markers before you get to the why? I'd suggest that it's a bit of both with a slant toward our societal choices.


Your source is clear that getting much information on this subject about ancestors is difficult, as we can't check things like testis size or behavior.

We can check things like testis size with some ancestors and we can look at dimorphism. Behavior is very difficult to determine, obviously.

It could be that human beings began to choose to be monogamous (for whatever reason - emotional, religious, etc.) and taught that behavior to their children, without any real outside evolutionary pressures. Because they did so, we developed the physical markers generally associated with monogamy.

Certainly.


But, once again, we run into the choice issue. Human beings can choose to be vegetarians, whether there is outside pressure to do so or not. If many humans did so, don't you think that our bodies might adapt to that over time, so that a new study in the future might turn up "vegetarian-specific" physiological markers?
Yes, I do. And it's an excellent point. I think the why is very interesting. I think you have to look at what first, however.

I don't think people as a species are naturally monogamous, purely based on what I can see for myself. I can't think of a single society that claimed monogamy as a cultural norm that actually truly practiced it. All the societies I can think of that CLAIMED to embrace monogamy, have cheating and divorce and such. Personally, almost all the supposedly monogamous people I know cheat, and lie to their significant others. Not ALL, I know a couple who don't, but most of them do.

I'm not going to argue the nature vs nuture aspect of monogamy, as where does one know when it starts and ends?

But I would never give polygamy any kindof honor, polygamy is the reason I hate Muslims and Mormans.. If I wanted my society to be a steaming pile of crap, then sure, polygamy would be fine. But otherwise no.

Besides, we're beings of energy, and hasn't science proven the magick number of energy neutrons is two?

People are not naturally monogamous – that is purely a cultural influence.

Were humans ‘naturally’ monogamous people would not be as promiscuous as they are (btw – I do not see promiscuous as a pejorative term).

I believe that we are more naturally inclined towards family groups – the troop vs an individual pairing. Serial monogamy might be a very ‘natural’ process for humans, but pure monogamy is ridiculous.

Here is an article that you might find interesting, a little long but has some interesting points: http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%20on%20monogamy.htm

I happen to think humans are predisposed to follow a ‘mixed reproductive strategy’ – as in we choose a mate with whom we build a nest and assist in rearing the young, yet still have other sexual partners.

I choose to have a commitment to a family group of several adults, but that is my personal choice. Alas, this is difficult to achieve as most people are conditioned by society to be otherwise, but it is the ideal I look to find. Cheating I find abhorrent – yet most of those who claim monogamy cheat. So I say be open about it, talk about it, rather than hide it. It is shooting myself in the foot, but I am upfront about this. Other people tell their partner that they are monogamous and cheat (and in some cases the partner is probably aware of it – more of a don’t ask don’t tell policy) and everything is fine – where as my being honest about it causes problems.

Humans are naturally predisposed to have a socially monogamous commitment, but have some dalliances on the side, though they want to be lied to about it.

People are not naturally monogamous – that is purely a cultural influence.

Were humans ‘naturally’ monogamous people would not be as promiscuous as they are (btw – I do not see promiscuous as a pejorative term).

I believe that we are more naturally inclined towards family groups – the troop vs an individual pairing. Serial monogamy might be a very ‘natural’ process for humans, but pure monogamy is ridiculous.

Here is an article that you might find interesting, a little long but has some interesting points: http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%20on%20monogamy.htm

I happen to think humans are predisposed to follow a ‘mixed reproductive strategy’ – as in we choose a mate with whom we build a nest and assist in rearing the young, yet still have other sexual partners.

I choose to have a commitment to a family group of several adults, but that is my personal choice. Alas, this is difficult to achieve as most people are conditioned by society to be otherwise, but it is the ideal I look to find. Cheating I find abhorrent – yet most of those who claim monogamy cheat. So I say be open about it, talk about it, rather than hide it. It is shooting myself in the foot, but I am upfront about this. Other people tell their partner that they are monogamous and cheat (and in some cases the partner is probably aware of it – more of a don’t ask don’t tell policy) and everything is fine – where as my being honest about it causes problems.

Humans are naturally predisposed to have a socially monogamous commitment, but have some dalliances on the side, though they want to be lied to about it.

I prefer sourced articles. That article does not allow us to look at where the information comes from. I find such articles suspect.

On the 'most of those who claim monogamy cheat' front do you have an source for such claims, because the numbers I've seen have it at relatively low in terms of percentage.

If by "naturally" you mean down in the deepest recesses of our brains, then no. Monogamy is not a natural drive, it's a cerebral construct. Promiscuity is a biological, cerebellar imperative.

Mind you, no judgment, just the way I was taught and read how it works. It feels that way, too, so there's some subjective empirical evidence, too.

Monogamy for child-rearing is a whole 'nother thing.

If by "naturally" you mean down in the deepest recesses of our brains, then no. Monogamy is not a natural drive, it's a cerebral construct. Promiscuity is a biological, cerebellar imperative.

Based on what? I hear many people suggest such a thing but there are basic biological advantages to monogamy which is why we see lifetime pairings in nature. Our physiology suggests that we have been selecting for less dimorphism and smaller testis for some time. We do not seem to have the equipment for regular competition that occurs in non-monogamist species. We don't appear built for sperm competition. We don't appear built for physical competition. Small fangs, moderate testis, lower sperm counts, less dimorphism, all very suggestive. What are the suggestive factors for promiscuity?

