Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4045 alt.romance:5635 soc.men:24016 soc.women:30142 soc.singles:74299
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!ariel.unm.edu!gauss.unm.edu!bevans
From: bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Dec2.072758.13551@ariel.unm.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 90 07:27:58 GMT
References: <1990Nov15.141028.25126@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> <1990Nov15.194025.27299@ariel.unm.edu> <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu> <1990Nov16.211050.8786@ariel.unm.edu> <1990Nov21.231047.5745@ariel.unm.edu> <593@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>
Sender: news@ariel.unm.edu (USENET News System)
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli
Lines: 81

In article <593@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) writes:
>In <1990Nov21.231047.5745@ariel.unm.edu> bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
[one definition of serial monogamy]

>     I think you're redefining terms to pervert (!) the question.  Sure, some
>humans are monogamous.  Many more believe they should be monogamous, but would
>have to admit that their own lives fall a bit short of this goal.

I don't think so.  Before we can debate whether or not humans are
naturally monogamous, we need to know what is meant by "monogamous."
Do we allow serial monogamy?  If not, why not?

That is, what happens when a partner dies?  Does that mean the
surviving partner can never have another partner?  Why not?
Just because a person goes from one monogamous relationship to
another doesn't mean the person is "deep inside" a polygamous
person.  There are many reasons why couples split up.

>     The question is not "Are humans mmonogamous?", because we all know that
>they're not.  The question is "Are humans NATURALLY monogamous?", because it
>involves an attempt to recruit support for the MORAL position that humans
>OUGHT to be monogamous, that to be otherwise is UNNATURAL and thus IMMORAL.

The problem is that many people seem to think that humans are, somehow,
"above" nature.  They forget that humans are a part of nature and
anything they do IS natural (given that there is no coercion).

Some humans are polygamous.  Some humans are monogamous.  For example,
my mother was monogamous.  My father was not.  The fact that each one
existed/exists (respectively) shows that it is natural for humans
to be polygamous and natural for humans to be monogamous.

>     If humans were NATURALLY monogamous, they would mate for life.  Period.
>No dating around before marriage; no running around after marriage; no divorce.
>"Serial monogamy", such as you describe, is a rationalization, an attempt to
>make a behaviour which is NOT "natural monogamy" acceptible as a moral
>alternative while continuing to believe that something "other people" do,
>which is also not "natural monogamy", is still immoral and unnatural.

Again, what about situations where one partner dies?  Where it becomes
impossible for the two to stay together (due to an abusive spouse,
inability to afford caring for the other spouse, or even (heaven
forbid) sexual incompatibility (i.e., one partner discovers he is
homosexual or they're heterosexual but are sexually incompatible
and they both desire a sexual relationship etc.))?

What is the definition of "monogamy"?

>     "Natural" implies an inborn imperative.  Your model of "serial monogamy"
>allows a person to choose different partners at different times in their lives;
>you CANNOT use this as an argument for an inborn rejection of different
>partners!  If people "naturally" have the ability to choose different partners
>in their lives, then they, equally naturally, have the ability to choose
>different partners.

No, they don't.  If a person has only one partner, and that partner
goes away, that person may or may not acquire another one.  If he
acquires another one, that does not imply that he could have done
so at the time he was involved with the first person.  After all,
he's a monogamous person.  Are you defining "monogamous" to mean
that a person can have one partner and one partner only for the
entire life even if the partner goes away?

>     We invest huge amounts of energy in this culture to encourage (and even
>enforce!) monogamy.  If there were any sort of biological imperative for it,
>the combination would be unstoppable.  The success rate of our culture in this
>area is so low that we must suspect that any biological imperative, if present,
>MUST be working in the other direction.

I don't think so.  People have desires and the fact that people have
them implies that the desires are natural.  People are confusing
"natural" with "the norm" as if all characteristics have a majority
expression.  That is, it is "natural" to have brown eyes.  Does
that make it "unnatural" to have blue eyes?  No.  It is "the norm"
to have brown eyes.  In this case, it MIGHT be (I don't know so
I'm not going on record as saying it is the case) that polygamy
is "the norm."  That doesn't make anything "unnatural."

--
Brian Evans             |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com