Is Sexual Polygamy A Biological Imperative?
DaveScot In This Thread at Uncommon Descent made the following observation:
Not all brilliant men are skirt chasers of course but…
There’s a lot more to it than what the author suggested. The temptations are greater for brilliant men. A lot of women are very attracted to smart men regardless of wealth, power, or physical good looks. They don’t necessarily want to wed but they do want them for the father of their children. That drive in women would probably be the major factor. Monogamy for humans is a social convention not a biological imperative. Polygamy for men is a biological imperative. Look at the setup - men produce millions of gametes fresh every day for most of their lives. Women are born with a fixed number of gametes of limited shelf life. Clearly two different reproductive strategies set in opposition are in play there. But even given that women have a biological imperative to attract a keep a single mate she doesn’t have a biological imperative to be sexually monogamous with him.
At any rate, what I described above should work to cause allelic evolution to favor high intelligence in humans. And remember, when it comes to the science of evolution, should is the same as does.
Comment by DaveScot — July 16, 2006 @ 9:48 am
We asked for and received permission from Dave to republish the above quote, because we thought it was an interesting topic to consider. (More white roses and kisses on the cheek for that. Thank you.)
Now, if you've spent more than 30 seconds at this blog, you should be quite well aware that Corporal Kate and I are as far from prudes as one (or two) could be.
And of course we are in the very early stages of what we hope will be a permanent, loving relationship. But is there any reason to believe it will or even should be a monogomous one?
We're not just talking about "cheating" here. We've kind of batted around some "hypothetically"s and some "ideally"s.
Now before you run screaming "OH MY EYES! PERVERTS! LESBIAN WHORES!", we haven't made any plans to invite other people into our bed. And if we do, that's our decision. Our blog, Our lives, Our rules, Behold the Door. We're not interested in having anyone police our bed.
I guess the question is, "if sexual monogomy is either impossible or impractical in this day and age, why not avoid the guilt, the lies, and the damage to our relationship and just be honest about it? Why not just share our Strange?"
Can two people avoid the problems of jealousy and make such a relationship work?
As for Denyse O’Leary's....Victorian Pile of Snuffleupagus crapola comment at UD, we agree that Dave expressed our thoughts at least as well as we could have, so we're going to take a pass on comments on that after all.
Except he forgot to say "whack-job". Other than that, he's all good.
Now, Leper Colony weighed in before we could get the post together, but we're going to let his comment stand with a minor admonition to him to read the instructions in the future. No raspberries for LC.
This time.
:)
So, does everybody eventually have that itch to scratch, and if so, why not scratch it together and keep the relationship together? It's supposed to be about love not sex, right? If everybody's safe, uses condoms, consents, and has fun, what's the problem?
We tend to agree with Dave that sexual monogomy is a social convention, not a biological imperative.
We think it's a silly idea, and a it's a fairly recent one in human history, and should be buried where it lies. Trying to be monogomous is like trying to eat only peas. Good luck with that.
Not all brilliant men are skirt chasers of course but…
There’s a lot more to it than what the author suggested. The temptations are greater for brilliant men. A lot of women are very attracted to smart men regardless of wealth, power, or physical good looks. They don’t necessarily want to wed but they do want them for the father of their children. That drive in women would probably be the major factor. Monogamy for humans is a social convention not a biological imperative. Polygamy for men is a biological imperative. Look at the setup - men produce millions of gametes fresh every day for most of their lives. Women are born with a fixed number of gametes of limited shelf life. Clearly two different reproductive strategies set in opposition are in play there. But even given that women have a biological imperative to attract a keep a single mate she doesn’t have a biological imperative to be sexually monogamous with him.
At any rate, what I described above should work to cause allelic evolution to favor high intelligence in humans. And remember, when it comes to the science of evolution, should is the same as does.
Comment by DaveScot — July 16, 2006 @ 9:48 am
We asked for and received permission from Dave to republish the above quote, because we thought it was an interesting topic to consider. (More white roses and kisses on the cheek for that. Thank you.)
Now, if you've spent more than 30 seconds at this blog, you should be quite well aware that Corporal Kate and I are as far from prudes as one (or two) could be.
And of course we are in the very early stages of what we hope will be a permanent, loving relationship. But is there any reason to believe it will or even should be a monogomous one?
We're not just talking about "cheating" here. We've kind of batted around some "hypothetically"s and some "ideally"s.
Now before you run screaming "OH MY EYES! PERVERTS! LESBIAN WHORES!", we haven't made any plans to invite other people into our bed. And if we do, that's our decision. Our blog, Our lives, Our rules, Behold the Door. We're not interested in having anyone police our bed.
I guess the question is, "if sexual monogomy is either impossible or impractical in this day and age, why not avoid the guilt, the lies, and the damage to our relationship and just be honest about it? Why not just share our Strange?"
Can two people avoid the problems of jealousy and make such a relationship work?
As for Denyse O’Leary's....
Except he forgot to say "whack-job". Other than that, he's all good.
Now, Leper Colony weighed in before we could get the post together, but we're going to let his comment stand with a minor admonition to him to read the instructions in the future. No raspberries for LC.
This time.
:)
So, does everybody eventually have that itch to scratch, and if so, why not scratch it together and keep the relationship together? It's supposed to be about love not sex, right? If everybody's safe, uses condoms, consents, and has fun, what's the problem?
We tend to agree with Dave that sexual monogomy is a social convention, not a biological imperative.
We think it's a silly idea, and a it's a fairly recent one in human history, and should be buried where it lies. Trying to be monogomous is like trying to eat only peas. Good luck with that.