Based on what? I hear many people suggest such a thing but there are basic biological advantages to monogamy which is why we see lifetime pairings in nature. Our physiology suggests that we have been selecting for less dimorphism and smaller testis for some time. We do not seem to have the equipment for regular competition that occurs in non-monogamist species. We don't appear built for sperm competition. We don't appear built for physical competition. Small fangs, moderate testis, lower sperm counts, less dimorphism, all very suggestive. What are the suggestive factors for promiscuity?
Rampant lust and a desire to spread the seed as widely as possible?

Rampant lust and a desire to spread the seed as widely as possible?

So we're mostly talking about you and PM?

Unfortunately, this is simply false when you realize that an individual's reproductive fitness is NOT defined by how many biological offspring they produce...it is defined by how many offspring they produce WHICH REACH MATURITY AND REPRODUCE IN TURN.

...

100% false. Human offspring do not require two biological parents to care for them, and they never have.
If this is 100% false then wouldn't a man that produces as many offspring as possible increase proportionately the number of offspring that will reach maturity and reproduce in turn. If the man is not necessary in the care of the child and never was then he can only increase his chances by producing as many children as possible. Now of course if his role in caring for the children is necessary (which you say isn't true) then the children's likelihood of reaching maturity would decrease with the number of children he has to care for at one time and it would eventually reach an optimal number. However, in the world you paint men can only benefit by propucing as many children as possible.

You are certainly correct that a man can father more children in a given period of time than a single woman could mother, but 3 years? Where the hell are you getting that. A woman could possibly (although her body would eventually give out) get pregnant very soon after birth. She could be giving birth every nine months, if the cards fall just right - at least until her body gave out from the strain.actually, evidence from both our earliest homo sapiens, as well as hunter gatherer groups, as well as our closest living relatives shows that it was around three years. The woman births the child. Then, she must breast feed, which takes enormous resources. Following that, she must care for the child. It takes about three years for body fat and other relevant stores to replenish. She could get pregnant, but it is very unlikely that the mother and child or either would survive.


Unfortunately, this is simply false when you realize that an individual's reproductive fitness is NOT defined by how many biological offspring they produce...it is defined by how many offspring they produce WHICH REACH MATURITY AND REPRODUCE IN TURN.

This is why you see so many species in which males are monogamous; because the males benefit by helping rear offspring, and they will lose out if they try to fuck around too much.

At any rate, none of this has the least thing to do with how men and women "view sex." Our views on sex are dictated by environmental factors and by our massive cortex, not by our relatively timid hindbrain.And when you realize that fathering many children would give the genes superior chances of survival, it does make sense. The more children you have, the higher chance there is of some surviving to maturity.
Monogamy is also relatively rare, iirc. It also has alot more to do with food distributions than anything else.
And I'm just throwing out theories here. Nothing more, nothing less. Just something to ponder.

Actually, women benefit most from having multiple male partners, due in part to a really wacky process of "sperm competition." A female will often be best off if she selects several quality males, mates with all of them, and produces offspring of doubtful paternity. She increases the likelihood of male-assisted brood care, she increases the genetic diversity of her offspring, and she improves the odds that her offspring will have high quality genes. In many primate species, she also will be helping to ensure that there aren't as many males who want to kill her offspring to make her available sexually, because the males in question can't be sure if the offspring is their own or not.
and in species that have sperm competition, you see enlarged testicles. The gorilla has no sperm competition, and has very small testicles. Chimps do have sperm competition, and have very large testicles.

And if he could find mates who found that sort of behavior desireable. The problem is that there are TWO genders involved in the process of mating, and each is somewhat limited by the drives of the other.Which brings us back to the initial question...are humans naturally monogamous?

100% false. Human offspring do not require two biological parents to care for them, and they never have.I never said biological. However, a great indicator of breeding patterns is in the level of care needed by young offspring...a human child needs huge levels of care, and looking in the wild, one with only one parent would either starve or be vulnerable to predators. It is amazingly difficult to hunt with a child strapped to your back.
Again, I'm not speaking of humans in this day and age. We have developed technologies that make our historic breeding patterns irrelevant. However, going back to even pre-caveman days, there would have been a breeding pattern, same as there is in every species. I claim that our ancestors would have been monogamous.

If this is 100% false then wouldn't a man that produces as many offspring as possible increase proportionately the number of offspring that will reach maturity and reproduce in turn. If the man is not necessary in the care of the child and never was then he can only increase his chances by producing as many children as possible. Now of course if his role in caring for the children is necessary (which you say isn't true) then the children's likelihood of reaching maturity would decrease with the number of children he has to care for at one time and it would eventually reach an optimal number. However, in the world you paint men can only benefit by propucing as many children as possible.
:fluffle: for saying it more coherantly than I did.

Ahh, but he's assuming that a male will "father" children by fertilizing and running, while a woman must "mother" her offspring by nursing them, potty training them, and otherwise nurturing them. Because, see, men are biologically designed to shoot their wad and run off to find more cooter, while women are designed to want to cuddle widdle babies.
I assume nothing of the kind.

Based on what? I hear many people suggest such a thing but there are basic biological advantages to monogamy which is why we see lifetime pairings in nature. Our physiology suggests that we have been selecting for less dimorphism and smaller testis for some time. We do not seem to have the equipment for regular competition that occurs in non-monogamist species. We don't appear built for sperm competition. We don't appear built for physical competition. Small fangs, moderate testis, lower sperm counts, less dimorphism, all very suggestive. What are the suggestive factors for promiscuity?

