|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2001 : 13:59:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think it could be argued that the monogomy is partly an illusion. Very few people have a single partner in life. And many, many people have more than one partner at a time. I think that while our culture likes to pat itself on the back because we are so good and monogamous the reality is that hardly anyone is truly monogamous.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Very logical and well stated. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2001 : 14:07:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Saying that Polygamy is the rule in the animal kingdom is a big generalization. There are lots of animals that mate for live or at least with one partner at a time. If you go by quantity alone then you will find that the majority reproduces by laying an uncanny amount of eggs. I don't think that the insect kingdom is a good example for human social system.
Yes, I was going to say something about that too. Although I don't know a lot about the entire animal kingdom, I can think of more that have one partner then not. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2001 : 14:22:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Some behaviors are very, very dangerous, even in marriage (if one of the partners is *fooling around*). The long, long list of possible diseases proves that. It must be scary out there.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth...
Although it always was somewhat scary just not as risky, now it is very scary. That's why I stopped 'fooling around'. Damn. But before there were medicines for things like syphilis, it was deadly scary too. So it seems now in this century we have AIDS but that will be cured and then in the next 100 years the circle will start again with something else.
If you think about it though, life is a risk. Have fun while you can. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2001 : 14:27:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
some of us are monagamous because we are too lazy to cheat; i thik of this as the domestic theory of inertia.
comrade billyboy
LOL, Billy. Oh god! You sound just like my partner. I've gone as far as to beg him to find other people but I too have thought of him as lazy about it. Or maybe shy! Maybe he just likes to hear me nag.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2001 : 14:29:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Somehow, I don't think that the overwhelming majority of practitioners of polygamy (whether concurrent or serial) actually have procreation in mind.
You got that RIGHT!  |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2001 : 09:48:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It doesn't really do any good to look at "the animal kingdom" to answer questions on our sexual mores.
Could not agree with you more Slater. And ditto on the Celtic culture comment: I thought I was the only one who even read that stuff!!
Jealousy tends to stuff up most communial romantic arangements in my experience, but they can be quite mind-expanding while they last!
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 01:40:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Jealousy tends to stuff up most communial romantic arangements in my experience, but they can be quite mind-expanding while they last!
Do you mean because people are jealous, it ruins a relationship?
Can you explain why people get jealous? I never understood the point of it.
IMO, if someone wants to be another, who has the right to tell them they can't? There's really nothing one can do to stop it.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 02:28:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you explain why people get jealous? I never understood the point of it.
I wish I knew why jealousy is so rife. My own best theories regarding this are the following:
1. Relationships are seen as just another form of ownership. Given hyper-capitalism's influence, people may be tempted to see their romantic partner/s as just more individual wealth
2. Insecurity. Many people, due to a variety of reasons, distrust others' affection for them, and thus seek out evidence for this belief. They usually either find something which could be construed as such evidence, or create it themselves.
3. Conservatism. The idea that you can love more than one person at the same time, and co-habit with all of them seems too "radical" for many. They claim that love is "sacred" and can only be shared by two (usually heterosexual) people.
Find your own damned answers!
Edited by - orpheus on 07/28/2001 02:29:47 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2001 : 16:39:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1. Relationships are seen as just another form of ownership. Given hyper-capitalism's influence, people may be tempted to see their romantic partner/s as just more individual wealth
Well, given they capitalism is relatively new (not sure what you mean by 'hyper'), and jealousy has been around as long as we have, I'm not sure that this idea is a keeper.
quote:
2. Insecurity. Many people, due to a variety of reasons, distrust others' affection for them, and thus seek out evidence for this belief. They usually either find something which could be construed as such evidence, or create it themselves.
Bingo. Becoming someone's second (third, fourth, etc.) choice, is devastating to one's self-esteem (in general). I'm not sure we need to look any farther than this for a reason for jealousy. (Of course, we can if we want to. 
quote:
3. Conservatism. The idea that you can love more than one person at the same time, and co-habit with all of them seems too "radical" for many. They claim that love is "sacred" and can only be shared by two (usually heterosexual) people.
My opinion is this came about as a response to jealousy, not a cause of it.
