Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3949 alt.romance:5544 soc.men:23802 soc.women:29977 soc.singles:73836
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!microsoft!rodvan
From: rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <59260@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 23 Nov 90 00:05:43 GMT
References: <1990Oct25.140829.19268@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <58695@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Nov14.005513.28667@massey.ac.nz>
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 30


In SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE SEVENTIES, Morton Hunt observes that monogamy
has not until recently been very common among humans.

In fact, even today it is not *really* that common.  Although sociologists
like to quibble the point, there is this term which describes the common
practice of divorce and remarriage: Serial Monogamy.

In the strictest sense of the word, we speak of monogamy as "mating for 
life."  But these days a woman and man may marry, divorce, and remarry
(others) several times.  (I know one woman who has been married 7 times ...
to 7 different men.)  Where there is divorce and remarriage, and where
fidelity is assumed within each marriage relationship, there is not true
monogamy but a serial monogamy.  

And isn't this what best describes the typical relationship these days?

Now, my Japanese friends inform me there is a different kind of a 
situation in Japan, where divorce is not so common but extramarital 
affairs for both genders are very common.  Here again is a variation
which cannot be described as true monogamy.

From an intellectual perspective, Heinlein's descriptions of multiple
partner "marriages" appeals to me most because it solves many problems
at once.  But this is a very sane kind of a relationship.  I'm not
sure I'm ready for anything *that* sane.  <-;

OO
\/
Rod