I'm out of my element here, but quite a few seemingly natural behaviors seem rooted in serial-monogamy. First among them is the tendency among women to form attachments with men older than themselves (or conversely, men with women younger than themselves), and also the male mid-life crisis. In the first case, it makes evolutionary sense for a woman to pick a man older than herself, because the male has superior social position, strength in the pack, and has proven that he himself can survive to adulthood, which suggests the same in offspring. By contrast, a male has a better reproductive chance with a comparitively young female than otherwise. Additionally, the male mid-life crisis happens usually around the same time that men in a Paleolithic period would have switched from one of the guys to alpha male; as such, it might be that you could explain the "second-wife" phenomena by just such an evolutionary mechanism.

The hard part, of course, is that, as anyone who has some fairly obvious questions about the above speculation knows, there is some question as to what is evolutionary and what is merely cultural in procreation. After all, breeding patterns in humans shift heavily depending on the economic conditions of society and the pattern of resource development, and in each case, the patterns are advantageous. In a low-tech agricultural system, it makes sense to have as many children as possible, as children are a resource that helps you farm more. In a Western Industrialized nation, children are a resource-intensive burden that require intensive amounts of training and nurturing if they are to become productive citizens; consequently, we have fewer children and pay more attention to each of them. It would hardly make sense, however, to say that either one of those methods is the "natural" product of evolutionary theory, however.

Ahh, but he's assuming that a male will "father" children by fertilizing and running, while a woman must "mother" her offspring by nursing them, potty training them, and otherwise nurturing them. Because, see, men are biologically designed to shoot their wad and run off to find more cooter, while women are designed to want to cuddle widdle babies.

How can you logically argue this from both directions? He says that the father in caveman times were a integral part of the family structure and you called it "100% false" and then he says we're physically capable of fathering many children and you accuse him of claiming that we're biologically engineered to not participate in the raising of children. Certainly, he can't be saying both.

Perhaps you just don't like what he has to say so hyperbolizing his statements seems like an appropriate tactic to you.

Not all people are, but I certainly am.

Since I've been with my girlfriend I've not had the slightest inclination to go with anyone else. When I get drunk, I just want to be with my girlfriend.

If this is 100% false then wouldn't a man that produces as many offspring as possible increase proportionately the number of offspring that will reach maturity and reproduce in turn. If the man is not necessary in the care of the child and never was then he can only increase his chances by producing as many children as possible. Now of course if his role in caring for the children is necessary (which you say isn't true) then the children's likelihood of reaching maturity would decrease with the number of children he has to care for at one time and it would eventually reach an optimal number. However, in the world you paint men can only benefit by propucing as many children as possible.

Methinks you are confusing necessary with helpful. Of course a man who takes care of his children increases his chances of passing on his genes. However, it is not necessary for him to do so in order to pass on his genes.

Not to mention that Bottle seemed to be emphasizing the fact that the biological parents have never been needed to raise a child - In other words, other people can do so.


actually, evidence from both our earliest homo sapiens, as well as hunter gatherer groups, as well as our closest living relatives shows that it was around three years. The woman births the child. Then, she must breast feed, which takes enormous resources. Following that, she must care for the child. It takes about three years for body fat and other relevant stores to replenish. She could get pregnant, but it is very unlikely that the mother and child or either would survive.

So, you're telling me that any woman who had twins died? After all, how could she possibly carry and then take care of more than one infant?

And when you realize that fathering many children would give the genes superior chances of survival, it does make sense. The more children you have, the higher chance there is of some surviving to maturity.

Not necessarily. There are really two main reproductive strategies. One is to create lots and lots and lots of offspring, with only a very small percentage surviving. The other is to create smaller numbers of offspring, but provide more care so that the offspring has a better chance at survival. With the "Have as many children as possible," strategy, the vast majority of your offspring doesn't survive. With the, "Actually take care of your offspring," strategy, any offspring you have has a high chance of survival. As such, it is perfectly possible for a man to father more children, but have less of a chance of passing on his genes than the man who settles into a monogamous relationship and has fewer children which he actually helps survive.

I never said biological. However, a great indicator of breeding patterns is in the level of care needed by young offspring...a human child needs huge levels of care, and looking in the wild, one with only one parent would either starve or be vulnerable to predators. It is amazingly difficult to hunt with a child strapped to your back.

Luckily, even primative humans seem to have been social creatures. Even if one parent was not around, other members of the social group would have been.

If this is 100% false then wouldn't a man that produces as many offspring as possible increase proportionately the number of offspring that will reach maturity and reproduce in turn.

Not necessarily. In a great many species (including every primate species I know of) there is an upper limit on the number of offspring that are beneficial for a male to have. The grammar of that last sentence hurts me, but you get the idea.


If the man is not necessary in the care of the child and never was then he can only increase his chances by producing as many children as possible.

Yet in many cases the male would increase his reproductive success MORE by staying around to help with the rearing of his current offspring rather than producing and abandoning additional offspring. This kind of trade-off is very common, and is why you see so many species in which males assist in brood care.


Now of course if his role in caring for the children is necessary (which you say isn't true) then the children's likelihood of reaching maturity would decrease with the number of children he has to care for at one time and it would eventually reach an optimal number.

What I said is that a human child does not innately require its biological father's presence to survive. However, the presence of additional parents DOES increase survivability (all other things being equal). For the male in question, each of his offspring will be more likely to survive if he assists in brood care (again, all other things being equal). Thus, for HIM, there is an advantage to helping rear his own young. For the young, it doesn't matter if they're being cared for by their biological father or by a non biological parent, but for the father in question there IS a genetic investment.

Many other negative factors are reduced for males who choose to have fewer offspring, as well. The time and energy spent seeking new mates can be re-directed. The potential threats from competition are greatly reduced. (Among other primates, such as chimps, it is not uncommon for males to be killed while competing for mates, so this factor is pretty significant.) The male also increases the number of individuals who "have his back," so to speak, by developing a community that will assist him in foraging, defending territory, and protecting against predators.


