Are Humans NATURALLY promiscuous?

Post Reply New Topic

The concensus among anthropologists seems to be that humans are 'weakly' monogomous. Promoscuity is neither natural nor not.

There is a tendency toward pair bonding but its not super hard wired.

It can be overriden.

My theory is that during the longest phase of our existence as a species (the Stone Age) I suspect that there was little need to resist promiscuity because there was little oppurtunity for it. And when free for all sex happened it didnt effect society much.

The whole planet had a thousand times fewer people than we have today- much less population density. You lived in band of 60 people (all of whom were blood kin, or inlaws) embeded a larger tribe of 500 people who ranged over thousands of square miles. It takes many square miles to support one person if you're a hunter-gatherer.

The people you were sexually attracted lived beyond the horizon, and were the same people whom you fought wars with, and seldom trusted.

Then around 10 thousand years ago they invented the plow, and agriculture took off. Population densities rose dramatically to several hundred per square mile. And then around five thousand years ago the first cities (housing tens of thousands per square mile) appeared. More and more people lived in the same political unit- were loyal to the same king- and the people beyond the horizon were no longer enemies but moved freely in your community to ply trades in a market economy. So you had the situation we have to today- the unnatural condition in which most humans are surrounded by strangers most of the time. Thus the temptation to promiscuity became an issue.

Also with agriculture came property -land, livestock, permanent houses. Along with property came inhertince as an issue. So knowing whose kids are whose became an important legal issue. So with the rise of civilization both the temptation to promiscuity, and the desruptiveness of promiscuity, became issues.

In response society had to invent repressive artificats and ideas such as clothing, and such as religously sanctioned sexual repression, and so forth.
So monogomy is 'natural'. But having to buttress it by religion and so forth was not needed until the unnatural conditions that humans have lived in for the last few thousand years existed.

I'm pretty sure Dantac has won the thread. Hasta la vista.

Neo-Conservatism resulted as a backlash to the hippie movement. Perhaps children in the hippie movement were molested as children so they backlashed by becoming Neo-cons. The open door policy of Hippie communes introduced sexually transmitted diseases which became unacceptable. Communes must be closed communities and any new member must be the equivalent of a virgin so as to maintain the quarantine just as it is maintained in a traditional marriage.

Prospective members who already have jealous wives are simply unworthy of the moral standards of the free love commune. Yet self righteous people rail accusations against us calling us sex criminals, whores, and prostitutes. Yet these same self righteous people practice war, they practice hate, they practice the hell that they create. They never feed or give drink to the poor. They let prisoners die in prison and then they wonder why we don't want to live with them.

Our society is built on love for this is our religion. sexuality is only an expression of our love for we practice love by meeting the needs of our people. Prospective members with jealous hateful wives will usually outlive their wives and can then join us. Once joining us they realize that if they had to do it all over again they would have4 never married in the first place for our institution of love is greater than traditional marriage. It is our institution that is the real marriage for it is based on the collective rather than the individual. The naysayers have either never seen our society or they hate us without a cause for we are practicing heaven on earth for we have become like the angels who neither marry nor are given in marriage. For this is what we have become and we can never go back. No amount of jealousy can stop for we have overcome our jealousy

http://www.itchybrainscentral.com/examp ... s-research

^ Ding ding ding! Reality is, there are strengths and weaknesses to each sexual strategy, and which humans tend to use is going to be closely tied to the circumstances said humans find themselves in.

Really, this thread sure is a whole lotta projecting from certain participants. Of course, said participants are doing a wonderful job of ignoring the strongest arguments being put forth in the thread.

Here is a fellow from Knoxville who has 30 children from 11 different women.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pport.html

Each of them will probably grow up to breed. His breeding strategy would be genetically successful.

Another Tennesseean, who has 22 kids with 14 women.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOh0MdcGqM[/youtube]

He does raise a good point.

He may be getting his own reality TV show.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... video.html

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk7sDMZAgQ0[/youtube]

Moreover, among hunter-gatherer folk, the men generally cooperate together for hunting (and other manly pursuits). Someone used to say "it takes a village to raise a child." Rather than each man taking care of his own children, the boys would eventually join the group of men. The girls would stay among the women, and participate in the cooking, cleaning, and other womanly pursuits around the camp.

In the USA, it is primarily the poorer and less-educated guys who follow the reproductive strategies illustrated by the two gentlemen from Tennessee (mentioned above). A man who responds more readily to financial incentives (generally, one who is better educated and who has some wealth that he would like to protect) would try to avoid their example, and endeavour to protect his wealth. For such men, a traditional monogamous marriage might be the best solution, and is the officially sanctioned solution, for propagating their genetic material. But, most such marriages end in divorce, and many of the men may end up impoverished anyway.

In Thailand and the Philippines, there is much less of a disincentive for men to sire children with multiple women. There, even wealthy men are inclined to participate in this activity.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 88,6203651

Thailand abolished polygamy in 1932, and a man may have only one legally-registered wife at a time. But, he can still have a number of minor wives.

Meanwhile, in the Philippines:

http://manilatimes.net/right-to-support ... ild/18346/