44 replies to this topic

[pijoed]

Is it just me, but I can't think of any other religion that advocate monogamy, other then Christianity.

[OMGWTFBBQPONIES]

Teh internets says judaism, hinduism and part of buddhism also promote monogamy, at least in their current state. supposedly even islam is in favour of mongamous relationships, with having more than one wife being an exception because of necessity (husband died and widow can't be left alone, war time with men away/missing/dead) and marrying because yay more sex partners being condemned. plus some "lesser" religions saying that polygamy is too much of a hassle. not a theologist though so can't confirm any of it and there may be big differences between what's been written, how it's being interpreted by priests/leaders and what believers choose to do.

[smthFishy]

Is it just me, but I can't think of any other religion that advocate monogamy, other then Christianity.

You obviously never heard of mormons

[pijoed]

favoring... Is entirely different with forbid. Forbidden, meant, the act is sinful. In the middle age, any sinful act warrant punishment as it's stated in the law. Nowadays, (modern age), due to capitalism promoted by the Capitalists since they won WW2, religious practice and laws are discarded, in the name of capitalism, advocate by the Capitalists.

As for 'Favor', you do, you got something, if you do not do, you got nothing.

Those religions you mentioned, all of them live under the rule of a country, who's king produce his own version of the 'new testament' for almost an eon. It's a miracle if during those time, none of the worshippers won't get rubbed with Christianity values. Which would be impossible due to missionary activities.

Edited by pijoed, 18 September 2016 - 06:17 PM.

[OMGWTFBBQPONIES]

Random internets quote about hinduism:

Since family itself is an instrument of maya, polygamy makes it more difficult for the male person involved in it to break out of his illusions. The extent of karmic burden created out of multiple conjugal relationships is enormous due to the number of lives that become entwined with him in his role as the husband and the father of many children who are born through different wives. Whatever he does or does not would effect the lives of the women he married and those of their children. Spiritually, therefore polygamy is the least desirable option for an individual to pursue.

sounds close enough to sinning/distancing oneself from heaven imo

in christianity it's bad as a result of "man and woman are equal and in marriage they're supposed to give all their love to each other" -> having multiple love targets undermines the equality and makes at least one side not receive 100% of love they're supposed to get (or sth like that; paraphrasing some article here). and if you want to get into technicalities, polygamy is partially acceptable in that if you lived in a polygamous relationship and later wanted to get out of it (converting to christianity, once lost faith getting restored, whatever), you're still responsible for your partners/family (so you can't abandon your children/leave part of your big family without support/stuff)

(european?) medieval laws do not really matter for us unless you're interested in history/anthropology/culture and mindsets of people living in that period (btw middle ages were way more civilised than popular culture makes them look).

why are you talking about capitalism out of nowhere though? ._. not seing capitalism focus outside of usa (and apparently australia according to google), nor can I think of any connections between it and polygamy - it's still illegal pretty much everywhere outside of muslim countries (and if I'm not mistaken it's a pretty one-sided man-can-marry-multiple-women deal there and women cannot into having many spouses - so no "true" polygamy for you). and if we were to throw religious reasons aside, you're still likely to get punished for it, just that laws and punishments are different than in the past (I guess you can think of it as: countries are less homogenous religion-wise so the forbbidding is primarily secular as country laws should acocmmodate for all citizens).

 

Those religions you mentioned, all of them live under the rule of a country, who's king produce his own version of the 'new testament' for almost an eon. It's a miracle if during those time, none of the worshippers won't get rubbed with Christianity values. Which would be impossible due to missionary activities.

I can't make any sense out of what you say here...

[svines85]

Wow, this really just seems a topic pulled out of thin air to justify some religious-based hate speech/venting........much luck wished to anyone foolish enough to reply to what seems obvious to be only a thinly veiled fishing expedition

[PItiful Boar]

favoring... Is entirely different with forbid. Forbidden, meant, the act is sinful. In the middle age, any sinful act warrant punishment as it's stated in the law. Nowadays, (modern age), due to capitalism promoted by the Capitalists since they won WW2, religious practice and laws are discarded, in the name of capitalism, advocate by the Capitalists.