However, in the world you paint men can only benefit by propucing as many children as possible.
Incorrect.

And when you realize that fathering many children would give the genes superior chances of survival, it does make sense. The more children you have, the higher chance there is of some surviving to maturity.

Incorrect. In some species, that may be true. Among primates, and particularly among the "higher primates" that are most closely related to humans, there is most certainly an upper limit to the optimal number of offspring produced.


Monogamy is also relatively rare, iirc. It also has alot more to do with food distributions than anything else.

Depends on the species. Among some species it has nothing whatsoever to do with food distribution. The cool thing about reproductive strategies is that some species arive at the same conclusions using totally different approaches.


and in species that have sperm competition, you see enlarged testicles. The gorilla has no sperm competition, and has very small testicles. Chimps do have sperm competition, and have very large testicles.

Sperm competition does occur in species with "smaller" testicles; it's the relative importance of it (compared to other factors) that is different.


Which brings us back to the initial question...are humans naturally monogamous?

I've already answered this. Humans, as a species, are not "biologically engineered" to be monogamous, polyamorous, promiscuous, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or anything else. The "biological" reproductive strategy for the human species is flexability; we are not "wired" to be any one thing as a species.


I never said biological. However, a great indicator of breeding patterns is in the level of care needed by young offspring...a human child needs huge levels of care, and looking in the wild, one with only one parent would either starve or be vulnerable to predators. It is amazingly difficult to hunt with a child strapped to your back.

None of which says anything about a parent. Nor does it say anything about the gender of the parents. Many species do quite well with groups of adult females sharing in care of offspring, like great roaming daycares. Or you've got penguins, where all the moms head out to sea while the dads sit around with the eggs.


Again, I'm not speaking of humans in this day and age. We have developed technologies that make our historic breeding patterns irrelevant. However, going back to even pre-caveman days, there would have been a breeding pattern, same as there is in every species. I claim that our ancestors would have been monogamous.
And I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason to assume that, particularly since our closest genetic cousins are about as far from monogamous as you can possibly get. There is ample reason to believe that both monogamous and non-manogamous breeding strategies can be extremely beneficial for human young.

How can you logically argue this from both directions? He says that the father in caveman times were a integral part of the family structure and you called it "100% false" and then he says we're physically capable of fathering many children and you accuse him of claiming that we're biologically engineered to not participate in the raising of children. Certainly, he can't be saying both.

He could be saying whatever he wants.

Also, I never said that the father was not an integral part of the family structure, I simply said that human offspring do not REQUIRE (nor have they ever required) rearing by their biological parents in order to survive.

My entire point is that human males and females are not "biologically engineered" to pursue any of the blanket reproductive strategies being described. Human males are not "biologically engineered" to be wantonly promiscuous (any more than human females are), nor are they "biologically engineered" to be monogamous and attentive daddies.

if we were we would never feel affection for anything other then one other person of our species, other then maybe a mother for her children, if that, and a father would be denied even that.

no! the heart is moved by many things, and it's a damd good thing that it is. if we were monogamous by natural instinct, i doubt very much we would ever have evolved beyond caves and trees.

=^^=
.../\...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Sexual dimorphism seems to be fading, which indicates a biological prediliction for monogamy as well as the fact that our testes are also suggestive.

I hold that we are, but I'm curious as to the opinion of others and other available support.

The fact that sexual dimorphism has existed all throughout human history demonstrates that we aren't naturally monogamous. If sexual dimorphism is fading it is due to the rise of advanced human culture, when an evolutionary benefit of being larger became less important than other factors, and when marriage in general, not just monogamy, was invented.

So it doesn't indicate a biological trait in humans to be monogamous, but rather indicates a change in environment where monogamy was imposed onto humans or possibly where predispositions to monogamy have been selected for.

I'm not sure if anyone has said that yet if I'm repeating old news. The evolutionary aspect of monogamy isn't as controversial as the wikipedia article attempted to make it out. The above is what I was taught in every anthropology class I've taken (which amounts to about three or four) and is practically right out of a textbook I have on the subject.

Methinks you are confusing necessary with helpful. Of course a man who takes care of his children increases his chances of passing on his genes. However, it is not necessary for him to do so in order to pass on his genes.

Not to mention that Bottle seemed to be emphasizing the fact that the biological parents have never been needed to raise a child - In other words, other people can do so.

Not the point. She accused the same person of saying both a father WAS necessary in the life of a child which she called "100% false" and saying that fathers are biologically predisposed to hit and run, so to speak. They are opposite things. He didn't say either one.

And I'm not confusing necessary with helpful. We are talking about biological imperative. If he increases his odds of passing on his genes by a 'hit and run' then he would would most likely be predisposed to that and if he increases his odds by staying and caring for the child he would most likely be predisposed to do that. Bottle claims he doesn't increase his odds by leaving and if this is true then it does make his staying necessary in a biological sense. As she said it's all about the genes and the familiy unit would develop according to what makes his genes most likely to pass on. The fact that a baby is so helpless for so long very much indicates that the father was intended to help care for the child.

It can't be '100% false' if the biological imperative encourages the father to stay by increasing the chances of the child surviving to reproduce. In fact, in terms of biology I would call that pretty darned necessary.

He could be saying whatever he wants.

Also, I never said that the father was not an integral part of the family structure, I simply said that human offspring do not REQUIRE (nor have they ever required) rearing by their biological parents in order to survive.

