From: Mermaid (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 08:28:07 MDT
This is more of 'presenting the case' for each side as opposed to a formal debate.
AGAINST MONOGAMY
According to Robert Wright, author of Moral Animal, monogamy is the worst thing that could have ever happened to women. It laughs at the face of feminists as they fiercely promote monogamy as a fair and respectable union between male and female.
Let us consider our options:
***(to clarify, 'status'....higher status implies most desirable genes, high fertility, social status. Everyone of us strive to achieve status. Evolutionarily, we are programmed to achieve status in order to obey our genes and to ensure their perpetual existence. )***
polygynous environment: more high status women than high status men. men attract the high status women, have easier access to them than lower status men and marry several of them. the fewer number of lower status women can still procure their mates from the remaining pool of lower status men.
polyandryous environment: more high status men than high status women. women can take in more than one mate. the fewer number of lower status men will still be left for the pick for the lower status women.
Monogamy, by contrast, works against women and especially lower status women. Monogamy does indeed favour lower status men. In a polygynous marriage market, the lower status male will be left behind by the aggressive high status male elite.
Here is something to ponder. Monogamy was promoted by Christianity, the "civilised" religion of the world as it swooped down to save the rest of the heathens from their pagan, godless, immoral ways. If one really considers the facts, it would be crystal clear that monogamy is clearly an invention that came about to soothe the lower status male. Is it any wonder that monogamy flourished under Christianity? Translated: lower status males who couldnt get to contribute to the gene pool find a religion that promises them an environment that will correct the problem appealing. Embracing Christianity is self serving for lower status men as it ensures the elimination of competition from the higher status men.
The poor and the weak will be rewarded by monogamy as opposed to their slim pickings from the female population in a polygynous society. The opposite is true for the much rarer phenomena of polyandry.
Monogamy limits the gene pool and only worse than monogamy is polyandry. Polygyny seems to be the only option to obtain a diverse and thriving gene pool.
It is common wisdom which is probably backed by statistics that crime numbers lag in a society when men find it easier to find mates. In a feminism infused, monogamous society, the men are less likely to find mates and settle to start a family. Male Parental Investment nudges the male to adopt a lower risk, less destructive lifestyle. On a longer shot, one can also assume that it is the very same factor that boosts the pace of the material economy. As the family grows and the appropriate programmed urges kick in, the need to provide for the welfare of one's own genes propels the male to perform at his optimum capacity. Usually, this increases productivity and on a bigger scale, transforms into general prosperity. Arguably, this would be the main factor for a reduction in population figures as general prosperity slows down procreation rates. On the other hand, polyandry, because it is dependent on the woman's cycle to release the elusive egg, is a better strategy to deal with population explosion.
Monogamy breeds aggression as it is essential for the male and female to defend their partners from outside interests. If the children of monogamous partners outnumber the children of polygamous partners, the aggressive gene, if there is any such thing, would become more prevalent in the gene pool leading to an aggressive world. The same theory can be extended towards attitudes like jealousy, possessiveness etc.
FOR MONOGAMY:
Monogamy is uniquely a moral and ethical obligation towards one's mate in order to honour the contract of marriage. Monogamy strengthens the bonds between two individuals and given the right conditions and the right people, will push their relationship to a newer level.
Monogamous couples, bound by the lack of wiggle space, learn the importance of cooperation and tolerance very soon. This pliablity of character can be a boon when it comes to iner personal relationships. With the right couple, monogamy is a constant search and study of new boundries within a relationship.
Childrearing within a monogamous relationship assures for the female that the male parental investment is not scattered among other female mates and their offsprings. There is less conflict and lesser distribution of resources. The children enjoy the benefit of uninterrupted attention from both the parents. Monogamy has the undisputable advantage for the parent to be able to identify his/her offspring.
While it was indeed argued above that monogamous pattern of union tends to work against women by restricting higher quality sperm and favouring lower status men, it is also true that monogamy ensures survival even to the least evolutionarily fittest specimen. It serves the best interests of both the male and the female of the human species. Cheating by either partner would result in total reproductive failure for both. Monogamy encourages active competition among the species which can lead to honing and sharpening of desirable skills and abilities in order to attract a potential mate.
In today's infectious world, monogamy ensures a certain protection against vile sexually transmitted diseases by sealing and restricting sexual exploits among the two partners.
A recent avatar of monogamy is serial monogamy which is basically a monogamous relationship followed by yet another after a complete break from the first union. Here, individuals stick to the ideals and spirit of monogamy while enjoying the freedom to release themselves from the relationship when it doesnt work. The most common side effect of this is divorce.
Between serial monogamy and monogamy, the latter has many advantages over the former. To this author, serial monogamy is a form of escapism and utterly devastating to the children of that union. Single parents are not always equipped to raise children in a nourishing environment. The maternal and paternal input is essential for the well rounded growth of a child. Serial monogamy also distributes and then redistributes resources among children with different parent sets thereby neither enjoying the benefits of polygamy nor exploiting the security of monogamy. Serial monogamy also distressingly reduces the reproductive success of women. Monopolising a significant part of a woman's reproductive period, a serial monogamist moves on to acquire another female. The woman who is left behind will either remain single which would imply that her reproductive abilities are worthless or will herself move on with another mate which means that the reproductive years she has spent with her previous mate are completely lost
to her. If she already has children from the previous union, she loses the male parental investment of the father of the child. Thus, serial monogamy is more often a disastrous option than monogamy.
---- This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29328> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 08:28:29 MDT