> I love your sense of humor.
Inadvertant, but always glad to entertain :-) > 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. The females are *already* nesting with other males. Alpha males don't stop them from doing so or indeed from continuing to nest and have sexual relationships with their nest-providers. They merely continue to access these nesting females - (actually it's the other way around - the females access them) - at will. The females may adopt subterfuge to do this so their current nest-partners don't savvy up to it, but they still do so. > > 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 If you were to look at numbers, whether from an individual or group or any other convenient point of view as long as you subscribe to commonly-accepted mathematical and statistical notions of the word "most", the opposite is more accurate: "most appear polygamous, but not 100%". I will refer you here<http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Monogamy-Fidelity-Infidelity-Animals/dp/0805071369/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236853661&sr=1-21>among a multitude of other places if you'd like some data. > Marriage means fidelity by definition, during the duration of that > marriage. Oh, absolutely not. As we have said so earlier, this is true only in Christian and Islamic societies or in individuals trained in such Christian / Islamic concepts through school or upbringing, who are a minority on this planet. Legally this may also be true in many societies that have derived their laws from Christian / Islamic societies. Indian law, derived from British law, may define infidelity as a reason to end marriage - but Indian society by large does not, and more relevantly, has never done so in the past. > > By saying "Lets not confuse marriage with fidelity" you are fudging the > definition of marriage. I am not. I am clarifying it. You are defining marriage as only 15% of humans on earth would. For the other 85%, marriage is togetherness without the encumbrance of fidelity. > 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. The discussion was not about perfect or imperfect marriages. And I do not dismiss marriage. I distinguish and dismiss fidelity as an institution of significant value. To repeat, the most evolutionarily preferred state of being is marriage unencumbered by fidelity. If you follow the thread of logic closely, you will find that no firearm has been pole-vaulted. :-) > You are choosing to interpret the facts you write to suit your viewpoint. Only inasmuch as that I am interpreting the observation of water boiling to form a viewpoint that H2 O can remain in multiple physical states. Science is about observations and inference - and you may claim that all inferences are personal and hence all science is non-objective and judgemental. This is a specious line of reasoning. 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. Nope, it is not. Again, subject to reasonable mathematical and statistical definitions of the word "many". Though I note that you may choose to re-define English at will here. > 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. Perhaps you have not followed the line of debate. One talked of the evolutionary need for infidelity for species to procreate and create offspring with a higher chance of survival. Once a female is pregnant, the deed is done and sex during pregnancy, if any, is recreational. As is post-partum sex. Once again, it is not just the alpha male that raids the nesting females here - but the females who seek out the alpha males and all subsequent acts are co-volitional. You can call it marrage too. What happens > later is comparable to divorce followed by remarriage. Convenient. So now we define a female having sex with seven males in a week as a female getting married 7 times and divorced six times. Reminds one of the modus operandi or legal justification of prostitution in Afghanistan :-). > > > 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. No one talked of free communal sex. Perhaps this is what you really fear: wine, cheese, tomato sauce and orgies in the living room, OMG! :-) Worry not - toga parties and some clubs at the Cap d'Adge aside, this is not particularly evolutionarily indicated :-) > > > 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. Hmm, let's see. I'm saying that many millions of species and many billions of members of said species follow the model of non-fidelity and it has led to the earth being what it is today, obviously advantageous to all life on the planet. And what you are saying is that a minority of current homo sapien society, of one species, apparently follows or aims to follow fidelity, which admittedly results in more broken marriages and single parenthood and all of this is apparently a good thing for the young. I don't think I need to contradict much here - the job seems somewhat done already. :-) > > > The animal model of multiple serial marriages followed by divorce is > unsuitable for humans. And this is because unnatural fidelity must be followed? We have agreed that the social pressure for fidelity is a large cause of divorce. In short: fidelity causes divorce. And a logical mind would hence determine that it's not multiple serial marriages followed by divorce but fidelity that is unsuitable for humans. At least, as far as non-patrilineal and non-middle-class humans go, to be somewhat more exact. :-) > And most animals, unlike humans, do not attempt to > indulge in, allow or justify free communal sex all year round. You do have this bugbear about free, communal sex :-) Wonder why :-) Worry not, we all missed out on the age of Aquarius :-) My $0.02, Mahesh >
