Polygyny Vs Mono

[JamesG]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-003-2458-x

 

An interesting study looking y-chromosome populations

 

" As a consequence, until recently only a few men may have contributed a large fraction of the Y-chromosome pool at every generation"

 

genetic evidence suggesting we as a species were inclinded to polygyny not monogamy however as our society has become inclined to a monogamous society.

 

Of course this shows an interesting reflection within the confines of religious beliefs as it has also experienced a shift to monogamy within the past 1500 years really.

[ExCBooster]

Fascinating! I wonder how this meshes with anthropology, and studies involving polyandry (one woman has multiple men), polygynandry (multiple men and multiple women), and other kinds of polygamy, in general (surprisingly common, let alone serial monogamy). I suspect, maybe, that a lot of it has to do with the fact that women carry a child for nine months, and don't have a litter of children, usually just one, and rarely two. Meanwhile, the small pool of desirable males carry on making babies. The mothers might well have not had the same mate each time (probably didn't, judging by the current divorce rate, blended families, and such).

[JamesG]

I suspect, maybe, that a lot of it has to do with the fact that women carry a child for nine months, and don't have a litter of children, usually just one, and rarely two. Meanwhile, the small pool of desirable males carry on making babies. The mothers might well have not had the same mate each time (probably didn't, judging by the current divorce rate, blended families, and such).

I think the data would support this claim. There was another study that showed  our shift to a sedentary lifestyle correlates with monogamy indicating that infanticide is the primary advantage to have a monogamous partner to protect the offspring. This would explain several things. 1 that  the need for monogamy is to promote the welfare of the offspring  and 2 why it is for the most part temporary. The vast majority of long term relationships experience  this through infidelity on both sides. I do indeed wonder what sparked this shift somewhere in the last 1000 years this has become a big deal in western societies I reckon  we could compare the cultural impact and environmental factors  of non-monogamous cultures vs monogamous ones and trace it back through history as to the origins for monogamy in humans.

 

What would be really interesting to see if indeed this does have an evolutionary advantage in modern society. After even within the united states there is a growing sub-culture for a poly lifestyle. I reckon this could take over in the next 1000 year as you would have families with a greater support network and less infidelity issues to worry about. Although on the flip side monogamy does seem  to be  the more dominant social structure at the moment and maybe for a reason.

[ExCBooster]

I'd say the reason is the "mama's baby, papa's maybe" principle. Where there is property descent from father to son specifically, it suddenly becomes important to control the woman's sexuality, so he can be sure he's not being defrauded, and monogamy (for women) becomes the social rule. In societies where women inherited and passed down property independently, this was not the case. Arguably, strict monogamy, for men too, is an insanely recent development, and a decidedly minority one, even in the West. The double-standard, punishing women more than men socially for sleeping around, has been very much in force. A woman has more than one partner, and she's a "fallen woman," a man has more than one, and he's ether a stud, or it's "boys will be boys." And, yes, this is very much linked to religion, as a means of enforcing through ideology and belief social rules.

 

Where it doesn't work like that - property going from father to son only - very different patterns of partnering arise:

 

The Mosuo - walking marraige.

 

Heian Era Japanese Court - produce regulation one heir, and pawn him off on a wet-nurse, then everybody sleeps around as elegantly as possible.

 

Rampantly non-monogamous personal life of the wealthy in the Qing dynasty. Age of marriage for males was fairly late, compared to for women (ideally, according to the Classics, women were supposed to marry at 20, and men at 30).

 

... and that's just East Asia.

 

Edit: and, as far as how long it will take to go back to large support networks raising fewer children with higher success rates, it's already happening. DNA testing will set you free. Now, with women able to inherit property equally in this culture, and DNA testing increasingly available to prove who the father is, there's less of a reason to enforce strict monogamy (on women). As for men, as I argue above, the ideal of a man having sex only with his wife is a very recent one, and fairly restricted.

[Geezer]

When I was active on the EX-Church of Christ support board it was fun to start threads on why it was okay with God for men to have multiple wives and concubines in the OT, but that arrangement became sinful in the NT.

 

My question basically was where in the OT did God give specific permission for men to have multiple wives and concubines? And where is it found in scripture that God changed his mind and decided this practice was sinful?  

 

If marriage was created by God, I suppose that happen in the Garden of Eden, and the sanctity of marriage is consider sacred why was it okay with God for guys to have concubines in the OT but not in the NT?

 

I don’t recall that anyone even attempted to answer those questions other than to say it was just a cultural thing that God tolerated for a period of time.  Really, that's the best answer you can come up with?

 

I agree with ExCBooter, it all goes back to religion as does so many of our present day laws and culture norms.

[Lerk]

Having one wife is hard enough!

 

Actually, a coworker who grew up in Iran says that although the younger generation (meaning ours, the baby boomers) generally have only one wife, those of the prior generation more often had multiple wives. The benefit was that the women were less isolated, they always had company.

 

Seems like disease would be a big issue without defined relationships.

[ExCBooster]

Yeah, there are downsides to lots o' spouses...

 

And yes, massive sexually transmitted infection rates certainly were an issue in the past: Chicken pox is chicken pox and Smallpox is smallpox because Great Pox was syphilis (yikes) which had reached epidemic levels by the late 1700s. Benjamin Franklin, notably, was completely pimptastic.

[RenaissanceWoman]

A woman has more than one partner, and she's a "fallen woman"...

 

If it only takes "more than one" partner to be a fallen woman, I'm surprised anyone can still me down here as far as I've fallen.