As for 'Favor', you do, you got something, if you do not do, you got nothing.

Those religions you mentioned, all of them live under the rule of a country, who's king produce his own version of the 'new testament' for almost an eon. It's a miracle if during those time, none of the worshippers won't get rubbed with Christianity values. Which would be impossible due to missionary activities.

The relationships between capitalism and religion is more complicated. For the longest time the Christianity under Catholism was very much against capitalism - money-lending at an interest was usury, a sin, and is forbidden by church laws. It is difficult to imagine global capitalism today could function without libor, the money-lending interest rates set by the London banks. (Well, since England is undergoing brexit, it might be necessary to imagine global capitalism without London banks after all.) Christianity under Protestanism was a very much different story. The guy who wrote the definitive book on that was Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Inspite of the power of grace apart from the works, the Protestant Germans of the south out-work their northern Catholic neighbors, and as a result hold as much as 80% of the wealth of the country. 

 

As for how capitalism leads to a monogamous family structure, consisting of a husband and a wife and their children of today, that one is pretty much a no-brainer. Please reference Frederick Engels and his The Origin of the Family , Private Property, and the State. This is more of a historical / anthropological / sociological rather than an economic explain, and I find it fairly convincing.

[pijoed]

I'm not exactly against monogamy, but it's practice lead many suffering to women. Women tend to fall for capable men. A trait easily find in a married man. Most women end up as mistress, or worst lead to life of despair due to unfruitful love. As mistress, not only you don't has any rights, your children's well beings would entirely up to you. How many women end up as prostitutes or any dishonest works because of that. Though, they're scumbags who use polygamy to leech on their wives, but at least those women can live their live, head high, without to hide their marital status.

[Natureboy]

I don't know of any statistics/surveys showing most women ending up as mistresses.  Also polygamous societies tend to have more unattached 'surplus' young males available as cannon fodder/suicide bombers/etc.

 

That said, with the relaxation of divorce laws in western countries, the practice of serial polyandry has become much more common:  (1) marry the sexy bad guy and have a couple of kids, (2) realize he's an unreliable cheating asshole and get a divorce, (3) marry somebody more reliable and sweet to help raise the kids and maybe have another one. Complicating matters a bit is that fertile human females tend to prefer the company of 'exotic' males (very different immune, HLA, markers) when most fertile, versus preferring the safely of related/HLA-similar males when pregnant, nursing or on hormonal birth control pills.

 

Long-term monogamy does seem to be less common than various moral authorities would suggest. Perhaps more frequent divorce has replaced frequent death in childbirth and large infantry battles as sources of turnover among marriage partners.

[SystematicChaos]

I'm not exactly against monogamy, but it's practice lead many suffering to women. Women tend to fall for capable men. A trait easily find in a married man. Most women end up as mistress, or worst lead to life of despair due to unfruitful love. As mistress, not only you don't has any rights, your children's well beings would entirely up to you. How many women end up as prostitutes or any dishonest works because of that. Though, they're scumbags who use polygamy to leech on their wives, but at least those women can live their live, head high, without to hide their marital status.

Hang on, let me see if I've got this straight.

 

You're arguing that most (as in over 50% of (which I'm sure you have statistics to back that up because it's quite an astonishing claim)) women fall for already-married men, and they end up as mistresses and eventually turn to a dishonest life, all because of the system of monogamy? It's not the patriarchy, the glass ceiling, the wage gap, or other forms of systemic sexism that keep women from having equal rights as men? Or socialized gender roles that tell women that their value is attached to their marital status, which is so ingrained in our culture that it would look completely ridiculous and laughable if you wrote out that post but made it about men instead of woman? Or the fact that we haven't gotten to a point in our culture where it looks just as ridiculous to say that about women as it does to say it about men?

 

I mean, if that's really what you're arguing, then sure, I guess monogamy would be a problem if that was the case.

[pijoed]

Equality. I doubt this concept ever be applied in any theology religions. The one, who thought of the concept would probably some Socialist or Atheist.

