Research:  The Benefits Of Monogamy

Personally I consider monogamy as the best form of a balanced mating system, because it causes the least suffering to women.

But research also indicates benefits of mongamy.   This article compares monogamous with polygynous marriages.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm

But on a more subtle level, the promicuous jerks, who ruthlessly manipulate as many women as they can by hook or crook into being their prey, also cause not only pain to the used women, but also social ruptures similar to what has been described in the article.  While in polygyinous society the less successful men do not find a wife, under a promiscuous social norm, the less successful men are also competing for scarce prey.

Quotes:


"In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage."

"Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. ...., these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives."

"The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says."

"According to Henrich, monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds."

"Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds."

Views: 1402

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, always on the same page.  I'm pleased that when you think about sexual liberation/alternative lifestyles, you think of me.  Probably just my Joseph P crush showing:)

Amen* to what you and Dr. Kellie have been writing! That's for the next page, male-dominant polygyny being the opposite of promiscuity among free, empowered people, as well as here.

* (in the original sense of "I agree!" "What they said!" No spooks needed.)

In my experience poly relationships can have various levels of commitment, including some or all partners sharing a household, finances, parenting, etc. Relationships can be open to outside lovers or closed (though I don't personally know any such "polyfidelitous" folks).

Going into a relationship knowing it's not exclusive, and, as you said, having everyone on the same page indeed does take care of all of those (semi-)rational arguments against responsible nonmonogamy (which Deborah Anapol riffed on as "responsible nonmonopoly" and "responsible nonmonotony" in cartoons in Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits).

I do not waste my time to discuss their cruel attitudes with men, who are too immature to understand the psychological importance of monogamy and of exclusive commitment.  Promiscuity is emotional psychopathy.   I am not bothered to discuss their cruelty with psychopaths. 

I invite any person, who is willing to learn, how to treat women without hurting and harming, to read my blog:   http://egalitarianrationalcommitmentparadigm.blogspot.com/

Anybody defending promiscuity, please do not annoy me any further, I feel so sorry for your victims.  

And she obligingly demonstrates my point.  Thank you.

She even put the bald assertion/ad hominem in bold, for easy reference.  ^.^

Thanks, Joseph. Exactly.

Unfortunately, since we are men, we are too immature. Psychopaths, every one of us. We are not worthy to respond, and if we disagree, it is evidence of our extreme cruelty. 

Its easy to get your feelings hurt, blame others, and rant about it. Bitter. Not very impressive. It takes a bigger person to look inward.

Thanks, Darrel.

(Now where's that upvote button...)

Wait a minute. Are you trying to say that something my pastor told me ..... might not be true? *shudder* Next, you'll try to tell me that I should support the evils of condom use, eh?

Where will your blasphemy end?

I particularly like the part where she tried to pass off a study that had nothing to do with the point that she was trying to make.  It reminds me of this clip with Al Franken smacking down an anti-gay-marriage witness who completely misrepresented the findings of a study on marriage:

Maruli is doing the same thing, right here.

Maruli, my mom was a Methodist, who later converted to Catholicism, my dad's religion. I learned early that the Methodist church, here in the USA anyway, prohibited the use of alcohol by its members. By the time I learned that the Baptist church here prohibited dancing, I knew too that the Catholic church prohibited non-procreative sex.

Until I quit religion, I wondered why these and other religions had these other other prohibitions. I decided that their founders had probably had hurtful experiences with alcohol, dancing, or non-procreative sex, and to spare their followers similar hurts, they prohibited the causes.

About 15 years after I quit religion, I became active in politics. I met people who had various beliefs and enjoyed talking with others whose beliefs differed, often as if wanting to persuade those others to change their beliefs. I also met people who held so tightly to their beliefs that they refused to associate with people whose beliefs differed.

From people who held their beliefs the most tightly, I heard words like "If you're not my ally, you're my enemy."

Tom, the morals of not hurting and not harming are a conscious personal choice.   This choice is completely independent of religion and of what happens to be allowed or forbidden.   I judge people by their morals expressed by consideration and responsibility and by their maturity of knowing, what hurts and harms others, even when the wounds are invisible.  

I did not start this thread for the purpose of provocation, but if this has the side effect of catching attention, then it maybe also catches the attention of one of the precious mature quality men, who are monogamous by their own innate emotional need and preference for bonding and exclusive commitment.   Such men do exist, who share with me and who appreciate the morals of not hurting and not haming, of not using others and who are considerate and responsible and caring for women's emotional needs.  
Such men are as precious as they are rare, but they do exist.    
Any lonely quality man in my age group (I am 62) reading this is more than welcome to read my blog and to contact me.    

Wait a minute.  You didn't start this thread for provocation, yet you label anyone who chooses promiscuity over monogamy as a psychopath.  You suck at communication.

Your preaching about monogamy approaches dogma.

And your article doesn't even demonstrate what you seem to think it does.  It demonstrates that in fucked up cultures, such as most Islamic societies, in which rich men are allowed to monopolize the available pool of women, leaving a large percentage of the male population desperate and celibate (or at least not sexually active with the help of a partner) ... no shit that will lead to a fucked up culture.

That's not promiscuity.  That's the opposite of promiscuity.  It's the limiting of available sex from the monopolized side of the gender equation.  Your argument is complete crap, from the start.

If you want a monogamous relationship, fine.  Find a partner who wants a monogamous relationship.  I'm just sick of hearing your dogmatic, self-righteous crap on the subject.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service