Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?

[Smoke]

I've come to suspect the straight man's lament more accurately applies to young and inexperienced women than to older and more experienced women.

I think that's true -- but the young and inexperienced women tend to be more prolific than the older and more experienced women.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sure, take it out on the kid.

The fact I was talking about eating a baby was a clear indication I wasn't being serious.

Anyway, I can't help but find it slightly disturbing that dishonor and dishonestly could considered "good strategy". And as far as finding aggressive men the most desirable, I know of a few women who've been in one abusive relationship after another. You would think experience would teach them a little taste and standards. I mean logically wouldn't having had bad experiences at the hands of "ne'er-do-wells" (beatings, rape, etc.) turn one off from other "ne'er-do-wells"? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

[Sunstone]

I think that's true -- but the young and inexperienced women tend to be more prolific than the older and more experienced women.

Good point. I also think that, all else being equal, if a woman is going to take a risk on a guy who's more likely to end up in prison than provide for his offspring, she is better off doing that when young, than when middle aged.

 

[Smoke]

The fact I was talking about eating a baby was a clear indication I wasn't being serious.

I didn't think you were.

Anyway, I can't help but find it slightly disturbing that dishonor and dishonestly could considered "good strategy". And as far as finding aggressive men the most desirable, I know of a few women who've been in one abusive relationship after another. You would think experience would teach them a little taste and standards. I mean logically wouldn't having had bad experiences at the hands of "ne'er-do-wells" (beatings, rape, etc.) turn one off from other "ne'er-do-wells"? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

All the more reason to make your life with a nice guy, even if you find the ne'er-do-wells attractive. But I didn't mean it was a good strategy even in the sense that the participants usually plan it that way; I certainly wasn't endorsing it as a moral or honorable way of living. It's just the kind of thing that tends to happen when someone has a a commitment to one person (if not to sexual fidelity) and a physical attraction to another.

It's a good -- that is, effective -- breeding "strategy" for the biological father because, being free from any responsibility to bring his children up, he can beget more of them. It's an effective strategy for the mother because the putative father provides her children with better odds of surviving and thriving than the biological father does. It's just a variation on the more widely-acknowledged scenario of a younger, attractive woman marrying an older, well-off husband. A prosperous widow may be feel better able to take on a lover or a second husband who has more to recommend him in the area of physical attraction than worldly means, and he and his children may then benefit from the first husband's industry. (That's why our ancestors were always putting phrases like "so long as she remain my widow" in their wills.) Alternately, many women marry their bad boys and later find a nice steady husband to provide for their children.

 

[Elessar]

I know fiction about extraterrestrials is not directly applicable to this argument, but I feel that it is relevant enough to mention, that what MidnightBlue states is found in the Halo series of fiction (including games), in the Sangheili species:

Sangheili warriors are the greatest warriors in the Covenant; however, their constant warfare is obviously not the environment in which to raise children. The best environment to raise children is with normal Sangheili parents, back on the Sangheili homeworld. But the genes for strength, intelligence, cunning, etc. are found in the warriors. Thus, tradition dicated that Sangheili warriors had the pick of the men and women on the homeworld, and were expected to reproduce as often as possible (female warriors, much less so, obviously...). Meanwhile, these children would be raised by the other biological parent and their spouse as their own child, while the genes of the warriors carried on into the next generation of Sangheili.

 

[Sunstone]

According to at least one study, the presence of a step-parent in a home increases the risk factor for child abuse from 40 times to 100 times the base rate. This would suggest that raising children with their biological father might improve the odds of their surviving to a reproductive age.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tend to shy away from phrases like "genetically superior," but if the ne'er-do-well produces a more physically appealing child, then the child is more likely to reproduce hirself, thus better propagating the genes.

From an evolutionary perspective, the main problem I have with your scenario is that it seems that it would be very disadventageous to be the "good provider", which makes me wonder where all these "good providers" would come from for the women to pair up with while reproducing with the "ne'er-do-wells".

 

[Mathematician]

It's an interesting question. We should look at the great apes and work from there. Are chimpanzees, our cousins, monogamous?

Humans tend to be very jealous, but I don't see how that precludes one-on-one. I would like to see some evidence that points to lifelong partners being a productive motif. It seems humans have a timespan where lust takes over that lasts for a few years, and then it dies out a little.

 

[Sunstone]

Are chimpanzees, our cousins, monogamous?

Chimpanzees are not monogamous. Neither are bonobo. Both chimps and bonobo are closely related to us.

I would like to see some evidence that points to lifelong partners being a productive motif.

Gene, what in the name of Darwin is a "productive motif"?

It seems humans have a timespan where lust takes over that lasts for a few years, and then it dies out a little.

According to Helen Fisher, who is considered the world's leading scientist on the subject, humans have three distinct neurological systems dealing with the emotions of reproduction. Each is dominant at different stages in a relationship. The first is simply horniness (or erotic love) and that testosterone driven system dominates relationships that are so young they might not even be relationships yet. The second is obsession (or romantic love) and that dopamine driven system dominates relationships up to about 24 months or so max. The third and last is attachment (or mature love) and that oxytocin driven system can last a lifetime.

 

[Functionless]

Marriage is an institution created by humans and it therefore cannot be explained in biological terms.

 

[Sunstone]

Marriage is an institution created by humans and it therefore cannot be explained in biological terms.

Why do you assume it was created by humans?

 

[painted wolf]

From an evolutionary perspective, the main problem I have with your scenario is that it seems that it would be very disadventageous to be the "good provider", which makes me wonder where all these "good providers" would come from for the women to pair up with while reproducing with the "ne'er-do-wells".

That is why a 'good provider' gets long term access... even if one of the children isn't his statistically he has a better chance of fathering the next one, and the one after that.
He tends to produce more sperm and more aggressive sperm. (sperm that actually attack non-related sperm)
The 'ne'er-do-well' may only have one opportunity to impregnate the female where the 'good provider' has many. And human females are not the most fertile critters around, with no obvious signs of ovulation like in other apes.
This may protect her, and her children from male hostility... they can never be sure the child in question is not theirs.

wa:do

 

[Father Heathen]

Marriage is an institution created by humans and it therefore cannot be explained in biological terms.

Monogamy =/= marriage.

Polygamy =/= infidelity.

 

[painted wolf]

not always... a man or woman can have fidelity to multiple partners.
They all come together to raise children collectively.

Infidelity in this instance would be having relations outside the accepted group.

wa:do

 

[Father Heathen]

not always... a man or woman can have fidelity to multiple partners.
They all come together to raise children collectively.

Infidelity in this instance would be having relations outside the accepted group.

wa:do

Isn't that what I said? =/= means "does not equal"

 

[painted wolf]

durp... my bad..

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

durp... my bad..

And if you ask me, it's durn near high time you 'fessed up to it, too!

 

[Sunstone]

Marriage is an institution created by humans and it therefore cannot be explained in biological terms.

Marriage is partly shaped by instinct, partly shaped by culture, and partly shaped by the individuals involved. The instinctual part and to some extent the individual part are open to biological explanation.

 

[Charity]

Marriage is partly shaped by instinct, partly shaped by culture, and partly shaped by the individuals involved. The instinctual part and to some extent the individual part are open to biological explanation.

Marriage is sometimes shaped by stupidity and the notion that we just have to have someone in our life. We need to just fulfill our needs and lust whenever nature calls Why should culture or the instinct to marry dictate our need to be monogamous? Men are like shoes they need to be changed and often....