I meant, no one are born equal in this world. I myself, born and raise in country that is free from all sort of disaster, natural or man-made. When our neighboring countries, were awe-stricken by earthquakes, volcanic activities, tsunamis, racism, extremist and terrorism, all I could say is ~oh?! Another hundred of people die again today. As for local news, another bank robberies, rapes, human trafficking, drug wars, police vs gangs wars, human trafficking, hazes, bribes, forest fire, etc... It's like heaven and hell, between the country I'm living in and the neighboring countries. Since my country don't even advocate equality, this very concept sound bogus to me. Instead of so called equality, aren't injustice are a much more pressing matter to attend to? The worst of the worst is when the criminals in their defense say that the victims' circumstances are like asking them to be wronged. It's like saying, if the victims are women, it's their fault for being born a woman?

Eitherway, as an otaku, reverse-harem is a very interesting concept. Unless, you is a she-hulk that is. Women, easily feel jealous. If they has many husbands, I doubt any women could ever be in peace, except when they're sleeping.

[Natureboy]

Polygamy is a fairly predictable response to highly unequal division of resources combined with dependence on the male to raise offspring. In birds it tends to occur where resources are sufficiently concentrated that one male can defend a territory capable of supporting several nesting females. Where both partners are needed to defend a more diffuse territory, birds tend to be monogamous (at least for a single breeding season). 

 

Note that polygamy/polygyny and polyandry are technical terms for breeding systems in animal behavior/ethology. They involve multiple females breeding with one male and multiple males breeding with one female, respectively. Lots of breeding systems in nature are mixed. For example, indigo buntings appear to be monogamous from causal observation of their nesting behavior, yet typically ~20% of eggs on average are fertilized through extra-pair copulations. Application of these terms to human mating, affectional and co-residence patterns is problematic at best. Nonetheless, we do it because it's interesting to gossip about and, sometimes, fun to argue over.

 

more details

Spoiler

Where female birds are fully capable of raising nestlings without any male help, reproduction gets decoupled from nesting territories. Then the most common mating system is a "lek"--where males display/compete for females in a group. Female choice can co-evolve with particular 'extreme' markers of male fitness (very bright coloration, air sacs specialized for loud calls, elaborate mating dances, etc.). Genetic contributions of males to the next generation may end up very unequal, but it has nothing to do with pair bonding or territory quality. Females might end up mating with several males, leading to intense sperm competition and selecting for semen plugs, killer sperm or other mechanisms males can use to subvert free female choice of mates. Needless to say, some of the wilder human sexual scenes (e.g., cocaine-fueled club hook-ups) have been compared to leks. Something similar to a bird lek display can be a stage in a fairly common mating system in herbivorous, herding mammals.

 

In mammals, relative testicle mass to total body mass tends to co-vary with the number of female partners per male. Using that proxy/marker, modern human males are predicted to be not as faithful as gorillas but less promiscuous than chimpanzees.

 

Some have argued that government aid to families with dependent children tends to de-couple female reproductive success from the sustained presence of a male (co)provider--therefore promoting absent fathers and a sexual lottery among sexually active males. This assumes that human mating systems are flexible enough to respond to modest economic incentives and that those incentives override other social/moral imperatives. That's a hypothesis with, shall we say, limited empirical support. For example in societies for which there are data, marriage and divorce rates tend to vary more across generations than among different economic strata within a single generation. One could also point to the rather limited response to recent attempts by the Japanese government to manipulate fertility rates using economic incentives.

Edited by Natureboy, 27 September 2016 - 08:52 PM.

