Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4081 alt.romance:5659 soc.men:24088 soc.women:30265 soc.singles:74535
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!news
From: jpalmer@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (John D. Palmer)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Dec4.055239.14558@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 4 Dec 90 05:52:39 GMT
References: <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu> <593@saxony.pa.reuter.COM> <1990Dec3.183326.979@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC)
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu


     Hmmmm.  I don't think I agree with the turn this discussion has
taken.  I recall spending some time visiting in a sexual dependency
clinic and the people there sure weren't happy. . . it made me wonder
about sexuality and whether or not monogamy made one healthier.
     Well, I didn't get an answer, but it does seem that IF humans are
'naturally' monogamous, it would seem that these people had paid the 
price for going against their nature. . . but, well, all of them had other
problems.
     The point is, something being 'natural' does not mean that it ALWAYS
happens. . . I am 'naturally' right handed, yet I can change to being left
handed with a great deal of work and trouble.  (I admit, though, that I 
have never remained left handed for long so I don't know if it gets easy)
Why could it not hold the same for other possibly inborn behaviors? 
    (ie I don't think that humans are not naturally monogamous because 
they aren't monogamous. . . I think that one would have to find a large
incidence of happy polygamy to prove that they aren't)
                 Crazyman


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com