Human Monogamy Has Deep Roots
52fighters@kbin.social to 
Science@kbin.social – 26 points – 
scientificamerican.com
Pairing up might have been the best move our ancestors ever made
52fighters@kbin.social to Science@kbin.social – 26 points – 52fighters@kbin.social to Science@kbin.social – 26 points –
Mahogany has deeper roots.
But does human mahogany have deeper roots?
Polyamory has benefits, but it also has big problems.
One is a scaling problem. Let's say you have a couple. Then add one person. Now instead of one relationship, you have three to worry about. Add yet another person, now you have 4 relationships. Add another person, now you have 9. Have each new so get a so, now you have 30.
Relationships are hard. Most people can't manage 1, so the idea of managing 3, or 9, or 30 is starting to get really difficult. You can split people off and say "hey, I'm going to just have time with girl 1 today and girl 2 tomorrow", and that can set up a sort of firewall, but there's a bit of a resource problem there where there's only 24 hours in a day and someone's going to feel left out or someone who needs more support won't get it.
The resource thing also hits in other ways. A lot of women want children eventually, and ideally children require resources -- space, time, money. In a monogamous relationship, a woman can monopolize a man's resources, whereas under polyamory she needs to share. "Sharing is caring" rhymes so it must be true, but the data shows that a child's quality time with their father is directly responsible for positive outcomes, so in that case maybe sharing isn't caring after all.
On the topic of kids, there can be a real problem if a woman gets pregnant. Whose is it? Now maybe one of the men steps up and says "it's mine" even though it isn't clear that's the case. What if he doesn't though? A shared responsibility often becomes nobody's responsibility.
Honestly, you can make it work, but it's hard mode. It's much more difficult to make polyamory work than monogamy, and many relationships that should die get drawn out by people who think just adding more people will fix things. In reality, a strong polyamorous relationship is based on relationships that would be strong monogamous relationships.
The Mosuo (a Himalayan Chinese ethnic group) and the Himba (the Namibia and Angola border region) are both very interesting in this respect.
The Mosuo do not have marriage (although their now extinct aristocracy and nearly extinct priesthood did/do). They live in their family home all their lives. Mosuo women have sexual freedom; no one cares how many partners they have or whether there's more than one relationship ongoing simultaneously, and it's not always certain who someone's father is (the matriarchs keep tabs on relationships to help ward off accidental incest). Fathers are not expected to contribute; they raise the children of their sisters and contribute financially to their birth-family household. But, despite the freedom to have many partners on the go with no adverse social consequences at all, most Mosuo tend towards serial monogamy, with some relationships lasting years, others for a lifetime. Those that move to urban China for work tend to adopt traditional marriage because the Mosuo lifestyle is not practical without a whole household to help care for the children.
The Himba, on the other hand, do have marriage and, polyamory for men who are wealthy enough to support more than one wife. But wives are free to have as many other partners as they wish and many women, married or unmarried, will have several on the go at the same time. If a woman wants to sleep with a married man, she gets permission from his wife. Women will often have children before they get married and those they have after marriage are not necessarily fathered by their husbands. It's not an issue because they're herders; children are a source of wealth (more goats can be herded) so the men do not care who the fathers of their children are.
I'm no anthropologist, and I hope I've done these groups justice with my brief descriptions. It's a fascinating topic, especially with respect to polyamory in a rich world context.
Slightly correcting the math here. 2 people is one relationship (AB). 3 people is 3 relationships (AB, AC, BC). Add another person and it's 6 relationships (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD). Add a another person (5th) and it's 10 relationships (AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE).
The formula for a relationship with X people is the Sum of all numbers between 1 and X-1,
I'm assuming everyone is bisexual because that's my personal policy in life.
That isn't taking into the next level of complications that I've seen in polycules; relationships of more than 2 persons within the group.
3 persons:
AB, AC, BC, ABC.
4 Persons:
AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD, ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD, ABCD
5 Persons:
AB, AC, AD, AE, BC, BD, BE, CD, CE, DE, ABC, ABD, ABE, ACD, ACE, ADE, BCD, BCE, CDE, ABCD. ABCE, ABDE, BCDE, ABCDE, I'm probably missing some.
Then there is the next level after that, relationships between groups within the group:
How does (AB) and (CD) interact?
What about (ABC) and (CD) vs (AB) and (CDE)?
Honestly, it seems like far too much effort/stress.
Ah, I did a back of the envelope thing to figure it out, you're right, I made some mistakes
Assuming some or all are heterosexual or that not everyone is in a sexual relationship with everyone else, you still need to manage those relationships because even being another partner of an intimate partner you need to keep things at a friendly level because strife between non-intimate relationships becomes pressure between intimate ones. It gets complicated.
The other "scaling" problem comes in the difference between, on the one hand, a small percentage of people trying to make polyamory work where various combinations exist, and on the other, a society built around normative polygamy or polyandry with associated prestige for those with multiple partners. With the latter, and I'm specifically thinking of Fundamentalist Mormon groups, there is virtually no way to avoid a demographic crisis with various forms of authoritarian awfulness as your only social "band-aids" to keep the practice lurching along.
