Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3939 alt.romance:5530 soc.men:23788 soc.women:29960 soc.singles:73755
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!alternat
From: alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins)
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Nov22.191009.20772@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <15490@netcom.UUCP> <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com> <4836@lure.latrobe.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 90 19:10:09 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <4836@lure.latrobe.edu.au> ECSGRT@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin, Electronic Engineering) writes:
>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. 

Yes but...
if a man 'spreads his DNA around' and all his chidren die, that is a
losing strategy.  In nature, if a man stays with a woman at least as long
as she needs his help, that will greatly increase the chances that his
will child will live and live to reproduce.
 
ann h.