Why shiver my timbers - IT is Natural!

[cocpl2007]

Ok, so the Psych's have proven it:

Psychology Today: Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature


Humans are naturally polygamous
The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.

Those darn Christians & Jews anyway!

[ShagUsThx]

Originally Posted by cocpl2007

because men are taller than women.

Except for lucky me... the wife is 6' and Im 5'9". I just love it when she wears some heels, so sexy! And the legs

[JustMrJ]

Nice find... I'll have to show this to the Mrs... good read.

[PB&J]

I don't take this as a ringing endorsement of the lifestyle... realize that polygyny had sexual benefits for the man only. A woman in a polygynous marriage would be just as restricted to sex with her one husband as any monogamous wife. As always, no man wanted the risk of HIS wife having another man's child.
In other words, what this article is saying is that it is natural for a relatively small number of powerful and rich men to have exclusive sexual access to a majority of the women.

[2inSanDiego4u]

Thanks for sharing! Great article! All of the 10 points they mention were a very interesting read.

[Chicup]

Leave western civ out of it, we were doing just fine until the Victorian age.

Several popes had known illegitimate children, and prior to the Catholic church taking over it was even more open.

[hornykat74]

If you look at the ancient societies of Rome and Greece, they didn't exactly live by todays western societies standard of one man/one woman relationships. Lovers of both sexes were often taken as the norm, and it was totally acceptable, and 'swinging' as we term it today was common.

I do actually remember reading something similar that also backs up what I've just said, so I'll see if I can go and find where it was and post the link!

Thanks for sharing, I found some of the other things they spoke about very interesting too

Cheers, Mrs K&T

[sweet_tna]

Interesting article . . . thanks for sharing.

Now if only we knew what having a son AND a daughter means, since we're by no means rich or beautiful . . .

=)

[Chris&Amelia]

Very interesting. But I can't say I'm all that surprised.

Since we don't have any kids, I wonder that that means...

[GoNatural]

Forms of Polygamy, be it polyandry or polygyny have been around as long as written language has, at the least. It is natural if you judge it by how long it has been a part of human culture, and by how many cultures include forms of polygamy (which is about 80% of cultures).

Now, I must say that according to one of the leading anthropologist, Helen Fisher, polygamy is actually a "plan B" in the mating game, so to speak. It most likely arose in cultures as economic systems have arose and land ownership. In countries that have great disparities between the rich and the poor, or the haves and have nots, polygamy is more prevelent or accepted. It is all about the resources or availability of finding a healthy mate in a given environment.

What is most natural is for humans to form a pair bond, and pick a fovorite mate in which to nest with, or spend more/most of their life energies with. So social monogamy is natural, while sexual monogamy is not. Sexual monogamy is a construct of culture.

I believe that an open relationship arrangement would "feel" the most natural to the highest percentage of people. They would still form a pair bond with one mate, yet have secondary lovers on the side. Certainly, this would be a form of polyamory if emotional and romantic bonds were formed with the secondary lover/lovers.

I recommend the books written by Helen fisher, as well as a book titled The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People.

[mixtupcpl]

It is also worth noting that in many instances where the origin of polygamy has been traced to its roots in a culture, it leads directly back to a period where much of the male population had been wiped out by war and allowing one man to marry multiple women (so he could father children with them without breaking the bond of marriage) was designed to help repopulate.

Its easy to take a particular view of all of these facts that suits one agenda or another, but the reality is far more nuanced and complex.

I very much agree with the above post on what would likely be ideal for most if they could get past the inherent emotional barriers and if they had truly found their "pair bond" mate. Call it nature or nurture, but most are just not wired that way today. They either bottle up their desires to fuck around or act on them and end up divorced. Some, of course, may actually not have any real desire to stray also - that IS possible.

I do think that true poly arrangements are an anomaly though. The polygamy that is so widespread today tends (almost without exception) be the product of misogynistic cultures and that makes it dubious as a proof point given a male dominated society.

When people talk "poly" here, they are talking 3 or 4 (more?) people forming some kind of mesh of love 60's style. Thats cool for those involved. I think those people would be safer and more welcome at a swinger gathering, though, than they would at a mosque.

[cocpl2007]

misogynistic

Wow, that one was way, way over our heads... here is the definition for others reading these posts:

a man who hates women

We found it interesting that in poly, that "men" are the losers. Curious. It points toward that being the "men" within that community who do not have the ability to mate with women, because all the women are already taken.

[Chicup]

That was really a great article.

As an evolutionary biologist its rare to see something in print like that, that gets it right.

I'll add that #4 is very interesting.

[mixtupcpl]

I know this will offend MANY, but I do believe that many of the off sited famously poly "communities", have nothing to do with the kind of poly discussed on this site and are rooted in a kind of misogyny.

I dont want to pick on Islam as an example, but its a well known one. Fundamentalist Islam is certainly the most wide spread "mainstream" polygamy and, at its core, it is horribly misogynistic. Hence, I dont feel it "counts". It isnt about accepting the idea of "group love", but rather it is about the idea of a man having absolute societal control.

And as for the men "losing out", that's not really the case since, again, these behaviors date back to a time when there were hardly any men left. Is it the case today? Sort of. But then again, in the modern world, most men can't really afford multiple wives so it probably puts a damper on it. So now you have a kind of caste system coming into play as well.

Travel the Middle East (I have extensively). Any fundamentalist Islamist can have multiple wives, but the ones who most famously do are the extended family of the (fabulously wealthy) royal families. The average schmuck can barely pay for one wife. Now of course if they just accepted that women are human and let them get educated and participate fully in society... But thats another issue. Dont get me started.

And yes, I realize that Christianity and even Judaism have been misogynistic at times as well (and sometimes even today), but those religions arent currently poly practicing which is the main topic really.

I dont know of any human society where the kind of "free love" poly arrangements discussed here evolved as the actual norm. I personally just dont think they'd ever be functional on a large scale. As a subclass? Sure.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by cocpl2007

We found it interesting that in poly, that "men" are the losers. Curious. It points toward that being the "men" within that community who do not have the ability to mate with women, because all the women are already taken.

This is very true. The sex ratio is 50-50 and almost all long term poly relationships are 1 man with multiple women. In a polygamous society the numbers just don't add up for less desireable men.

Interestingly monogamy does seem to coincide with more political power and wealth to the masses. Even in old Christian Europe, peasant women were 'employed' by the lords of the land while many men went childless. While the 'extra' children were never officially noted, they were all known and accepted as such.