so is it…
0 voters
i’ve been wondering.
remaining faithful, is it something we attach a lot of importance to because that’s how it’s been for centuries,or is it really deep in our genes?
there are a few examples i been thinking about,i will include them in later posts.
Whether or not it is genetic, it is needed. In a time of so many diseases that can easily be contracted even with the use a condom, the Christian sexual uptightness might actually be worth something.
SAF has a good point. However I think it’s neither religion nor genetics, but rather morality. In some cases that morality may be derived from religion, but that argument wont hold true in places and times when people regarded faithfulness as a virtue yet weren’t religious.
There is an anthropological argument as to whether humans are poly or monogamous. Most of our monkey cousins are polygamous. Historically monogamy is a result of men wishing to know for certain the paternity of the children they were working so hard to care for. Which, in a sense, makes monogamy more important for the man, to know his woman is not having someone else’s children, than for the woman who already has a man to care for the children he will assume are his.
So I’m not sure if you could say it is a “moral” issue… more an issue of breeding. In current times, when breeding can be controlled, the issue has become more an issue of health. Honestly, I’m not too sure how much I would care about the faithfulness of my mate were I not to fear the many different illnesses he could bring home to me. I am sure I would care, but I’m sure it would not be the same thing. Currently there is the argument that a man’s unfaithfulness puts my health at risk. And this is, even above trust, the greatest issue.
[quote=“SuchAFob”]There is an anthropological argument as to whether humans are poly or monogamous. Most of our monkey cousins are polygamous. Historically monogamy is a result of men wishing to know for certain the paternity of the children they were working so hard to care for. Which, in a sense, makes monogamy more important for the man, to know his woman is not having someone else’s children, than for the woman who already has a man to care for the children he will assume are his.
So I’m not sure if you could say it is a “moral” issue… more an issue of breeding. In current times, when breeding can be controlled, the issue has become more an issue of health. Honestly, I’m not too sure how much I would care about the faithfulness of my mate were I not to fear the many different illnesses he could bring home to me. I am sure I would care, but I’m sure it would not be the same thing. Currently there is the argument that a man’s unfaithfulness puts my health at risk. And this is, even above trust, the greatest issue.[/quote]
Sure, there’s that argument too. Verily it can be said there are many and varied reasons behind it. The why would depend on the where, or perhaps even the when.
[quote=“SuchAFob”]There is an anthropological argument as to whether humans are poly or monogamous. Most of our monkey cousins are polygamous.
[/quote]
Actually, anthropologically speaking, scientists have discovered that species where the size of the sexes differ and the magnitude of that average difference is directly proportional to how polygamous we are as a species.
Well its more the result of evolution than anything, because the male who successfully ensures his gene is passed on is the more successful male.
The equivalent for the female is to try to ensure that her mate doesn’t go off and dilly dally with some other female or risk losing the mate who is supplying the conditions necessary for her to successfully pass on her offsping (regardless of who’s offspring that may be).
Both of these requirements most easily show up in the emotion known as jealousy.
In terms of evolution the male’s strategy is twofold:
The female’s strategy is also twofold:
My take on the matter:
I think it’s more a matter of education, which can be based on morals and/or religion. But being faithful has nothing to do with being monogamous or polygamous, after all there are cultures and religions that allow more than one wife.
And based on my observations I would say that men are genetically not faithful, rather the opposite (generally speaking). Not sure about women.
I’ve seen monkeys fuck on Discovery. They never whisper or laugh or tickle or anything remotely resembling fun. What reason would they have for sticking it out with one partner?
There are millions of married couples who feel the same way.
The old, “It’s not that I WANT to be unfaithful, it’s just that my wife (or husband) doesn’t ‘understand’ me.”
There are many species of animal that are far more monogamous than humans. (Not the Chimpanzees you saw in Discovery though). Its because its proven to be successful in propogating their species.
