Why Monogamy Is Ridiculous

Sex ratio in China (source):
- at birth: 1.133 male(s)/female
- under 15 years: 1.17 male(s)/female
- 15-64 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
- 65 years and over: 0.93 male(s)/female
- total population: 1.06 male(s)/female (2011 est.)

Unless China is headed for some sort of a cataclysm there's no way the rate will change to something like 9 in four decades.


The most unbalanced ratio seems to be in Qatar:
- at birth: 1.056 male(s)/female
- under 15 years: 1.06 male(s)/female
- 15-64 years: 2.44 male(s)/female
- 65 years and over: 1.36 male(s)/female
- total population: 1.99 male(s)/female (2011 est.)

Kuwait is not far behind, either. By looking only at the sex ratios it seems to me that is good to be a man in the Arabic speaking countries and a woman in the Russian speaking ones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Often love is about sacrifice. When you get good at sacrifice you begin to enjoy it's benefits more than the object from which you're abstaining.
Nothing about it (monogamy) is natural but instead spiritual and thus a greater more rewarding endeavor.

I think even the most dedicated partners go through cycles of increased weakness with the other sex. The end result can often be based on the level of honesty that you commend from your partner. That is, can you cope with the thought of your lover stepping out on you in secret?
If so, perhaps it's not a relationship built to endure eternity...Real men/women should make the distinction and confront it with their partner BEFORE falling to temptation. Continued periods of deception signifies traits of a person that lacks compassion and reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Nietzschefan


To quote the late great Paul Newman:
“ Why go out for hamburger when you can have steak at home.
”

Yes, but sometimes you don't want steak.
You want a hamburger and fries.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed that there is indeed evolutionary pressure for men to learn to control their impulses, which (I think) is one reason most are successful. Indeed, that same evolutionary force plays into women's responses as well. Ever hear the expression "he made me go weak in the knees?" There's an evolutionary reason for it.

However, the very fact that women have the capability to defend themselves against rape is indicative that it is a necessary ability, brought about by persistent threat.

Sure, with a few caveats:

1) men in general don't feel the impulse to have sex with any women. Men have evolutionary programming (later overlaid with a fair amount of societal conditioning) that draws them to certain women; generally the programming directs them towards women who pose the best odds of being able to raise children (i.e. female secondary sexual characteristics.)

2) procreation isn't really equivalent to sex; knowing intellectually that someone is infertile (or that they themselves are infertile) doesn't do much to that drive.

Agreed for the most part.

That's a tall order for monogamy to fill! I know a great many married people who are quite unhappy.

Well, something like 10% of the population IS denied the chance to have children whether through medical issues, homosexuality or circumstance (i.e. becoming a celibate priest, being in jail.) But enough other people have 3 or more kids that it makes up for it. Seems to work OK.

But overall I agree that monogamy (or at the very least small family units) do bring a measure of stability to society.

It's odd how many people seem to be angry by this. I am in no way defending rape or indeed any violent behavior; this is a science board, and discussing the drives behind socially unacceptable behavior is pretty common here.

 

I can't remember where I read that bit of info. But I know that it was in response to the Chinese allowing only one child per couple and the fact it was being reported that many Chinese were killing any new born that were female because they wanted their one child to be male.

I personally found that hard to believe, but what did I know back then (about 20 years). I do remember watching a program that showed a lopsided culture where one woman had 4 husbands. I remember thinking that would be a tough place to live.

 

Well we are talking about 100 million men with no chance for a wife. Makes a great army.

 

That's a good point. But what will it do to all the women in the nation being in such high demand? It's hard to think they won't become very narcissistic and the percentage of whores will go up because the money will be just to good.

 

Interesting comment.

Many men presently regard a women who selects a mate based on his ability to provide for a family to be a 'gold-digger'.

Seems to only make economic sense to me, which was not the path I chose.

I selected my partners for other qualities because I am quite capable of providing for myself and the creatures in my care, not because I am wealthy but because I am willing to work and haven't run out of ways to put food on the table yet.

My present mission: To aid in the secure food supply for the Yukon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Simple supply and demand at work here. I guess if you grow up in that kind of world you can adapt to it. But I'm to old to start sharing my woman with other men for any reason. (I'd better hope she likes me a lot). Shit does that mean I'll get the short end of every argument? (What a pressure filled stressful life). Knowing other men are lining up to take your woman away from you.