When he suggested it, you didn't just say, "um, no, that's not quite right." You said, "100% false." I would say if they were integral then it couldn't exactly be 100% false, now can it. Meanwhile, I would say that if the biological imperative developed in such a way that staying increases the chances of the child living to adulthood and reproducing that's about as required as it gets.

My entire point is that human males and females are not "biologically engineered" to pursue any of the blanket reproductive strategies being described. Human males are not "biologically engineered" to be wantonly promiscuous (any more than human females are), nor are they "biologically engineered" to be monogamous and attentive daddies.
Yes, I noticed you didn't actually present any evidence that has anything to do with 'biological engineering' and that you hyperbolized everyone's arguments rather than discussing reality.

The fact that sexual dimorphism has existed all throughout human history demonstrates that we aren't naturally monogamous. If sexual dimorphism is fading it is due to the rise of advanced human culture, when an evolutionary benefit of being larger became less important than other factors, and when marriage in general, not just monogamy, was invented.

The dimorphism has been shrinking so that suggests that we were promiscuous and that monogamy has decreased the need for dimorphism. It aslo decreased the need of a crest, large fangs, large testicles, etc. All things seem to be moving to have been moving toward a monogamous physiology. Now, you can argue chicken or the egg, and I think it would be a good argument, but there's not really much argument that our physiology has been increasingly moving toward the physiology of a monogamous creature.


So it doesn't indicate a biological trait in humans to be monogamous, but rather indicates a change in environment where monogamy was imposed onto humans or possibly where predispositions to monogamy have been selected for.

I'm not sure if anyone has said that yet if I'm repeating old news. The evolutionary aspect of monogamy isn't as controversial as the wikipedia article attempted to make it out. The above is what I was taught in every anthropology class I've taken (which amounts to about three or four) and is practically right out of a textbook I have on the subject.

So given that we are not naturally monogamous is our dimorphism more or less than most of our ancestors? Given that we are not physiologically monogamous, and you state it as a given, did our ancestors have more or less of the traits we would expect to find in a promiscuous species of primate?

The point you presented would be easily explained by the fact that we were promiscous at one time, but all of the evidence in regards to direction seems to suggest a trend toward monogamy.

The dimorphism has been shrinking so that suggests that we were promiscuous and that monogamy has decreased the need for dimorphism. It aslo decreased the need of a crest, large fangs, large testicles, etc. All things seem to be moving to have been moving toward a monogamous physiology. Now, you can argue chicken or the egg, and I think it would be a good argument, but there's not really much argument that our physiology has been increasingly moving toward the physiology of a monogamous creature.

Right, it has been. I just propose that the reason we've been moving to monogamy is due to our changing environment (i.e. our developed culture and imposed monogamy) rather than an older biological trait.

So given that we are not naturally monogamous is our dimorphism more or less than most of our ancestors? Given that we are not physiologically monogamous, and you state it as a given, did our ancestors have more or less of the traits we would expect to find in a promiscuous species of primate?

The point you presented would be easily explained by the fact that we were promiscous at one time, but all of the evidence in regards to direction seems to suggest a trend toward monogamy.

Our dimorphism is less. Our ancestors demonstrated more deviation between sexes than we do today. Though even today we still have significant dimorphism, which would demonstrate that even in monogamous relationships a trait for size in males has been selected for. This is still selected for due to our roots as a mostly polyamorous species.

And there is a trend toward monogamy. This is due to our environment (invented culture, etc.). If the trend continues, given a long enough time, we may end up with no dimorphism. However, I don't know how likely this is, as we still seem to select for traits that were beneficial during an earlier polyamorous time.

Not the point. She accused the same person of saying both a father WAS necessary in the life of a child which she called "100% false" and saying that fathers are biologically predisposed to hit and run, so to speak. They are opposite things. He didn't say either one.

He did say that a father is necessary to the life of the child. He also said that, if we were not biologically predisposed to monogamy, that a man would be bioloigcally predisposed to hit and run - to father as many children as humanly possible. The context may have gotten lost in the full exchange, but both things were said.

And I'm not confusing necessary with helpful. We are talking about biological imperative. If he increases his odds of passing on his genes by a 'hit and run' then he would would most likely be predisposed to that and if he increases his odds by staying and caring for the child he would most likely be predisposed to do that. Bottle claims he doesn't increase his odds by leaving and if this is true then it does make his staying necessary in a biological sense.

"Necessary" doesn't mean, "Important" or "helpful" or or "advantageous" or even "biological imperative". It means "necessary". For something to be necessary to pass on his genes, it would mean that, if he didn't stay, there was no chance whatsoever of him passing them on. This is not the case. Therefore, the father staying isn't necessary. It is certainly an advantage for him to do so, as that increases the chances of his offsprings' survival. However, there is a chance of the offspring surviving even if he does "hit and run" or if he dies or is otherwise removed from the picture.

As she said it's all about the genes and the familiy unit would develop according to what makes his genes most likely to pass on. The fact that a baby is so helpless for so long very much indicates that the father was intended to help care for the child.

Not necessarily, although there is certainly an argument to be made for that. The fact that a baby is so helpless for so long indicates that human beings have developed such that someone must take care of the baby. It doesn't have to be the father, or either of the parents for that matter. There certainly are mammals who have developed social structures in which, for instance, the females raise all the pack offspring together while the males take little part in it. It would not seem, however, that this is how human society has developed.

It can't be '100% false' if the biological imperative encourages the father to stay by increasing the chances of the child surviving to reproduce. In fact, in terms of biology I would call that pretty darned necessary.

Thn you are misusing the term necessary. Necessary would mean that the child had no chance to survive to reproduce unless the father stayed. This is not the case. Thus, it is not necessary, although it is an advantage.

We have the testes of a monogamous mammal.

