Monogomy/Polygymy

jakethebake · #1 10-30-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hygomis Hogomous Women Monogomous

Hogomous Hygomis Men are Polygymous

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a stupid quote from an old James Mason movie. But I often think it's true. I think the natural state for women is to tie themselves to one man, while the natural state for a man is not to do this. It's interesting to me that social contracts typically call for monogomy, at least in our culture.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for either men or women to cheat on their spouses. I think that if either a man or woman enters into an agreement, whether it's explicit as in marriage or implicit as in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship, then they should honor the comittment. But why does this kind of monogomous relationship exist to begin with, and why is it assumed to be implicit in the case of the boyfriend/girlfriend?

How did monogomy start? Was it something created to alleviate social problems created by jealousy? Was it forced by women?

What does anyone else think this?

edit: And no I'm not trying to justify any affair I didn't just have or one that I'm not about to. So let's not even take this thread there. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

SackUp · #2 10-30-2005, 02:45 PM

I think the quoted statement has far too many big words for OOT.

7ontheline · #3 10-30-2005, 02:46 PM

Geez, one BOMA and immediately it's all about polygamy. . .

jakethebake · #4 10-30-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the quoted statement has far too many big words for OOT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of them are made up though.

jakethebake · #5 10-30-2005, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Geez, one BOMA and immediately it's all about polygamy. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a Booya, but that had nothing to do with it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

KaneKungFu123 · #6 10-30-2005, 02:53 PM

i blame charlton heston.

diebitter · #7 10-30-2005, 02:56 PM

No expert, but I suspect it goes waaaaaaaay back. Human children require a lot of work to rear, and would need both parents (I bet no one-parent families survived long in the old days). This would create an evolutionary pressure to prefer monogamy, and has some supporting evidence in the prolonged and continuing sexual life of humans (compared to say the mating seasons of other animals) - sex binds the couple.

I could be wrong though.

jakethebake · #8 10-30-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No expert, but I suspect it goes waaaaaaaay back. Human children require a lot of work to rear...

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but in polygymous cultures, the women band together to help rear each other's children.

7ontheline · #9 10-30-2005, 03:00 PM

For a more serious answer. . .

I suspect it had something to do with social stability. Certainly a woman wants one man so he protects her. Typically men would want more than one woman, but maybe it works better if it's one for one? I imagine if too few men had too many women the woman-less men would become unruly.

diebitter · #10 10-30-2005, 03:02 PM

don't know about that. It tends to be not natural for females of many species to be interested in sex outside of 'heat', but in humans it is normal. In fact, not sure any females outside of humans are capable of orgasm even. This indicates human evolution favoured women enjoying sex, and one possible reason is that this bound couples together, and based on this, evolution favoured the binding of couples to raise children.

There's a lot of assumption apparently built into this, but I'm concatenating a lot of argument and scientific hypothesis here...