[Zurus]

Well, regardless of the religious debate which I see as subjective in this case, keep in mind that the natural state for human relationships is one female one male. Every culture in history has practised this predominantly, even in Muslim countries it's a small minority of couple that end up in that polygamous state. The reason for this is simply the natural order of things, male physiology has evolved so we are excel at going out an getting resources, whether it be wrestling bears to the ground for their meat or chopping wood for the fire. Female bodies have evolved to lead less active lifestyles, and be around the home more for the children. It's just a fact that women have less of the chemicals and hormones that make men good at building muscle, hunting, and just generally being aggressive. And I'm not disparaging women here, they historically have done just as much work around the home, taking care of children, gardening, making clothes, etc. as men have done getting the raw materials there. It all comes down to biology, and the fact that when they're pregnant and when there are newborn babies around, women have no way of defending themselves or getting food. And studies have shown time and again, that preserving this natural order of things leads to the happiest and healthiest families. So the idea of polygamous relationships (specifically talking about Anime/Manga now) can be funny, it can be hot, whatever you feel like I got no problem with them here. However out in the real world, it's a really bad idea all around. 

[Natureboy]

Over much of human pre-history, the most important social unit was a hunter-gatherer group of ~50 people (~range 25 to 150). Men often lived apart from the women and children, and inheritance (of family names for example) was typically matrilineal. Women provided most of the calories by gathering and processing plant foods. Pregnant/nursing women received supplemental nutrition from the gathering & food processing of their mothers/aunts. Men brought in nutritionally richer foods with less regularity. Solitary or closely related groups of male hunters brought in most of the small game and fish. Whereas larger groups of (mostly) males brought down occasional large game. Large game would be shared communally. Small game might be shared preferentially with close relatives/families or contributed to communal stocks for processing into preserved/smoked meats and fish. Although much of this is inferred from hunter-gather societies that persisted into the historical period, most has been checked with excavation of prehistoric sites, locations of various rubbish piles and dwellings, microscopic plant remains, stable isotope composition of human remains, sizes and wear patterns on tools, etc.

 

(Note that Homo neanderthalensis differed in having a much larger fraction of the diet provided by large game (stable isotopes, analysis of semi-fossil feces), with healed rodeo-style injuries from close-contact hunting appearing in both male and female skeletons.)

 

By analogy with late-surviving hunter-gather societies, although there were some lasting bonds of affection between men and women, commonly a child wouldn't know who their father was. Adult men might feel strong protective bonds toward their sister-sons (nephews) instead of their own sons. Just what mating patterns emerged in those social circumstances awaits more extensive (and cheaper) work on nuclear DNA extracted from pre-historic human remains.

 

Note that human female scent preferences are consistent with a biology shaped by these sort of living arrangements: liking men who smell exotic (different immune markers) when fertile versus preferring the scent of related males when pregnant or nursing,

 

Well, regardless of the religious debate which I see as subjective in this case, keep in mind that the natural state for human relationships is one female one male. Every culture in history has practised this predominantly, even in Muslim countries it's a small minority of couple that end up in that polygamous state. The reason for this is simply the natural order of things, male physiology has evolved so we are excel at going out an getting resources, whether it be wrestling bears to the ground for their meat or chopping wood for the fire. Female bodies have evolved to lead less active lifestyles, and be around the home more for the children. It's just a fact that women have less of the chemicals and hormones that make men good at building muscle, hunting, and just generally being aggressive. And I'm not disparaging women here, they historically have done just as much work around the home, taking care of children, gardening, making clothes, etc. as men have done getting the raw materials there. It all comes down to biology, and the fact that when they're pregnant and when there are newborn babies around, women have no way of defending themselves or getting food. And studies have shown time and again, that preserving this natural order of things leads to the happiest and healthiest families. So the idea of polygamous relationships (specifically talking about Anime/Manga now) can be funny, it can be hot, whatever you feel like I got no problem with them here. However out in the real world, it's a really bad idea all around. 

The practices you describe are from the historical period, with permanent housing, settled agriculture, and domesticated food animals. That's a rather short portion of the ~200,000 years Homo sapiens has been around. Even then residence and mating patterns often didn't correspond to the recent 'ideal' nuclear family. For example, in Japan/Yamato women tended to stay in their natal households with 'husbands' coming for overnight visits. Not until widespread urbanization did Japanese women adopt the practice of moving into their husband's household. Men of military age living in separate camps/dorms include numerous western examples, such as in Celtic societies, documented for ancient Ireland/Erie and some Greek city states, such as Sparta. Also in England as late as Shakespeare's time, most procreative sex was away from the home out-of-doors, rather than in the presence of other family in the small houses and large shared beds typical of most of the population.

