ok, so now reading this thread, i've reached where we have two plausible, but opposing views of how monogamy became the norm.
anette says its the result of "social evolution" and humanity found it to be the best for societal growth.
khemin says that we were non-monogamous for a long time and it was rome/religion that forced monogamy.
does anybody know which interpretation is correct, or at least has more supporting evidence?
i tend to lean towards khemin's view, but i was torn apart in a discussion i started in another group.
btw, in my discussion i was asking for people to give me their impressions of this article HISTORY OF MONOGAMY which i had found through google. it very much echoes khemin's points, which i found interesting despite some problems i had with it as well.
The first statement really tells all, monogamy may well be as old as Adam since Adam presumably only lived a few thousand years ago! LMAO
But really, that's a religious article in support of a submissive female in a monogamous patriarchal society. Nuf said. There is no significantly scientific reasoning behind anette's POV. I can't believe you were beaten on the other page... hmm have to look at that :)
There's no long term historical foundation for this thought. It is a "just so theory" about reproduction. I propose to you that such "just so" authors have not questioned how long ago monogamy came about... Archaeology tends to show monogamy being a recent thing in humans.
So I propose this questioning to you:
What if all this serial monogamy was simply mankind rationalising it's dominance of females by looking at the most "in your face" of animals? Birds are easily the most studied and most watched members of the animal kingdom. Once human males found out their role in procreation, they decided to act upon this. But since by this time most of us had left Africa eons ago... our ape counterparts were no longer available, so men rationalised their desires with bird behaviours.
We aren't birds, nor bees, nor termites. We're apes and I think our society would be much healthier (crime, depression, etc, etc, ) if we accepted that.
I find that for me personally monogamy is the best answer. I typically do not find myself sexually attracted to very many people, and the ones I am attracted to I must have an emotional attactment of some kind before I desire to engage any any sort of sexual activities. Needless to say flings and one-night-stands aren't really my thing.
I suppose it's possible that I could find myself in a situation where I was in love or at least lust with more than one person, but I can't think of a time in my life when that has been the case.
To those that choose to be non-monogamous, more power to you. I think everyone should do what makes them happy, as long as both (or more as the case may be) partners kniow that's the type of relationship they are in.
I'm new to the site and actually fairly new to my own Atheism. Here's my 2 cents. There has been a lot of data to suggest that the natural state of humans is a social monogamy at best. And I will agree that if, perhaps, people were taught how to carry on with polyamorous relationships; relationship counseling. One thing I would like to elaborate on is Eduardo's feeling of ownership. I think what really goes with that is that when people "share" with someone else, there is a feeling of loss because that is how were are programmed to view things. "Is this person giving what's mine to someone else?" The selfish gene kicks in and feeling of inferiority set in. Feelings of anger and jealousy. Yet, it's funny how we can spread our love to children, family and friends without those feelings. It just doesn't make sense.
What does "...non-monogamy is more of the evolutionary preference." mean?
My wife and I did some non-monogamy (spouse swapping) with people who told us we would return from the experience more turned on than ever. We did.