Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3937 alt.romance:5524 soc.men:23786 soc.women:29958 soc.singles:73727
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murdu!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!lu!ecsgrt
From: ECSGRT@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin, Electronic Engineering)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <4836@lure.latrobe.edu.au>
Date: 22 Nov 90 00:15:09 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <15490@netcom.UUCP> <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Organization: VAX Cluster, Computer Centre, La Trobe University
Lines: 23

In article <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>, milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes:
> 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