On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 1:43:11 am Mahesh Murthy wrote: > - Fidelity is an aberration from the point of view of evolutionary biology, > where fidelity is not indicated as a means to produce the fittest > offspring. > > - If you were to consider humankind as merely another specie, then the > female's best chance of producing a child that survives is to (a) find a > mate that provides the best nest (loosely speaking: a rich, stable guy) and > (b) to do so with the best sperm (which is usually from the alpha male kind > - and those are rarely the types to be stable nest providers). > > - Virtually no species on Earth display fidelity - and most display some > variant of this live-with-nest-provider-but-get-sperm-from-alpha-male > indicated behaviour that is most preferred from an evolutionary point of > view. This behaviour is not uncommon among humankind either, with it > offering sufficient grist-for-the-mill for soap operas around the planet.
The theory sounds compelling and deserves to be considered as a close approximation of reality - but going by Hindu tradition the demand for female fidelity is older than Christianity and Islam. Certainly the acquisition/control of property (a geographical area with resources?) by a physically dominant male would seem to demand female fidelity. But when you compare with animal societies - you tend to find that all competing male sexual partners are kept well out of the way by the dominant alpha male as long as he is able to physically dominate. And during this period female fidelity (and monogamy) is enforced. And the male too is unable to leave his group and wander into some other male's territory and gather more females. Even with all this I think one in five primate species are apparently mainly monoogamous which suggests that there may be some survival advantages in monogamy. It is simplistic to pin down human behavior by comparing with any convenient animal society depending on what bias one might want to highlight. Popular science tends to justify recreational sex in humans based on observations of some animal species - which seems to be a conveinient way of saying 'Bonobos have fun sex aso it is natural for humans to do that - don't feel guilty". This is no different from preacher quoting the example of some supposedly monogamous species to follow. Speaking of animals and survival traits, it is likely that the institution of marriage was merely a formalization of a widespread human custom that aided survival of cooperative human societies (increased cooperation, decreased infighting) by demanding male fidelity as well as female fidelity. Female fidelity to one partner at a time seems to be the norm for almost any species, and male fidelity to one or a group of females is ensured by the need to fight off other competing males. So fidelity during significant sexually active phases of animal life does not seem unusual at all. Its not as if animals are randomly f*ck1ng around. shiv
