Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3707 alt.romance:5201 soc.men:23547 soc.women:29624 soc.singles:71931
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ide!hartman
From: hartman@ide.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: sci.pschology,sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.180743.19519@ide.com>
Date: 25 Oct 90 18:07:43 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>
Sender: kowal@ide.com (Stephen Kowalczyk)
Organization: IDE, San Francisco
Lines: 31

In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?

All this is IMO, of course.

Human beings rarely, if ever, occur as individuals in "the wild." (That
is, outside of organized, large-scale civilizations.)  Indigenous peoples
all seem to occur in clans.  These may be bands of gatherers/hunters,
agrarian villages, or nomadic tribes.  The mating customs in each of these
types of clans are probably adapted to suit their practical needs.

However, in each of these cases, the lifestyles don't change much over
the years.  Thus, individuals aren't pushed to grow and change beyond
their expected, familiar roles.  A good husband stays good as long as
he continues to behave in the ways expected of a good husband.  It may
be much easier to remain mated in a clannnish culture, whatever arrangements
are used.

Since individual humans don't have much in the way of instinct to go
by, we have to learn for ourselves what tends to work and what doesn't.
In a clannish culture, what works is probably different than what works
in a modern urban culture.  Arriving at what works in this relatively
new cultural setting is being done through trial and error.  I suspect
that in a climate of constant change, it would be much harder for
persons to stay mated for life.

The way my life seems to be going, it looks like serial monogamy might be
the best bet.

-r