On Thursday 12 Mar 2009 11:49:50 am Mahesh Murthy wrote: > Even today, most talk of fidelity seems to emanate from those who were > brought up in Christian / Islamic backgrounds of convent schools or > madrassas,
I love your sense of humor. > > Per most available evidence, alpha males do not demand fidelity from their > female partners - just the right to access them as and when they feel like. No they do not demand fidelity but they do not allow any other males to have sex with their females. If there is a a difference please tell me. > > > Even with all this I think one in five primate species are apparently > > mainly > > monoogamous > > Again, there is no evidence that suggest this is true. Primates are > furiously polygamous. > > I am also specifically not sure what "mainly monogamous" means. Is that > something like "marginally virginal" or "almost pregnant"? You are speaking of individuals in reponse to an observation about groups. I am referring to groups, not individuals. There are species that are primarily monogamous but observations show that members of the species are not invariably monogamous. Some members are and some are not. In some species - most appear monogamous but not 100 percent > > > which suggests that there may be some survival advantages in > > monogamy. The evidence you have provided to me does not convince me - but by all means hold on to your opinion on this matter. I will hold mine until I see convincing data to the contrary. > > Let's not confuse marriage with fidelity. > > One does not need to exist for the other to. In fact, data suggests that > they rarely, if ever co-exist. > > From an evolutionary point of view, the most indicated construct that > successful species follow is marriage without fidelity. Marriage means fidelity by definition, during the duration of that marriage. By saying "Lets not confuse marriage with fidelity" you are fudging the definition of marriage. Marriage too is an instituton that has evolved over time in human societies. It might not be perfect, but I think you are jumping the gun in dismissing it for reasons that suit your viewpoint. > we must accept that fidelity is an > aberration, You are choosing to interpret the facts you write to suit your viewpoint. That is quite alright except that you fail to view the same data in another way. Fidelity to one partner is maintained after mating in many species. While the female is pregnant or bringing up young from one male she does not randomly mate with other males, and the male himself is often around to eliminate that possibility. That is fidelity. You can call it marrage too. What happens later is comparable to divorce followed by remarriage. It is certainly not free communal sex in which males are randomly mating and impregnating any available female and females are randomly available for mating whether or not they are carrying children from other males. The facts you have yourself noted seem to indicate that animals marry, stay married for a bit, then divorce and remarry someone else. The only question is whether such a scheme or repeated marriage, divorce and remarriage is advantageous to human adult males, females and children. I am saying that it probably is not and nothing you have said seems to contradict this view. The animal model of multiple serial marriages followed by divorce is unsuitable for humans. And most animals, unlike humans, do not attempt to indulge in, allow or justify free communal sex all year round. Please don't tell me about Bonobos though. shiv
