If Monogamous Marriage is a Divine Invention (page 4)

gumby

If god had meant us to be mongamous, human males would have small balls.

I guess I'm destined for an eternity of faithfullness to my wife........cuz I have small balls.

Gumby

asleif_dufansdottir

I think it's important to include in this equation the fact that before marriage was invented in its primitive form (by women)

Uh, uh, uh....I'd almost be more inclined to say it was invented by men... Women are "silent ovulators"...i.e., you can't tell by looking (or smelling) who's fertile. With a cow or a dog or a cat, the male (and sometimes all humans within earshot) is certain, not only when the female is fertile, but when she is 'not quite fertile but will soon be so I should stick around for a couple of days.'

Most Physical Anthropologists will tell you that silent ovulation (I believe that's the correct term) is evolution's way of getting the male to hang around longer...because he's never really sure when his genetic material will be passed on...so he's got to stick around and make sure he has sex with her a wide variety of times, and drive off any male who comes sniffing around, just in case.

In hunter-gatherer societies, it is the women who bring in the bulk of the food (I'm thinking up to something like 80%). The men's hunting is only sporadically successful. And most of those societies are not what we'd call "nuclear families", either...they were extended family groups that were small enough not to put too much strain on the immediate environment, but large enough to hunt in groups, and for protection against stalking predators, etc.

Besides, as for women inventing marriage...it doesn't really need to be the baby's father who helps raise it...it can be grandparents, uncles and aunts, siblings, other men...Evolution really favors any group who has help raising the young.

As my Phys Anth teacher was fond of saying (and I'm fond of repeating) "Men are expendable"

funkyderek

Most Physical Anthropologists will tell you that silent ovulation (I believe that's the correct term) is evolution's way of getting the male to hang around longer...because he's never really sure when his genetic material will be passed on...so he's got to stick around and make sure he has sex with her a wide variety of times, and drive off any male who comes sniffing around, just in case.

Correct, because it benefits the woman to have the man around (She has to be there for her children to survive, he does not). That seems to strenthen the assertion that marriage/monogamy is a female invention. Of course, hidden ovulation also makes it advantageous for both parties to cheat occasionally, for men whenever possible with whoever's willing; and for women, with an attractive man while ovulating.

In hunter-gatherer societies, it is the women who bring in the bulk of the food (I'm thinking up to something like 80%). The men's hunting is only sporadically successful.

What societies, where? Are you sure about that figure? Does that refer to modern hunter-gatherers, or our ancestors?

Besides, as for women inventing marriage...it doesn't really need to be the baby's father who helps raise it...it can be grandparents, uncles and aunts, siblings, other men...Evolution really favors any group who has help raising the young

Absolutely. And kin selection ensures that the whole family helps out.

As my Phys Anth teacher was fond of saying (and I'm fond of repeating) "Men are expendable"

Probably the same teacher who gave you the questionable revisionist stats about hunter-gatherers? Men certainly seem expendable because their traditional role has largely been taken over by government. Up until the middle last century, a child without a father would find it difficult to survive, certainly to thrive. With the advent of the welfare state, it has become much easier for a woman to raise a child "by herself". Of course, most of the money to do that still comes from men, as does most of the science and technology that makes women's lives easier so we're not entirely expendable yet.

Abaddon

As far as I know the figures on food gathered by females in hunter-gatherer are right.

If you look at the instance of seperation, I believe that where it is allowed, the peak in divorce and sepeartion is between 2 and 4 years across many cultures. Before then the emotions that established the relationship are normally still strong enough to keep it together.

It would seem that natural selection favoured the development of a pair-bond that remained high for several years, at least yuntil the child was partially independant; 3-4 year-old children in hunter-gatherer cultures can gather a suprising amiount of their own calorific requirements.

Thus silent ovulation kept the male around, the set of affections we broadly refer to as love normally help us stay together at least long enough to get one walking child, and then if things weren't right the mother could move on to another male.

It wasn;t so much that men did this and women did that, but those that did this were most lilely to pass their genes on to the next generation.

berylblue

Along that line, sex can be sacred, maybe more so than marriage. By that i mean that any sex w the right emotions and attitude at the moment can be spiritual

I have certainly found this to be true. My 21 years total sex in two marriages amounted to nothing more than casual sex (and bad sex at that). With my partner, now, I honestly never knew sex could be so beautiful.

Rosemarie

Francois

Right Tammy. And there's another aspect of that dynamic as well. When the male was around all the time, then he could be pretty certain that the offspring that he was expected to support for years and years was indeed his.

No guy, right up to this very day, wants to be held responsible for paying support for another man's child. So the women who were inventing these new social rules worked in yet another aspect that would be attractive to males - easy proof of paternity.

Satanus

Beryl

Congratulations.

SS

Satanus

Francois

Thanks for that brilliant hypothesis on origins of monogamy, religions, etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all if something like that did occur in various primordial tribes, especially the successful ones.

SS

asleif_dufansdottir

Probably the same teacher who gave you the questionable revisionist stats about hunter-gatherers? Men certainly seem expendable because their traditional role has largely been taken over by government. Up until the middle last century, a child without a father would find it difficult to survive, certainly to thrive.

Your assumptions about "traditional" roles of men are based on agrarian societies (or herding people), not hunter-gatherers. Humans have only had agriculture for 10 thousand years. Paternal agrarian societies are what made it difficult for children to survive without fathers. That does not mean they were "required" in h-g societies.

With the advent of the welfare state, it has become much easier for a woman to raise a child "by herself". Of course, most of the money to do that still comes from men, as does most of the science and technology that makes women's lives easier so we're not entirely expendable yet.

All from men, huh? You are so full of crap.

As far as the stats on 80% of the food in hunter-gatherer societies being provided by the gatherers rather than hunters, look it up yourself. You do know how to do a search of academic materials, dont you??

asleif_dufansdottir

No guy, right up to this very day, wants to be held responsible for paying support for another man's child. So the women who were inventing these new social rules worked in yet another aspect that would be attractive to males - easy proof of paternity.

Actually, it was more likely the men who "invented new social rules" to improve the likelihood that the property they passed on was actually going to kids they had fathered...it's called marriage...and its high emphasis on virginity of the bride and sexual faithfulness of the wife. Ever wonder why it was 'treason' for a queen to commit adultery, but perfectly fine for a king to do so? (not just because men were in power) Because it meant that the future heir might not really, legally, be entitled to the throne (he just might be someone else's son).

Male control of female sexuality has to do with inheritance.

If Monogamous Marriage is a Divine Invention

Share this