Monogamy was invented to satisfy men, not women. It ensures that every man, no matter how ugly or poor or unattractive, gets a mate. This promotes social harmony. Men without women are sullen and dangerous. The argument goes like this:
Monogamy was the rule when humans were hunter-gatherers, because resources were limited. There was no great difference between a rich and poor man in a hunter-gatherer society, so women had no incentive to attach herself to the richest guy in the tribe. And no man was able to accumulate enough power to get away with taking more than one woman for himself. In hunter-gatherer societies today, monogamy is still the rule, for the most part. Sometimes a chief will seize an extra two or three wives, if he can support a family that large - which is difficult to do in hunter-gather conditions.
But once we get to the agricultural age, conditions change. Suddenly there’s a huge surplus of food and materials, and wealth & power accumulation can occur. The cleverest and strongest males fight and manipulate their way to the top and set themselves up as chieftains and kings. For the first time, a heirarchical society gets set up. Powerful men can obtain multiple wives either by seduction (women are attracted to guys with $$$) or force (virgins don’t get to say no to a request to the emperor’s harem). King Solomon, the emperors of the Incas to China, had thousands of concubines and imperial wives each. And slavery was the norm back in those days, so your average Roman rich merchant or Senator had his own, smaller harem of slave girls back at his villa.
Christianity changed this in much of Europe, but a lot of that was just lip service to the Bible. Kings and lords of the manor still had droit du seigneur over every peasant woman on their lands. Up until slavery was abolished, the same right existed for every slaveowner on a plantation in the New World. What caused the big shift from polygamy to monogamy was democracy. When your average guy started getting his rights, he realized he was getting shafted. It wasn’t fair that a handful of rich and powerful lords monopolized the best looking women, while he had to wait until he was 30 or 40 and had accumulated his own fortune before he could get laid. Slowly, through social pressure, Christian morality was used as a weapon to enforce monogamy.
This is not an original argument of mine. I got it from this book:
Very interesting, perhaps you’d like to swap it from the book I got my arguments from:
I read that one, too. A great book. Anything by Jared Diamond is worth reading. The man is a freaking genius.
Disagree:
A reflection on human history:
If we take the view which is well supported in the scientific community that the difference between the sexes as a ratio (in any species) is a relection of how polygymous we are, then the book you read would have to accept the viewpoint that until ~10,000 years ago, the average size between the sexes was negligible. (If we were monogomous that is)
I don’t believe that. In fact I think that latest book you read contradicts the clear scientific evidence that in fact hunter gatherer societies were as polygymous as agricultural societies.
Was a study done to compare current non-christian agrarian societies with current hunter gatherer societies to compare this ratio and any ensuing differences? I bet it wasn’t even mentioned.
I don’t understand this concept, could you please elaborate? Are you talking about the size of genitalia on average? To what specific difference(s) are you referring?
No i mean the physical mass.
Monogomy is reflected in species by males and females of the species being of the same physical size, whereas polygamy is reflected in a size difference between the males and females. As the difference between the sexes increases (as a ratio of the average size), the more polygamous they are.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I think I got. Just to verify, though, the size as in mass is the difference that you’re talking about. So, a queen bee which is much more massive, comparatively speaking, than a male bee would be less monogamous (or not monogamous) than a chimpanzee?
Bodo
Exactly.
And I think, but I’m not sure, that if its the female of the species that is bigger, then the female would tend to have more males than males would have females and vice versa. But I can’t verify that.
An example article…hate to quote wiki but:
Anyone care to explain why monogamy = faithfulness?
I assume that’s what some people are trying to say though as mentioned earlier I don’t see the relation. Or maybe the OP could actually clarify what exactly he means with faithfulness (steady relation or marriage without cheating on your partner … ?).
Monogamy is equivalent to faithfulness from an anthropological perspective. At least from the perspective of fathering / mothering children that excludes your main partner.
Even if in a species, most of the population has one has a main partner but 10% of the population father / mother children from another partner, it can be considered a polygynous (f’ the spelling) species, if only because it happens.