Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:3710 sci.bio:3954 alt.romance:5547 soc.men:23805 soc.women:29984 soc.singles:73845
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!att!watmath!maytag!watcsc!peter
From: peter@watcsc.waterloo.edu (Peter Sellmer)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Nov24.233954.8869@watcsc.waterloo.edu>
Date: 24 Nov 90 23:39:54 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo Computer Science Club
Lines: 22
Follow-Up-To: sci.psychology

I'm really surprised that this discussion hasn't migrated back to
sci.psychology.  The nature/nurture question has been debated over
many a beer for decades now by psych people of every stripe.

My $0.02 is that it's pretty clear
that humans are somewhere in the middle of the monogamy/polygamy
continuum.  We pair-bond, but not for life necessarily, though
sometimes.  Can it get any mushier than that?  

As well, what's the point?
If one wanted to make the statement that we ARE 
monogamous "naturally" (whatever that means), well, so what?

Does this chicken-and-egg philosophizing have real implications for the 
way we do things?  The way we should do things?  The way we could do things?

Peter
-- 
Peter Sellmer 
(peter@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca or psellmer@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca)

"Dip in...to the sea... of possibilities!" Patti Smith