Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Keepongoing]

Here is my thinking:

Men - visually stimulated (wants mutltiple sexual partners and quickly gets bored with the same one repititously)

Women- relationally stimulated (wants long-term commitment)


The above 2 are a generalization, but if often true, how does it support monogamy? Is monogamy natural or unnatural?

[ED209]

Evolutionary speaking monogamy is compromise. Remember though that at many times in history (and in many of today's societies) polygamy was the order of the day. When I refer to polygamy I'm not talking about putting it about, but instead am referring to stable relationships such a harems and the like.

Sure you may think that spreading those wild oats may give your genes a better chance of survival, but if the mother needs looking after then those offspring may not survive without a father. Monogamy or polygamy gives a better chance of survival. However you may spread those wild oats then have the mother fool someone else into becoming the father, which is more common than you think.

Women will look for good genes and a good father, often these are two separate people.

Men may seek multiply partners but the one guarantee for their offspring's survival is to stick around and provide, as in the case of monogamy and polygamy relationships.

To answer your question "how does it support monogamy? Is monogamy natural or unnatural?"

Monogamy(or the appearance of) is a natural choice for species like ourselves where we can create an extended family to keep us safe and produce more generations.

Now stop using evolution to cheat on your girlfriend and try and keep it in your pants! You're too cheap and low-class to be a polygamist.

Recommended reading; The Red Queen by Matt Ridley covers all you want to know about current theories on the evolution of sex.

[Keepongoing]

[Paji eh Wong]

[Natalia]

[IncognitoHFX]

[igotthisguitar]

Spreading one's seed

[storysinger81]

Monogamy in the institution of marriage fills needs both biological and social.

Biologically, human offspring are not capable of independence for quite a bit longer than most other species--taking upwards of 12 or 13 years to be capable of reproduction (often a biological mark of adulthood). They need some kind of nesting function to raise and protect that offspring for those years in order to propagate the species successfully. Human children have the best chance for survival and further reproduction if they are raised in a protective and stable environment.

Socially, we are lonely creatures because we are gifted/cursed with self-awareness. We seek comfort and emotional depth in others that we may feel a little less alone. It makes sense that religions are often the enforcer of marriage (and monogamy) as an institution because the social need for religion is similar to that of marriage. Monogamy provides the platform for the deepest level of interpersonal connection because it makes sexual intimacy exclusive to one of your relationships.

The social reasons are far more complex and far more pressing for the continuation of monogamy and its application to love relationships that are not exclusively for breeding. As such, one could certainly argue against it as somehow "unnatural" because it conflicts with certain human impulses or choose not to participate in it if one has no offspring to raise. But one would have to then consider "love" and "truth" and other concepts that rise above our baser natures as "unnatural."

It is not the only way we could fulfill these needs and other societies have found other ways to do so, but it is my preference--as a human being. Not just as a woman.

[Henry VII]

Evolution does not "support" any particular position. Further, evolution is irrelevant in this day and age because we can directly manipulate our own genes - avoiding the slow changes brought on by evolution.

[ED209]

[djsmnc]

The ironic part of monogamy laws is that if you had the money, you could technically raise scores of illegitamite children with multiple partners legally, but if you married all of them, you'd be considered a sick pervert and go to prison!

[ED209]

[ED209]

[Henry VII]

Yes, we can. We just don't know what each individual gene does yet. Still, we have pigs that glow in the dark because we threw in some genes from fish. Medicines will all be gene-based (or nanotechnology-based) in the next decade, when we figure all of these things out. Still, we have mapped the entire human genome and the price is coming down. It will soon be as common as a blood test.

It's so exciting right now. This in why I'm going back for a PhD in molecular biology.

[blackjack]

It is actually an interesting question. Think about evolution as a game. The person that has the most offspring that survives to reproduce wins.

So from a mans point of view you can either impregnate as many women as possible, produce a lot of offspring and hope that some survive to later reproduce, or you can impregnate one women and assist in the child rearing to give the offspring the best chance possible of reproducing.

Unfortunately for women she needs to find a good provider to support her during pregnancy and assist her until the child can reproduce. However the best provider does not always produce the best offspring so it is often beneficial for the woman to find a good provider yet mate with someone with better genes (think marry the rich guy yet sleep with the pool guy).

Back to the question, evolution supports neither, both monogamy and polygamy are viable strategies and can be seen throughout the animal kingdom.