Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!gauss.unm.edu!bevans
From: bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.232951.6182@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 90 23:29:51 GMT
References: <58975@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Nov14.005513.28667@massey.ac.nz> <1990Nov15.141028.25126@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu> <1990Nov18.214939.268@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <14842@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Lines: 63

In article <14842@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>------
>In article <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu>, bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes...
>> For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to
>> convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that
>> promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally
>> imposed phenomenon.

>First, if the author is monogamous, it undoubtedly stems in part
>from cultural influences.  It is foolish in the extreme for him
>to claim that he knows what his sexual behavior would be had he
>(miraculously) survived to adulthood on a desert island absent
>culture -- which means: absent language, absent religion, absent
>social mores, absent any stories of romance or sex, absent any
>examples of romance or sex. 

Sorry, but you're wrong.  If you had noticed my .sig, you would
have probably guessed that I am a) male and b) either asexual or
homosexual.  For the record, I am not asexual.  Therefore, your
argument that my "monogamy" stems from cultural influences.
Specifically, this culture literally forces people into being
heterosexual.  Lo and behold! I didn't turn out that way.  Had
I been alone on a desert island with no society around me, it
is quite true that nobody can know how I turned out.  However,
given that I DID grow up in a society that pushes heterosexuality
and religion (we have freedom of religion in this country as long
as you have one), I feel I am quite capable of saying that it
is possible for people to grow up "against the grain" of what
the society says is right and "natural."

As for my being monogamous, I try.  Why?  Many reasons.  One is
the threat of AIDS.  The fewer partners I have, the less chance
I have of contracting it.  Another is that I am in love with
someone and, to me, that love means that I will be true to him.
That doesn't mean that I couldn't have sex with another person.
It means that it will probably happen with my boyfriend AND
another person.  Third, I don't exactly have the need to have
sex with another person.  My boyfriend and I do very well on
our own, thank you.

I am not saying that monogamy is "natural" or that polygamy is
"natural."  Any implication in my first post was due to me
parroting the original poster's words.  That is, it was a ploy
to show how SILLY it is to classify something like sexual behaviour
into "natural" and "unnatural" categories.

>It is natural for humans to develop their individual behavior
>within a cultural context.  Both monogamous behavior and
>polygamous behavior as we know them are reached in this fashion.
>To the extent that it makes sense to ask which of these is
>natural, one can only look at the variety of cultures that have
>existed.  The answer is then: humans are biologically capable of
>cultures that are polygamous, cultures that are monogamous, and
>cultures that are both.  (Actually, the question of what sexual
>behavior a culture sanctions is too complex to be summarized so
>simply.)

Since you seem to understand my point so well, why are you arguing
with me?

--
Brian Evans             |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."