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/28/2001 16:42:34 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 02:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2. Insecurity. Many people, due to a variety of reasons, distrust others' affection for them, and thus seek out evidence for this belief. They usually either find something which could be construed as such evidence, or create it themselves.
Bingo. Becoming someone's second (third, fourth, etc.) choice, is devastating to one's self-esteem (in general). I'm not sure we need to look any farther than this for a reason for jealousy. (Of course, we can if we want to.
[/quote]
Excellent comments. But I have an uneasy feeling there is a little more to it then that also. Can't 'pin point' it now.
Sorry to go on about it but it really is something that's bugged me for years.(trying to understand that insecurity people have that makes them jealous)
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2001 : 11:23:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
trying to understand that insecurity people have that makes them jealous
Perhaps it goes something like this:
If a person believes, for whatever reason, that they are not attractive, intelligent, sociable, or loveable enough for their partner, especially if their partner is considered thus by many others, it may cause them to assume that their partner is constantly on the verge of "finding them out", and meeting somebody who is "clearly" superior. This may mean that they constantly suspect their partner of infidelity, or constantly attempt to avoid their partner meeting others for fear of the above.
I think this captures what jealousy is about, especially since it is basically founded on the irrational principles of valuing oneself globally in terms of external criteria (in this case others' inferred ideal romantic partner).
Hope that was coherent!
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 10:28:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Can you explain why people get jealous? I never understood the point of it.
Someone asked me recently in another thread what manner of predictions evolutionary psychology might make regarding human behavior, and this is too good of an example to pass up. If pre-programmed psychological responses are evolutionarily adapted to increase fitness (reproductive success) and infidelity on the part of a pair-bonded mate drastically reduces said fitness (after having invested significant time and effort into the mate) then naturally one would expect strongly pair-bonded animals to be averse to such behavior on the part of their mates (though not necessarily on their own part).
Check out The Dangerous Passion by the evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss for a far more detailed exposition:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/02/13/reviews/000213.13weavert.html
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 12:47:34 [Permalink]
|
First a little terminology for the sake of clarity:
quote:
"Mating strategies can be classified in terms of the number and sex of
the individuals concerned: we can have uni-female, multi-female, uni-
male, and multi-male units combined in four possible ways. In a multi-
female system, a number of females are mated to one or to a number of
males. If it is the former, a number of females mated to one male, we
have polygyny; if the latter, a number of females mated to a number of
males, polygamy (or what, if there is little in the way of systematic
contact among mating partners, me might call promiscuity). As far as
uni-female systems are concerned, there are again two possibilities;
one female may be mated to one male, what we know as monogamy, or one
female may be mated to many males, what is termed polyandry."
(Badcock, C. (1991) Evolution and Individual Behavior: An Introduction
to Human Sociobiology Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 131)
It seems this thread is mostly about polygyny (xF-1M) as opposed to monogamy (1F-1M) and not so much about polygamy in the strict scientific sense (xF-xM), with the exception of the posts stemming from Orpheus' thoughts regarding "communal marriage" which fits the technical usage of polygamy perfectly.
quote:
quote:
Polygamy is the rule rather than the exception in animals, so why do humans try to resist this evolutionary trend? The whole idea is to get out there and spread your genes to as many mates as possible to provide viable offspring, this ensures for genetic variety and new stronger combinations. As to humans, we have had many past societies that practiced polygamy. So why do we remain virtually monogamous?
Saying that Polygamy is the rule in the animal kingdom is a big generalization. There are lots of animals that mate for live or at least with one partner at a time. If you go by quantity alone then you will find that the majority reproduces by laying an uncanny amount of eggs. I don't think that the insect kingdom is a good example for human social system.
It would indeed be non sequitur to infer such specifics about human sexuality by examining the whole animal kingdom, or even mating patterns of other primates, which vary greatly across species (all of the patterns mentioned above are represented).
quote:
Speaking of polygamy as an evolutionary trend and asking humans to adopt it on those reasons, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution.
Polygamy is not inherently better suited to further the spread of your genetic material in the environment humans live in. (Otherwise we would have adopted it.)
The case has been made that humans have adopted it, that we are de facto polygynous, and that only Western civilization has obfuscated this fact:
quote:
"...the vast majority of human societies,
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