@SJ_Zero As a poly person myself I thought I'd chime in:
This rapid geometric growth in relationships presumes that everyone is in a relationship with everyone else within the polycule, and this is not often the case. When you make a friend, it does not imply that you're now in a friendship with everyone else they are friends with. It's the same with polyamorous relationships, many polyamorous people don't care to have a relationship with, or even know their metamours.
This can work both ways, with a kitchen table/communal living sort of poly situation it can also mean more potential time, resources, and attention per child, with more adults looking out for the children's interests. The, "it takes a village," approach. Potentially more caregivers also means more socialization and oversight. In monogamous nuclear families there's opportunity for abusive situations to arise because of isolation, as only a small number of people truly know what's going on within them. I have a hard time imagining a Mommy Dearest sort of situation in a large poly household when there's a lot of adults around.
Some problems do arise though, especially when it comes to the issues of inheritance and financial support within a largely monogamous legal framework. Moralistic judges may deny custody because a parent chose a non-traditional relationship structure. Then there's the issue of inheritance and property rights, which is baked into monogamy. In fact I believe this is one of the main reasons monogamy is the default today; genetic studies suggest that monogamy might have evolved more recently, less than 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, right around the time we stopped hunter-gathering and switched to agriculture, when social stability was achieved by knowing who gets the farm.
Very true! Love may be infinite but time is not. Scheduling is important and so is making sure everyone feels loved and included, and there's sometimes negotiations to make sure everyone's needs are met.
This is also an issue when dating in a monogamous framework. If it matters, there's paternity testing.
I would say it's different, easier in some ways, harder in others. One way it's easier: there isn't so much pressure to be everything to your partner, to meet all their needs or risk being left for someone who does. Instead, you can have partners that fulfill different needs without abandoning the last one. It's like having multiple different friends you do different activities with.
I'd say what makes it more challenging are the additional complications of more personal dynamics to work through; polyamory requires a lot of communication. You can't rest on your laurels or ignore issues, you always have to be maintaining both your relationships and yourself.
Humans are not monogamous. A monogamous species would not feel sexual attraction and desire for people who are not their mate or a potential mate. The mere fact that we want to fuck everyone is proof, and insisting that humans monogamous despite the available data showing someone has other partners in a huge portion of all long term relationships is a form of psychological denial.
Human "monogamy" is a common social convention, not a biological feature of humanity. DUH.
God forbid you should read the paper and discuss the evidence rather than spouting your psycho-babble bullshit.
It's not a paper, it's a fluffy article in a pop magazine.
I read a lot of it and it wasn't very interesting. However, the very fucking first thing it tells us is that there are many people on Earth right now WHO DO NOT PRACTICE MONOGAMY. Did YOU read that part?
Y'know why it says that? Because humans are not monogamous! Not in the sense that we mean when talking about other animals. We can choose to have monogamous relationships (though many of them fail even when they want to for reasons those people largely do not even understand) but that doesn't make us a monogamous species.
I don't know why you are pissed off at me, but I hope you are having fun doing it.
Probably because you came into a science forum, made some asinine claim with zero supporting evidence, and now that you've been challenged, you're acting like a victim. Without evidence there is no argument, no discussion, no anything. Evidence is the only truth that we have. If you do not have evidence, your claim is inherently bullshit. It's not even worth discussing until you have some factual basis upon which to build that discussion.
"Some humans aren't monogamous, therefore humans are not monogamous." isn't good enough. That doesn't even make sense, I can't believe you fuckin' said that.
You made the claim, you carry the burden of proof. Instead of acting like a fucking child, you could have been looking for papers that support your argument. I just glanced at Google Scholar for all of 3 minutes and scrolled through no less than 5 pages of papers on the topic of human monogamy. What's your excuse? Go find some proof, or shut the fuck up.
That's called cheating. Is that your excuse when you get caught? 'I can't help it, it's just my nature!'
Funny coming from someone who felt compelled to write this dumbshit comment on an anonymous forum justifying their shitty behavior.
I really like pizza. I want to eat more pizza than is healthy. That is my nature. Fortunately I happen to be a human; humans possess higher cognitive abilities than animals, so they can employ logic rather than defaulting to natural instinct. Animalistic urges are not justification for being a piece of shit human being.
I think though, that OP here is arguing that monogamy is more a product of society and not biological drive. He uses the example that many humans cheat (and as disgusting as that sounds to YOU, it's ALSO a social construct because there are other cultures which are not monogamous). So it doesn't matter what your personal opinion of the matter is, nobody here is arguing that breaking the social code you've agreed to is morally good.
That's a cool straw man, but I didn't make the argument that you're arguing against. My comment doesn't make any claims or state any "facts" about human nature beyond the self-evident. I don't make claims without supporting evidence, that's kinda the point.
You are clearly upset about this and taking it all very personally. I'm sorry I upset you, wasn't my intention at all. I'll just say that there are common forms of nonmonogamous relationships where everyone is consenting. You probably even know people practicing them and (apparently) don't know it.
I'll also mention that you are projecting a lot of shit on top of me, and that that is very rude. None of the things you are so certain you know about me and apparently hate me for are things you actually know happened, but you're real mad at me for them anyway. Please get a grip on yourself before you actually hurt someone.
Well two heads are better than one.
What does that have to do with anything?
God I love that show. Can't wait for the movie.
But is it still when many have 0 kids or only two between 30 and 45. Now we regularly live to 80 is one partner in our 20s then our middle age then into old age still valid.
...what?