 

Here's a hypothesis for you:  Apparent reproductive monogamy, combined with co-residence of small extended families in distinct households, was a social innovation adopted to reduce conflict over access to mates in dense urban settlements--where such conflict might be particularly dangerous and damaging to the social fabric.

Edited by Natureboy, 28 September 2016 - 08:25 PM.

[pijoed]

@Nature Boy:
Geh, using animals' example. You realize, it's only strengthened my points? What I'm trying to argue is about existence of single moms. For animals, things seem fine, coz the moms, won't be single moms once their cubs torn to pieces by males in musk. If that kind of natural order is fine for you, meaning finding infants in trashcans doesn't mean shit to you, no?

Either way, I can't disagree more of what your points against Zurus.

@Zurus: What you day is only true for the past 400years, which is the age of Colonialism and who at the top? Colonists. What is their religion? Christianity. So, what are these other religions you say exist?

If polygamy is really that bad, do you know what are the capital punishments for adultery in a Muslim country back in the middle age?
-Its being stoned 100times or to death.

As for other crimes;
-Rape/premarital sex: 100whips.
-Beheaded for murder (hanging is common practice nowadays for Eastern Countries)
-Steal, would warrant your hand to be severed. However, it seem they're some sort of measurement, kinda similar to law against drugs possession in Eastern Countries (hanging if it's more of 500g or something)

[OMGWTFBBQPONIES]

I think you're forgetting about the biggest con of polygamy, which easily overshadows any theoretical benefits you can think of. Multiple wives/husbands = multiple mothers-in-law, and as has been scientifically and statistically proven, mothers-in-law are evil/destructive/annoying/possessive/criticising and have no concept of privacy.

[Zurus]

Over much of human pre-history, the most important social unit was a hunter-gatherer group of ~50 people (~range 25 to 150). Men often lived apart from the women and children, and inheritance (of family names for example) was typically matrilineal. Women provided most of the calories by gathering and processing plant foods. Pregnant/nursing women received supplemental nutrition from the gathering & food processing of their mothers/aunts. Men brought in nutritionally richer foods with less regularity. Solitary or closely related groups of male hunters brought in most of the small game and fish. Whereas larger groups of (mostly) males brought down occasional large game. Large game would be shared communally. Small game might be shared preferentially with close relatives/families or contributed to communal stocks for processing into preserved/smoked meats and fish. Although much of this is inferred from hunter-gather societies that persisted into the historical period, most has been checked with excavation of prehistoric sites, locations of various rubbish piles and dwellings, microscopic plant remains, stable isotope composition of human remains, sizes and wear patterns on tools, etc.

 

(Note that Homo neanderthalensis differed in having a much larger fraction of the diet provided by large game (stable isotopes, analysis of semi-fossil feces), with healed rodeo-style injuries from close-contact hunting appearing in both male and female skeletons.)

 

By analogy with late-surviving hunter-gather societies, although there were some lasting bonds of affection between men and women, commonly a child wouldn't know who their father was. Adult men might feel strong protective bonds toward their sister-sons (nephews) instead of their own sons. Just what mating patterns emerged in those social circumstances awaits more extensive (and cheaper) work on nuclear DNA extracted from pre-historic human remains.

 

Note that human female scent preferences are consistent with a biology shaped by these sort of living arrangements: liking men who smell exotic (different immune markers) when fertile versus preferring the scent of related males when pregnant or nursing,

 

The practices you describe are from the historical period, with permanent housing, settled agriculture, and domesticated food animals. That's a rather short portion of the ~200,000 years Homo sapiens has been around. Even then residence and mating patterns often didn't correspond to the recent 'ideal' nuclear family. For example, in Japan/Yamato women tended to stay in their natal households with 'husbands' coming for overnight visits. Not until widespread urbanization did Japanese women adopt the practice of moving into their husband's household. Men of military age living in separate camps/dorms include numerous western examples, such as in Celtic societies, documented for ancient Ireland/Erie and some Greek city states, such as Sparta. Also in England as late as Shakespeare's time, most procreative sex was away from the home out-of-doors, rather than in the presence of other family in the small houses and large shared beds typical of most of the population.