Acutally, I read otherwise. I read that humans have the testes of an "in between", or I guess being monogamous but having partners that cheat fairly often.

Human testes suggest that humans don't usually have multiple partners or that many partners. Otherwise, our testes would be the size of bowling balls compared to our mass.

Absolutely not. While i'm only 21 and haven;t been with anyone for that long the thought of spending the rest of my entire life with one person isn't very appealing. Now maybe its cos I havne't met the 'right' person yet. But I think the primary reason for failure of monogomy is boredom. Varitey is the Spice of Life!

Acutally, I read otherwise. I read that humans have the testes of an "in between", or I guess being monogamous but having partners that cheat fairly often.

Human testes suggest that humans don't usually have multiple partners or that many partners. Otherwise, our testes would be the size of bowling balls compared to our mass.

Speaking of testis size, I wonder if I could find that study on bats again. I read recently that they found a direct correlation in bats between size and monogamy/promiscuity. In addition, those bats with small testes that were monogamous also had much larger brains.

Edit: Here's an article on it, although it isn't the paper itself:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8429

I had forgotten that it was related only to whether or not the female was monogamous or promiscuous though.

Acutally, I read otherwise. I read that humans have the testes of an "in between", or I guess being monogamous but having partners that cheat fairly often.

Human testes suggest that humans don't usually have multiple partners or that many partners. Otherwise, our testes would be the size of bowling balls compared to our mass.

We are 'in between' in testis size and in dimorphism, but we seem to be evolving in the direction of monogamy which suggests the selective pressure has been for that for a long time.

Speaking of testis size, I wonder if I could find that study on bats again. I read recently that they found a direct correlation in bats between size and monogamy/promiscuity. In addition, those bats with small testes that were monogamous also had much larger brains.

I think I'm thinking of the same article.

I don't know where you read about it, but I read about it in a magazine called Discover.

Speaking of testis size, I wonder if I could find that study on bats again. I read recently that they found a direct correlation in bats between size and monogamy/promiscuity. In addition, those bats with small testes that were monogamous also had much larger brains.

No joke, I have fairly small testicles. I used to be insecure about it until I started reading up.

So, you're telling me that any woman who had twins died? After all, how could she possibly carry and then take care of more than one infant?Actually, in historic times (which, by the way, is what I am talking about), a member of a set of twins would have a higher risk of early mortality. And that is not even what I am talking about. I am talking about the ability to concieve a child. This is irrelevant with todays farming techniques and high nutrition food, but historically, it would have been around three years. That is not an arbitrary number...it has been found in the !kung and related tribes, as well as fossil history.




Luckily, even primative humans seem to have been social creatures. Even if one parent was not around, other members of the social group would have been.Altruism is a part of it, yes. However, it wasn't always the fact...if a new male moved into power in a group, the children would be killed, as it would allow the woman to reproduce sooner. If the mother died, and there wasn't another woman who was able to nurse that child, the baby would die. Altruism has some heafty limits.

Incorrect. In some species, that may be true. Among primates, and particularly among the "higher primates" that are most closely related to humans, there is most certainly an upper limit to the optimal number of offspring produced.Haven't seen anything about that...you wouldn't happen to have a link, would you?


Depends on the species. Among some species it has nothing whatsoever to do with food distribution. The cool thing about reproductive strategies is that some species arive at the same conclusions using totally different approaches.primates, it does. And the majority of other animals that I've looked into, which, admittedly, isn't tons.


Sperm competition does occur in species with "smaller" testicles; it's the relative importance of it (compared to other factors) that is different.It occurs if there is more than one male who copulates with a woman, yes. However, the size of the testicles reveals if that is a common occurance or not. Once again, we look at the gorilla and chimp. The chimp has it occur constantly. The gorilla rarely does. And the size of their testicles follow suit.


I've already answered this. Humans, as a species, are not "biologically engineered" to be monogamous, polyamorous, promiscuous, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or anything else. The "biological" reproductive strategy for the human species is flexability; we are not "wired" to be any one thing as a species.I would think that to be flexable, we would have features from many different groups...perhaps increased dimorphism. In other words, if we were meant to be flexable, I think we would display more of an ability to compete with one another for a mate, rather than the very passive form we have.


None of which says anything about a parent. Nor does it say anything about the gender of the parents. Many species do quite well with groups of adult females sharing in care of offspring, like great roaming daycares. Or you've got penguins, where all the moms head out to sea while the dads sit around with the eggs. I forgot what this responded to...and am currently too lazy to go back and find it.


And I'm saying that there is absolutely no reason to assume that, particularly since our closest genetic cousins are about as far from monogamous as you can possibly get. There is ample reason to believe that both monogamous and non-manogamous breeding strategies can be extremely beneficial for human young.see above.

People aren't naturally monogamous. They're naturally jealous, and that makes them want their partners to be monogamous. And since most people have to be monogamous themselves if they want their partner to be, they resist their urges to do otherwise.

He did say that a father is necessary to the life of the child. He also said that, if we were not biologically predisposed to monogamy, that a man would be bioloigcally predisposed to hit and run - to father as many children as humanly possible. The context may have gotten lost in the full exchange, but both things were said.
"He" did not say either were fact, or even "his" opinion for that matter. I said it was possible that both were true. the sum total of my responses can be reduced to the phrase serial monogamy. Humans are meant to find a parner, mate, produce a child, and raise it. They then can move to the next partner and repete. This works with our social groupings, as well as our physical structures.

Context tends to be important.

Actually, in historic times (which, by the way, is what I am talking about), a member of a set of twins would have a higher risk of early mortality.

