Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3714 alt.romance:5207 soc.men:23551 soc.women:29632 soc.singles:71980
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!milt
From: milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 26 Oct 90 00:07:54 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <15490@netcom.UUCP>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 22

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?

I think it is culturally ingrained.  Men can impregnate as many fertile
women as they can have sex with.  This allows men to 'spread their DNA
around' as much as they can.  Women, on the other hand can only bear one
child at a time.  Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a
man not to be monogamous.  In fact, I'll go as far to say that it's even
better if you can impregnate someone else's woman, because then another
man is helping your DNA to survive.

Now before anybody starts flaming me, rest assured that I believe in
monogamy and I don't think women are property.  I guess I'm really
applying the above paragraph to the times way back when it was not easy
to survive (Neanderthal period, etc.).

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milt Tinkoff				|	"The average man is a
Silicon Graphics Inc.			|	     stupid man."
milt@waynes-world.esd.sgi.com		|		              -Ed Mao