Have you read this book (nsfw)?

I myself have not, but as the farmer says to his wife, “the cock does rise early in the morning”

How would women have fared if they had had to win access to resources in equal competition with men during the early agricultural days and the evolution of cities. Was the trade-off for protection/support perhaps necessary up until the 20th century? And even more so for a woman with child.

Sex isn’t everything. It’s important. It can be beautiful. It can be ugly. It can be just plain fun. Or it can be more than just the sex itself. But is it really the issue?

It’s interesting to think about, for sure. I’m not knowledgeable enough on the subject to really have an opinion, but I’m glad you asked the question. Hope I’ll learn something new!

It is interesting to note that with modern technology and modern types of careers which reward brain over brawn the playing field is releveling and may cause [or may have already caused] some shifting of lifestyle choices considered socially acceptable.

In the 50s before significant numbers of women had made inroads in different professional areas, it was unheard of to show casual sex on television, especially not with the ‘hero’ characters. And heroine characters happily bedding someone new? fuggedaboudit.

Thanks. I feel as if I’ve read the book now.

Seems viable. I find it difficult not to completely agree. I’ll check out the book.

I also meant to add that it seemed inevitable with the invention of property. There had to be a way to separate all of our stuff with a rapidly increasing population. It only makes sense that people would separate sexual partners as well.

I think monogamy is incredibly useful, but I also think most humans should stop pretending to be completely monogamous when they know deep down they’re not.

Sounds interesting especially as I am questioning some of these issues in terms of what my life has been and where I want it to go.

Sounds like a fascinating read. I’m adding it to my list of books to look out for.

I’ve listened to about half of it as an audiobook on road trips.

To be honest, I wasn’t crazy about it. The anthropological background was interesting, but using that to make a(n implied) moral judgment about monogamy/non-monogamy is fallacious. It doesn’t matter if monogamy is “natural”; it works for a lot of people and doesn’t work for others. Maybe I just need to finish it though.

I don’t know. Our emotions about betrayal seem pretty strong and pretty unforced. Our desires to mate with people also seem pretty strong. Our attractions do not seem to be limited to one person, and our ability to only be interested in one person seems to vary quite a bit.

We use shame a lot to keep people in line. That seems pretty sick and dysfunctional to me. We’re always worrying about not hurting someone, so we hurt ourselves instead. This is said to be good. You should deny yourself pleasure or deny yourself positive feelings in order to remain monogamous and not hurt those you have implied monogamy or explicitly promised it too.

Monogamy is considered the default state. Anything else is wrong. I do not believe this is merely cultural. I think jealousy is real and powerful.

I think we are a natural bundle of contradictions on this, and I don’t care what anthropologists or evolutionary darwinists have to say about it, this is always going to be a problematic area. It would be great for me, personally, if the restrictions on monogamy were loosened a bit because I am not a very monogamous person. I’d love to not have to deal with the social stigma of being a “cheater.”

Fortunately, no one wants to admit to these things except in anonymity (and even there I find myself to be pretty lonely—although one or two people have come out to me privately), and my wife has just as much interest in keeping it secret as I do, so it’s not likely it’ll end up on the front pages. Assuming, that is, that anyone would be interested in the community, which is not a very safe assumption.

So I don’t think the science will make one whit of difference, if, indeed, there is any change in scientific wisdom here. I just don’t think it will matter. What matters is society and jealousy and feelings, and those are just as powerful as they have ever been, I think.

If you want an open relationship, I think there will be room for it if you are willing to be open about it. But I think most people will do what they have always done: spoken and acted like super proper people in public, and fooled around in secret. Between one fifth and three quarters of us fool around in secret. The numbers are all over the place because it is obviously hard to know if people are telling the truth about it. If it’s going to happen, it will happen in secret, and only appear in “tell-all” novels when the secret is being told by someone famous enough to make a lot of money off of it.

@wundayatta, you say I do not believe this is merely cultural. I think jealousy is real and powerful. Why does it have to be one or the other? The constructs of culture are very real and very powerful (if you doubt that, I dare you to walk naked down the hallway at work).

Marriage isn’t about monogamy. Both marriage and monogamy are about what sort of economy was and is necessary to be put in place so that specific people benefit. It’s part of the same problem.

@nikipedia I agree that they are cultural. I am saying I think there is more to them than culture.

Bonobo.

I haven’t read it, but it’s now on the list. Great question and reading suggestion.