And a child who only had one person to take care of him/her would also have a higher than average risk of early mortality. That has little to do with the point, however, which was you making a comment that a woman can only produce offspring once every 3 years, despite the fact that women do (and have, even in the past) have children more often than that.

And that is not even what I am talking about. I am talking about the ability to concieve a child.

And a woman has the ability to conceive again as soon as her menstrual cycle restarts - her very next ovulation.

Altruism is a part of it, yes. However, it wasn't always the fact...if a new male moved into power in a group, the children would be killed, as it would allow the woman to reproduce sooner. If the mother died, and there wasn't another woman who was able to nurse that child, the baby would die. Altruism has some heafty limits.

I have seen nothing to suggest that human beings or close human ancestors ever consistently had such a social structure. This is common in pack animals in which there is one dominant male - generally only one sexually mature male (ie. lions or horses). It is not, however, common in other social structures.


I would think that to be flexable, we would have features from many different groups...perhaps increased dimorphism. In other words, if we were meant to be flexable, I think we would display more of an ability to compete with one another for a mate, rather than the very passive form we have.

You seem to think that competition has to be physical, completely disregarding the intellectual development human evolution has taken. Meanwhile, to suggest that there is not some competition for mates in human beings would be ridiculous.

I forgot what this responded to...and am currently too lazy to go back and find it.

This was where you said that a child absolutely had to have a present mother and father. It was, IIRC, the same post in which you said that a woman cannot conceive a second child before 3 years is up.

"He" did not say either were fact, or even "his" opinion for that matter.

Actually, you quite clearly stated that, in primitive human beings, a child needed both parents to survive.

The other, as I already pointed out was context specific. You obviously were not claiming it to be the case, but you were making a silly suggestion that it would necessarily be the case if human beings did not have a prediliction towards monogamy.

I said it was possible that both were true.

Really? Where?

Humans are meant to find a parner, mate, produce a child, and raise it. They then can move to the next partner and repete. This works with our social groupings, as well as our physical structures.

If that was how it was meant to be, it would be damn near impossible to have more than two or three children in a lifetime (maybe three or four for men).

Context tends to be important.

Yes, that's what I said. Of course, as evidenced by your response to Bottle, you seem to forget the context of your own comments.

And a child who only had one person to take care of him/her would also have a higher than average risk of early mortality. That has little to do with the point, however, which was you making a comment that a woman can only produce offspring once every 3 years, despite the fact that women do (and have, even in the past) have children more often than that.Yes, that is my assertion. Twins have nothing to do with having a conception in a shorter time period. I'm not talking about what women do today, as I have stated atleast half a dozen times. Modern food and technology and medicine make it much easier for a woman to restore her body fat and nutrition levels, and even make it possible to nurse and be pregnant at the same time. This was not the fact historically, and is currently not the fact among many hunter gatherer groups, such as the !kung.



And a woman has the ability to conceive again as soon as her menstrual cycle restarts - her very next ovulation.able to be fertalized, yes. But will not be, and if she was, would not carry to term. You need huge resources to make a child, and just as many to nurse and raise a baby. If the woman even was able to menstruate, and be fertalized, the egg would not carry to term.



I have seen nothing to suggest that human beings or close human ancestors ever consistently had such a social structure. This is common in pack animals in which there is one dominant male - generally only one sexually mature male (ie. lions or horses). It is not, however, common in other social structures.Look at chimps.



You seem to think that competition has to be physical, completely disregarding the intellectual development human evolution has taken. Meanwhile, to suggest that there is not some competition for mates in human beings would be ridiculous.There is a level of competition. And yes, this is mostly physical, as it is today. That is still demonstrated by the research that shows more beautiful people have higher success rates in all aspects of life.

This was where you said that a child absolutely had to have a present mother and father. It was, IIRC, the same post in which you said that a woman cannot conceive a second child before 3 years is up.

Actually, you quite clearly stated that, in primitive human beings, a child needed both parents to survive.

The other, as I already pointed out was context specific. You obviously were not claiming it to be the case, but you were making a silly suggestion that it would necessarily be the case if human beings did not have a prediliction towards monogamy.

Really? Where? Really have zero desire to respond to these right now, so I'm going to pass. I might get to them later, I might not.

If that was how it was meant to be, it would be damn near impossible to have more than two or three children in a lifetime (maybe three or four for men).
how do you figure it would be any different from having a single partner for life?


Yes, that's what I said. Of course, as evidenced by your response to Bottle, you seem to forget the context of your own comments.Terribly sorry for having a long day and being a little preoccupied, and not particularly giving a damn right now.

who thefuck cares screw it:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Um...

We are not naturally as monogamous as our current society reflects, but that is no reason for someone who prefers monogamy not to pursue it, nor an excuse for someone who has established a monogamous relationship to pursue other partners. It is, however, a good reason for the stigma against promiscuity and particularly polyamorous relationships to be reduced.
STD's?

*tsk* Jocabia, how could you not notify me of this topic? This sort of thing is important to me.



P.S. Not that I know of any sort of message you could have sent to me that would have gotten to me before I saw the topic myself...

Yes, that is my assertion.

And it is a silly assertion, for which you have provided no evidence. You even seem to contradict it in later comments.

It would likely have been more difficult for a woman to have children that quickly in the past, but to claim that it was impossible is ludicrous.

Twins have nothing to do with having a conception in a shorter time period.

No, but twins do take more resources than a single birth, yet they have occurred throughout human history. According to you, a woman who had more than one child in a short time period or tried to nurse more than one would have surely died.

able to be fertalized, yes. But will not be, and if she was, would not carry to term. You need huge resources to make a child, and just as many to nurse and raise a baby. If the woman even was able to menstruate, and be fertalized, the egg would not carry to term.

