Monogamy - when and where did this idea start?

[SSSnail]

Why and how? When it is against everything that we are from an evolutionary perspective?

 

[KeithTalent]

I always assumed it was something borne of the church.

KT

 

[Sixguns]

I like it for the fact that I dont have to worry about getting the herp.

 

[Juddog]

Why and how? When it is against everything that we are from an evolutionary perspective?

How is it against everything we are from an evolutionary perspective?

 

[corwin]

Someone wants to be a swinger and his SO doesn't...

 

[OutHouse]

I always assumed it was something borne of the church.

KT

i think everybody in the bible but Jesus had multiple wives and long hair.....

The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status),

 

[Gooberlx2]

When it is against everything that we are from an evolutionary perspective?

Maybe, maybe not.

Monogamy, especially back in days of poor sanitation, helps to prevent spreading disease.

Also, like some other primates, it's entirely possible that early humans were quite predisposed to kill the offspring of competitors. However, having children was/is a very expensive expenditure of energy and risk for women.

In any case, it's not something I'd squarely blame on religion, but instead a process of social evolution possibly influenced by biological consequences.

 

[KeithTalent]

i think everybody in the bible but Jesus had multiple wives and long hair.....

The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status),

I said the church, not the bible.

KT

 

[Jaepheth]

When transferring property from father to heir you have to be damn sure that that heir is yours and not someone else's. Therefore, you enter into a contract with a child bearer for whom you will provide material needs in exchange for exclusive access rights to their reproductive organs.

In short, it's a side effect of a materialistic and patriarchal society.

You will note than in the past (and sometimes in the present) males are generally less expected/not expected to be faithful to their wives, and as gender equality increased, so did social stigma on male infidelity.

 

[zinfamous]

Why and how? When it is against everything that we are from an evolutionary perspective?

Here's one theory that I recently read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/12/19/111219fa_fact_batuman

pretty fascinating article, actually.

The oldest known temple in the world--one built by Hunter/gatherers (which is generally considered anathema). Nearby--purported sight of the cave of Abraham, and, the myth of the garden of Eden.

Draws the story through the transfer form hunter/gatherer to agrarian societies, how monotheism and as one of many parts of monotheistic culture--monogomy--were essential to sustain agrarian cultures:
need to retain land and title, sustain seasons of famine and growth.

This transition also saw a (yet un-recovered) detriment to human health--lower nutrition, disease due to denser populations, susceptible to famine and such. Though, I suppose it allowed for more intellectual and technical advancement....except that modern day hunter gatherers only spend roughly 20 hours per week obtaining food, while our farmers work from dawn to dusk. Or, rather, their machines now do it.

 

[SSSnail]

How is it against everything we are from an evolutionary perspective?

Isn't it that we're always equipped to "spread our seeds", so to speak? That and the innate desire to mate with as many as possible, and that's on both sides.

 

[D1gger]

I fail to see how this could possibly be an issue for the vast majority of ATOT who can't get out of their parents basement long enough to attract even one SO.

 

[guyver01]

When it is against everything that we are from an evolutionary perspective?

there are many animal species, primates included, that form monogamous relationships.

this is NOT against everything we are, evolutionary

Prosimian- at least one species of tarsier.
New world monkey- titi monkey, night monkey, callitrichids.
Old world monkey- langur/mentawi island leaf monkey.
Ape- Gibbon.

 

[lothar]

There are many animal species, primates included, that form monogamous relationships.

This.

 

[bfdd]

it actually makes sense if you plan to raise young.

 

[0roo0roo]

 

[0roo0roo]

there are many animal species, primates included, that form monogamous relationships.

this is NOT against everything we are, evolutionary

Prosimian- at least one species of tarsier.
New world monkey- titi monkey, night monkey, callitrichids.
Old world monkey- langur/mentawi island leaf monkey.
Ape- Gibbon.

the more they study the more cheating they find in so called "monogamous" animals.

 

[AreaCode707]

Isn't it that we're always equipped to "spread our seeds", so to speak? That and the innate desire to mate with as many as possible, and that's on both sides.

Evolutionarily speaking...

It only makes sense for men to seek as many partners as possible, to have the maximum number of offspring. The more kids, the greater the chance of passing on your genes.

It makes more sense for women to form a bonded single relationship with the best possible male to provide stability for her offspring. The better provider, the greater the chance of her child surviving and passing on her genes. It makes no evolutionary sense for a woman to seek tons of partners because only one can actually impregnate her at a given time.

Everybody knows this.

 

[Rage187]

I'd take another wife. Hopefully the next one cooks and cleans.

 

[angminas]

Why and how? When it is against everything that we are from an evolutionary perspective?

 

[Wyndru]

Because jealousy often leads to murder.

 

[DesiPower]

Christian idea I think... In India it was under the British rule, that's when it started to end.

 

[JTsyo]

Seeing how human birth rates are about 50/50, there are going to be some lonesome guys if others have multiple wives. Guys with nothing to lose might be the best for a healthy society.

 

[rudder]

When it is against everything that we are from an evolutionary perspective?

Hell then we shouldn't wear shoes. Shoes prevent our feet from developing tough leathery souls. This thick layer of skin helps our feet from getting cut on sticks and other crap on the ground. Now we all have sissy feet.

 

[Ninjahedge]

My name is Indigo Montoya....


SthuPENdous!


Back OT... It is a combo effect. The question of when and where the monogamous tenets became the norm is a valid one, and I do not know for sure, but studies have shown that there are both monogamous and polygamous tendencies (to varying degrees) in almost all mammals.

They did a case study with a large group in Africa. The study was on Women. They would go out, find a "good man" to settle with, one that could provide, and have a child with him. They would then go out and find the studliest piece of man-meat they could and have their 2nd, or 3rd with them.

This way, they had guarantee of support for the family, but also combined her genetics with what she felt was the best out there. A bit surprising, but it makes complete sense.

Guys just went around and tried to sleep with anything they could or could get away with.

Much like 1st world "modern day" life!