On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Mahesh Murthy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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. And in some primate troupes despite the alpha male's overt attempts to prevent lower status male coupling with his mates, in practice lower status males are often successful at mating with and fathering children with the alpha males putative mates. Or to put it another way, the women aren't averse to sex with non-alpha males even when nominally partnered with the alpha male. >> 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. :-) I'm surprised at seeming ignorance of basic research in this area. I'm no expert, but even I've read "Coming of Age in Samoa." >> 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. >> 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. I wonder how bonobos are supposed to fit this male dominant "serial monogamy" model. Because they certainly don't by any stretch of the imagination, and if you're going to try to play the "mongamy is natural law" card, then bonobos, as some of our closest animal relatives, trump that rather thoroughly. > My $0.02, > > Mahesh I'd say it was worth more than that. Thanks for posting. -- Charles
