Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3958 alt.romance:5549 soc.men:23808 soc.women:29988 soc.singles:73856
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ucselx!crash!pnet01!rcf
From: rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <5869@crash.cts.com>
Date: 25 Nov 90 07:16:09 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA
Lines: 63

rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes:
>
>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.  
>

     Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.  I could just as easily offer
any number of couples who've been happily married for 25 or 30 years.  What's
it prove?

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

     No, as a matter of fact, it doesn't.  50% of the marriages in this
country end in divorce.  That leaves 50% which don't (not taking into account
those who engage in serial monogamy, which may boost the stats).  You're
manufacturing evidence to fit your argument.

>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.
>

     Well, what exactly would you classify as "very common".  I'd suspect
they're more common amongst Japanese men than women.

>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.  <-;
>

     No relational arrangement is more "sane" than any other.  It all depends
on what best suits your particular belief system.  Also, keep in mind that RAH
was rather careful to set up the situation in which group marriages would
work, and based them upon a society in which women were seriously
under-represented (at least in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).  Group marriages
have been tried before.  Every other commune in the 60's had a copy of
"Stranger in a Strange Land" that they took their living arrangements from. 
Most were unable to survive the cultural conditioning that most of the members
shared.  "Sanity", even taken within the narrow context of your argument, does
not always militate towards the most comfortable solution.  You just can't put
people into such shallow boxes.

>OO
>\/
>Rod


Bob c/o The OTH Gang
rcf@pnet01.cts.com