 

Here's a hypothesis for you:  Apparent reproductive monogamy, combined with co-residence of small extended families in distinct households, was a social innovation adopted to reduce conflict over access to mates in dense urban settlements--where such conflict might be particularly dangerous and damaging to the social fabric.

 

 

Well we can entirely disregard the portion of this post regard early humans, which realistically we know very little about and of whose reproductive patterns we can only cast conjecture. To your other points, yes there are plenty of instances where the "nuclear family" structure was not in widespread practice, but keep in mind that whenever humans has the ability and the resources to do so, that was the family structure that was adopted. And these families always have, and always will produce the most successful offspring. Just look at the American black population, back in the early 20th century was when they were, by and large the most successful. This was also when they held closest to Christian values, and the vast majority of them had complete, "nuclear" families. Keep in mind at this time in many parts of the US they had to deal with actual racist laws, i.e. Jim Crow and segregation. Compare that to American black communities today, which have the highest crime, the highest rates of poverty and the lowest scores on standardised testing. And this is with tens of billions spent on welfare and food stamps, and overbearing legislation such as affirmative action in place to give them a leg up over every other race. The key, most fundamental difference between then and now was their family structure. In the modern age 90% of black children are raised by single mothers. Being raised by a single mother is the single greatest marker for living below the poverty line, being diagnosed with mental illness, and spending time incarcerated. 

 

And this is not exclusive to the past few centuries, you seem like a fairly well read individual (although you've taken a biased view of history at the moment) you can look up the various other ways societies have failed after abandoning conservative family values. 

 

And as a footnote to your point about English society a few centuries ago, yes it was awkward to fuck in front of your parents even back then. Husbands and wives were still sexually exclusive with one another. 

 

 

 

@Nature Boy:
Geh, using animals' example. You realize, it's only strengthened my points? What I'm trying to argue is about existence of single moms. For animals, things seem fine, coz the moms, won't be single moms once their cubs torn to pieces by males in musk. If that kind of natural order is fine for you, meaning finding infants in trashcans doesn't mean shit to you, no?

Either way, I can't disagree more of what your points against Zurus.

@Zurus: What you day is only true for the past 400years, which is the age of Colonialism and who at the top? Colonists. What is their religion? Christianity. So, what are these other religions you say exist?

If polygamy is really that bad, do you know what are the capital punishments for adultery in a Muslim country back in the middle age?
-Its being stoned 100times or to death.

As for other crimes;
-Rape/premarital sex: 100whips.
-Beheaded for murder (hanging is common practice nowadays for Eastern Countries)
-Steal, would warrant your hand to be severed. However, it seem they're some sort of measurement, kinda similar to law against drugs possession in Eastern Countries (hanging if it's more of 500g or something)

 

I honestly can't make head nor tail of this, humans have had this basic family structure for all of recorded history. Why are you bringing up Muslim punishments for various crimes? As I stated previously Muslims are almost always monogamous in their relationships, but rich and powerful men can take multiple wives, with the blessing of their God. Just because a man has multiple wives does not mean he would be exempt from laws about adultery. 

 

And colonialism is something else that has existed for as long as humans have been capable of it. Just ask the former British colony Ireland for an example of this. 

[2hot4you]

Woman having it hard in a poly relationship? Try being a dude with 2 nagging wifes lol

[Natureboy]

I brought up human prehistory and ethological perspectives on animal mating patterns because people have been arguing about "the natural order of things" in human societies. As a trained scientist, to me that implies (1) reference to empirical evidence rather than right-wing, left-wing or religious propaganda, and (2) reference to stretches of time sufficient to have influenced current human genetics. A hypothesis derived from physical anthropology which is confirmed by current human biology, such as female scent preferences or average male testicle sizes; or conversely an observation of anomalous current human behavior that is explained by past human living arrangements, holds more weight for me than wishful thinking motivated by ideology or cherry-picked narratives about historical human societies. Scientific explanations, or course, are limited to describing how a system works and/or how it came to be a certain way--not whether that's a good or a bad thing.