Once again, your assertions that this would have necessarily happened are absolutley ludicrous. There would have been a higher chance of a failed pregnancy, but it would have been far from inevitable.

Look at chimps.

Chimps don't have the type of social structure you describe.

how do you figure it would be any different from having a single partner for life?

According to you, you have to have and raise a child before moving on to a new partner. Even if we moved adulthood back to age 12, that would mean that a person could only get a new partner and try for a child with them once every 12 years.

Terribly sorry for having a long day and being a little preoccupied, and not particularly giving a damn right now.

Then don't complain that other people miss the context of your comments, when you don't even remember what they were or what they were in reference to.

And it is a silly assertion, for which you have provided no evidence. You even seem to contradict it in later comments.

It would likely have been more difficult for a woman to have children that quickly in the past, but to claim that it was impossible is ludicrous.
I don't claim that it is impossible. I claim that it, overall, did not happen. Improbable, not impossible.


No, but twins do take more resources than a single birth, yet they have occurred throughout human history. According to you, a woman who had more than one child in a short time period or tried to nurse more than one would have surely died.
No, my claim is that she would not have concieved the second child in the first place. If she had, then her body would have recouperated from the first child enough to concieve. This isn't even an uncommon event today...there is a reason anorexics lose their period. It is the exact same mechanism I am discussing.


Once again, your assertions that this would have necessarily happened are absolutley ludicrous. There would have been a higher chance of a failed pregnancy, but it would have been far from inevitable.
Nothing I am stating, I repete, NOTHING, is something that is inevitable and 100% accurate 100% of the time. Unless I had a time machine, that would be impossible. What I AM discussing is what is both probable and most likely happened a significant majority of the time...IE a trend.


Chimps don't have the type of social structure you describe. A social structure in which a new male comes to dominance (generally from an outside group), and in turn murders the children of the females, thereby bringing them to fertility sooner? Yes, chimps do. Infanticide is very common among chimps for this very reason.



According to you, you have to have and raise a child before moving on to a new partner. Even if we moved adulthood back to age 12, that would mean that a person could only get a new partner and try for a child with them once every 12 years. No...I don't claim that the child must reach adulthood. I claim that the strain must be removed from the mother before she can have a child again. IE, the child must be able to eat solid foods and be weaned from the breast. This would take about three years. With the probable social structure of early humans, at this point, the social grouping could then easily help with the child.



Then don't complain that other people miss the context of your comments, when you don't even remember what they were or what they were in reference to.I did not complain. I didn't remember what the comment refered to, and didn't have the time to go back and find it again. Would you rather I talk out of my ass and assume what she was refering to? I honestly didn't remember what, exactly, I had said that had garnered her response, and as such, I couldn't properly respond.

When a person responds to something, it is assumed that they know the context of the comment, lest they shouldn't bother responding to it. I didn't know the context, so I didn't bother responding.

I don't claim that it is impossible. I claim that it, overall, did not happen. Improbable, not impossible.

Oh?

which was you making a comment that a woman can only produce offspring once every 3 years

Yes, that is my assertion.

If a woman can only produce offspring every three years, then it is impossible for her to do otherwise.

Do make up your mind. You have spent an awful lot of time and effort saying that it wasn't possible. In fact, just a single post ago, you claimed that your assertion was that a woman could not do it. Now it is just unlikely (conveniently, something I never disputed)? It is equally even more unlikely that a man will produce offspring with every woman he copulates with,

No, my claim is that she would not have concieved the second child in the first place. If she had, then her body would have recouperated from the first child enough to concieve. This isn't even an uncommon event today...there is a reason anorexics lose their period. It is the exact same mechanism I am discussing.

So you are claiming that early human beings were so undernourished that they would be considered anorexic? And yet, the race survived? How interesting....
You are aware, are you not, that women store fat while pregnant? I have seen no evidence whatsoever that primitive women were unable to menstruate following birth.

No...I don't claim that the child must reach adulthood.

You said human beings were meant to copulate, raise a child, and then move on to another partner. Are you suggesting that "raising a child" does not bring the child to adulthood?

I claim that the strain must be removed from the mother before she can have a child again. IE, the child must be able to eat solid foods and be weaned from the breast. This would take about three years. With the probable social structure of early humans, at this point, the social grouping could then easily help with the child.

Ah, you've missed the context of your own posts again. This portion of the discussion had nothing to do with strain on the mother or the ability to conceive. It had to do with the idea of serial monogamy, which you described as mating, raising a child together, and then moving on to a new partner.

Here, let me quote you - again:

Humans are meant to find a parner, mate, produce a child, and raise it. They then can move to the next partner and repete. This works with our social groupings, as well as our physical structures.


I did not complain.

Yes, you did. You accused me of taking your comments out of context. You can scroll up just a few of your posts and see it.

I'm fairly certain that claiming you didn't say things that you clearly stated, and then ending your post with this:

Context tends to be important.

is complaining.

I didn't remember what the comment refered to, and didn't have the time to go back and find it again. Would you rather I talk out of my ass and assume what she was refering to? I honestly didn't remember what, exactly, I had said that had garnered her response, and as such, I couldn't properly respond.

No. But it would seem that, since you can't keep track of the context of your own posts, you shouldn't complain about others who do responding to the comments you make.

When a person responds to something, it is assumed that they know the context of the comment, lest they shouldn't bother responding to it. I didn't know the context, so I didn't bother responding.

And yet, in this very post, you responded to something you had obviously forgotten the context on. In another, you accused me of missing context, when no context was missed.