 

It is not that bad Killjoy . You take out Men that will never have a woman as a partner and your chances are way above average . Yeah , The sexual divide I call it . You brake the sexual divide and all of a sudden women want you. Emotional commitment is required . Lots of women waiting for a guy that can be there friend and lover . I would bet the majority. Guys for the most part still beat and kick there woman when there down so . Got the picture . The competition is week minded. Now there is a movement by a guy named Bill Greathouse ( Go figure it is one of those Greathouses
"s for honor or dishonor is the question ) Forced Loneliness. Looks kind of like bogus science , but cult following emerges anyway . Guys that hate girls is what it looks like to Me . Good for us that love girls

 

This is your unsupported hypothesis ^.

We will recall (this being a science board and all) that it takes but one exception to destroy a hypothesis.

There is a small desert rodent called the Desert Vole. Desert voles mate for life, they have sex for fun pretty much all of the time, as well as for making baby voles when the female goes in heat. If a partner dies, the surviving rodent will live alone, not taking up with another mate.

This is but one of many animals that mate for life with one partner exclusively. I doubt that they are spiritual.

Further, I am not spiritual but have been faithfully married to the same woman for more than 20 years now. I see no need to insult those of us in this capacity with silly comments.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The points that remain unaddressed here underscore their importance. The rest is mostly smoke and personal opinion.

 

Polyandrous societies are rare, and they are very land-poor agrarian societies, I was told in my sociology class.
So one man alone can't support a wife.
Therefore he and his brothers get a wife together.

I found this nifty link about a Nepalese society that practices polyandry. Gorgeous slideshow.

http://www.terraproject.net/en/photographers/michele-borzoni/polyandry

Apparently, though, the tribes' way of life is breaking up due to roads and airports.

 

I'm sorry but I find that gross. I think I have sloppy second phobia or something.

 

Quite true. I've made the same mistake as the OP video to omit that every rule has an exceptions. Either way my comments provide at least as much truth as his miserable assertion that men don't want monogamy.

Anyway, we can agree, perhaps that monogamy does at times require you to make a choice to be monogamous.
Example:while it's entirely "natural" for young man to be physically attracted women in general, it is a larger picture (beyond sex) that encourages him to be faithful with a special someone that he enjoys on non-physical levels also.
He has made a decision to resist the natural attraction and physical functions that reside in most people. Again, one example among a million.


Scientist may call it self preservation, risk management, co-dependence or many other things, I wouldn't know.
When speaking about love, relationships and a commitment to something non-physical, a greater good perhaps beyond this world I'm ok with the term spiritual.

Now, if a couple is monogamous for sexual/physical reasons alone, that would certainly be something I haven't considered.


BTW, the world would be damn ugly without smoke and personal opinion...IMO, of course.

 

The world is a very harsh, impersonal place. More than lots of sex, you need someone who has your back in all things.

This is what I prize in my wife. She's brilliant, subversive, angry, and just slightly paranoid.

And an excellent shot. Absolutely dead-on.

http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Knurd

I think of myself as temperamentally somewhat knurd.

 

Thank you for increasing my vocabulary. Knurd is a good word to remember.

 

Not capability so much as the ability to refrain from doing something pleasurable. I read in a study that female flies which resist males more vigorously tend to have fitter children. Its quite simple- when a female uses more energy than average to defend herself from fertilization, the male has to be stronger than average to fertilizer her. Hence stronger offspring.

Thats why its called a primal instinct. The loins supersede the brain when it comes to these judgments. On an intellectual level you know you aren't procreating when protection is used, but to your body its the same thing.

The degree to which they are denied is lesser than in a polyandrous society, ie a priest and a homosexual would be able to sire children if they had the drive. Imagine that economical disparity turned into genetic disparity as well. That the richest 2% fathered 20% of the children, because they could afford to provide for them .. it almost seems ridiculous from a modern perspective!

Huh. What happens to the rest of the women I wonder. Do they remain unmarried or move away?

 

To understand and avoid manipulation, you need only to understand and know yourself. To avoid being misconstrued, be precise, straightforward, and relevant.

Verbose: My interest in this medium is several, both for professional and personal reasons. I work both graveyard shift and an office job, and my awake/sleep cycles are always moving, making the participation at most social events a physical impossibility.

Concise: I am lonely.

Verbose: Hellenologophobia had a difficult time understanding females, and wished that they were more straightforward, but always found himself gravitating towards more complicated and mysterious women.

Concise: Hellenologophobia knew that Scheherazade could win his heart with a single story.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hmm...uh-oh, I was afraid of that...
http://www.mikeldunham.blogs.com/mikeldunham/2008/12/update-on-girl-trafficking-in-nepal.html

 

I fully agree with you on this point - in fact, I get paid well to provide such things to those who desire them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Science, however, is science, and that is what we are supposedly here for, thus my nit-picking the finer details.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!