 

Ethological perspectives can be helpful in providing context. There are lots data on how animal mating patterns evolve in response to the distribution of resources for raising offspring and how access to those resources is controlled. For example, after the initial batch of genetic studies of offspring from extra-pair copulations in monogamous birds, similar (but confidential/blinded) studies were performed in humans--showing surprisingly high rates (10-20%) of children with fathers other than their mother's husband in supposed monogamous relationships. (Discovering what is, not what ought to be.) Some of the diversity of human mating patterns has well-studied analogs in birds, other mammals, fish or reptiles. Particularly with the mammal examples, it reasonable to investigate whether or not human plasticity in mating patterns occurs in circumstances that parallel evolved fixed (or plastic) mating patterns in other animals. Reproductive behavior is not binary/black-and-white in either humans or other animals. There's a lot of complexity--not all of which can be sorted out using correlations of data on current/recent human societies. Correlation is not causation. It may suggest causal relationships to be tested by other means. Hence the value of ethological data, with better understood causal explanations, in guiding what human correlations to study in more detail.

 

It also seems wrong-headed to prescribe particular policies to influence human reproductive choices, based on assumptions about human behavior, without asking whether those assumptions are consistent with our own evolutionary history and that of related species. I'm not saying that should be the only context, but it may be at least as relevant as rational-choice economic theory or utilitarian philosophy. For example, a policy intervention based on expectations of rational choice economics may fail if humans actually make those decisions using non-rational criteria, such as "emotional chemistry" shaped by our own evolutionary history.

 

The "is-ought" or naturalistic fallacy:  I don't assume that hypotheses about how a set of human behaviors came to be implies anything useful about how those behaviors should be. To provide a reductio ad absurdum: Learning that some beetles impregnate mates by stabbing a sharp penis through the female's exoskeleton says nothing of value about the morality of rape in humans. What information about the origins of behaviors can help inform is whether/what policy or social interventions are likely produce the intended effects on those behaviors. An evolutionary ethology perspective can also inform arguments about broad claims of what is "natural" to our species--that is: what our default behaviors might actually be in the absence of formal laws, regulations or scripture.

 

Some of the other commentators here seem to freely mix arguments about utility, morality and causation of various human reproductive behaviors. Those are, for the most part, separate realms of discourse with distinct standards of evidence and styles of acceptable rhetoric. This makes it rather difficult to narrow down the points of disagreement. Indeed some of that rhetorical mixing seems more aimed at enhancing disagreements and discrediting evidence that might undermine their own point of view.

[Zurus]

I brought up human prehistory and ethological perspectives on animal mating patterns because people have been arguing about "the natural order of things" in human societies. As a trained scientist, to me that implies (1) reference to empirical evidence rather than right-wing, left-wing or religious propaganda, and (2) reference to stretches of time sufficient to have influenced current human genetics. A hypothesis derived from physical anthropology which is confirmed by current human biology, such as female scent preferences or average male testicle sizes; or conversely an observation of anomalous current human behavior that is explained by past human living arrangements, holds more weight for me than wishful thinking motivated by ideology or cherry-picked narratives about historical human societies. Scientific explanations, or course, are limited to describing how a system works and/or how it came to be a certain way--not whether that's a good or a bad thing.

 

Ethological perspectives can be helpful in providing context. There are lots data on how animal mating patterns evolve in response to the distribution of resources for raising offspring and how access to those resources is controlled. For example, after the initial batch of genetic studies of offspring from extra-pair copulations in monogamous birds, similar (but confidential/blinded) studies were performed in humans--showing surprisingly high rates (10-20%) of children with fathers other than their mother's husband in supposed monogamous relationships. (Discovering what is, not what ought to be.) Some of the diversity of human mating patterns has well-studied analogs in birds, other mammals, fish or reptiles. Particularly with the mammal examples, it reasonable to investigate whether or not human plasticity in mating patterns occurs in circumstances that parallel evolved fixed (or plastic) mating patterns in other animals. Reproductive behavior is not binary/black-and-white in either humans or other animals. There's a lot of complexity--not all of which can be sorted out using correlations of data on current/recent human societies. Correlation is not causation. It may suggest causal relationships to be tested by other means. Hence the value of ethological data, with better understood causal explanations, in guiding what human correlations to study in more detail.

