The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Research: The Benefits Of Monogamy

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."

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dr kellie on February 10, 2012 at 12:14pm

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:)

Permalink Reply by Grinning Cat on February 11, 2012 at 11:43pm

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).

Permalink Reply by Maruli Marulaki on February 9, 2012 at 12:21am

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.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on February 9, 2012 at 12:27am

And she obligingly demonstrates my point. Thank you.

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

Permalink Reply by oneman on February 9, 2012 at 9:23am

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.

Permalink Reply by oneman on February 9, 2012 at 9:24am

Thanks, Darrel.

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

Permalink Reply by oneman on February 9, 2012 at 9:38am

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?

Permalink Reply by Benjamin Jordahl on May 26, 2012 at 11:32pm

Yeah, I'm a few months late, but RIGHT ON! My face was getting red reading this thread... I think I have a palm-shaped depression in my skull. Sex at Dawn is one of my new favorites for the wealth of information contained therein. I'll be reading your book soon, I've heard very positive things about it and your post here shows me that you seem to at least know SOMETHING about the topic. Thanks for this comment, Darrel Ray. I'll say it again: RIGHT ON!

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on May 29, 2012 at 11:21pm

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.

Permalink Reply by Benjamin Jordahl on May 30, 2012 at 11:10pm

I love being able to say RIGHT ON all the time!

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on February 9, 2012 at 1:52am

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."

Permalink Reply by Maruli Marulaki on February 9, 2012 at 1:07pm

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.