 

It also seems wrong-headed to prescribe particular policies to influence human reproductive choices, based on assumptions about human behavior, without asking whether those assumptions are consistent with our own evolutionary history and that of related species. I'm not saying that should be the only context, but it may be at least as relevant as rational-choice economic theory or utilitarian philosophy. For example, a policy intervention based on expectations of rational choice economics may fail if humans actually make those decisions using non-rational criteria, such as "emotional chemistry" shaped by our own evolutionary history.

 

The "is-ought" or naturalistic fallacy:  I don't assume that hypotheses about how a set of human behaviors came to be implies anything useful about how those behaviors should be. To provide a reductio ad absurdum: Learning that some beetles impregnate mates by stabbing a sharp penis through the female's exoskeleton says nothing of value about the morality of rape in humans. What information about the origins of behaviors can help inform is whether/what policy or social interventions are likely produce the intended effects on those behaviors. An evolutionary ethology perspective can also inform arguments about broad claims of what is "natural" to our species--that is: what our default behaviors might actually be in the absence of formal laws, regulations or scripture.

 

Some of the other commentators here seem to freely mix arguments about utility, morality and causation of various human reproductive behaviors. Those are, for the most part, separate realms of discourse with distinct standards of evidence and styles of acceptable rhetoric. This makes it rather difficult to narrow down the points of disagreement. Indeed some of that rhetorical mixing seems more aimed at enhancing disagreements and discrediting evidence that might undermine their own point of view.

 

I agree with you in saying that none of this is black and white. There are millions and billions of examples of humans who do not adhere to these sexually exclusive relationships that I've been describing, and I would in no way call that "unnatural". It is a fact that women who do not grow up with strong father figures will be more promiscuous, this lack in infancy and early childhood sets off biological triggers to essentially mate with as many men as possible. This makes perfect sense from a pure biological perspective, it preserves the species and carries on the woman's genetic legacy. However although completely natural, this does not tend to produce very successful offspring. Rather what I'm referring to in this discussion is what the ideal relationships would be, for humans, in nature. If that makes any sense. And there is a wealth of empirical evidence to support this being the ideal relationship. Both partners report being happier, having a better sex life, their children grow up being loved and supported and above all successful. Just because this is a universal ideal, does not mean that it has been always applied universally. Humans are an incredibly adaptable, intelligent race. We will do what it takes to survive. But just because a starving person will gladly chow down on some day-old dog meat, does not mean it's unnatural for a someone to sit down at a dinner table and enjoy some fois gras. When I refer to this monogamous relationship as being the natural order of things I am not saying it is the only pattern in which humans reproduce, but it is the best method. 

 

In addition, you're referring to yourself as a "trained scientist" helps to explain a bit of you philosophy in this area. The scientific method is essentially a reductionist one. You establish as many control variables as you can, and you observe how the other variables react to various stimulus. To describe it in a reduced manner myself. This causes innumerable issues when you attempt to apply it to something as complex as human anthropology or psychology. You simply cannot control enough variables to create a reliable experiment. The only effective way of studying human behaviour on the scale we are discussing is through statistics. It is simply impossible to apply this reductionist method to humankind as a whole. Human behaviour is too fundamentally altered by the circumstances of our birth, rearing, the parenting we received, the culture we grew up in, etc. etc. and so on to infinity. Attempting to have this discussion without accounting fully for "utility, morality, and causation" as you put it can only produce skewed results.

 

And in conclusion to your remarks on policy, I will only say that I do not believe in a body that has the ability to implement such policies, and any that attempts it causes only destruction. If the state must exist it should only be to preserve natural borders and facilitate a domestic free market, preferably with non-discriminatory tariff walls. Social policies and the forced redistribution of wealth is inherently immoral.