I?m glad I came across this question; it is a subject that has
interested me for sometime myself. It?s biological. Males are set out
to reproduce with as many as possible to ensure their genes and
lineage goes on. Females are wired to find the best mate and to be
precise. Therefore, just like in the animal kingdom, humans have the
same biological traits. I believe that sexual fidelity was a learned
behavior in humans, which it is not something that is hardwired into
our genetic makeup, and I believe these articles show that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, http://www.thestranger.com/2001-06-21/queer5.html
?In nature, sexual fidelity is virtually nonexistent. Biologists used
to believe otherwise, but DNA testing has revealed that while some
animal species, mostly birds, are socially monogamous, virtually none
are sexually monogamous.
Sperm-makers spew forth vast numbers of very cheap, plentiful
pollywogs, and are endowed by natural selection with bodies and brains
designed to spread their sperm about. A squirt costs nearly nothing,
and there is little to lose and potentially much to gain by playing
fast and loose. Therefore, males in virtually every species are easily
excited. They prefer novelty to familiarity, opportunity to
inhibition, sex to celibacy.
By contrast, egg-makers are inclined to be careful comparison
shoppers. After all, females are born with a very small number of eggs
(compared to the sperm-slingers), and if a woman gets pregnant, she
must produce a placenta, milk, and care for the child; so it pays for
egg-makers to be picky, and to be comparatively slow to warm up. A
female who plays fast and loose with her eggs is likely to get saddled
with lower-quality offspring, and possibly with a "mate" who isn't
available for anything other than mating. For females, therefore, it
pays to choose a sexual partner carefully.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, read: http://www.dhushara.com/paradox/intro.htm About the
choices between biological choices and monogamy/sexual fidelity
?While fidelity is the 'desired condition', to maintain genetic
selection, reproductive choice and hence covert 'deceit', remains
essential, inescapable, and central to successful evolution (p 18),
with men sewing wild oats and women covertly engaging strange affairs
- all in a ground swell of public declarations of at least temporary
monogamy (p 180). The prisoners' dilemma in its varied two and many
person forms spans a variety of situations rearing their heads in the
evolutionary process, the diversity of genetic and ecosystemic life,
and in human society. Crowning this foray, we have biological
sexuality as we know it, and the paradox of sexual selection, with its
extensions into gender and its diverse and contradictory
manifestations in human society and culture. Although the genetic
process and with it the reproductive strategies of each sex in a given
species are partially independent and even in conflict, neither sex
can escape the double-bind of mortality in the immortal dance of
reproduction.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Or:
http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.22C.html
?This again reflects the facts of human biology as discussed earlier.
Men do not want their wives to be promiscuous, lest they end up
raising other men's children instead of their own. Women do not want
their husbands to be promiscuous either, since sex and love are so
tied together, and they would run the risk of being abandoned for
another woman. And for both sexes, the tie between love and sex is
important: love is the glue that binds them together, and they do not
want that love compromised: sex is as powerful a wedge as it is a
glue. As usual, this is reflected on the emotional level: when you
love someone, generally you want them for yourself, and want only them
in your turn.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It
seems that the sexual fidelity of Monogamy (1 woman, 1 man) is much
less popular then Polygamy
(Polygamy refers specifically to one man having multiple wives.
Polyandry refers to one woman having multiple husbands. Historically,
both practices have been found, but polygamy appears far more commonly
than polyandry. Truly polygamous combinations such as multiple men
officially married to multiple women (group marriage), or a man with
two wives, one of whom has also another husband, are even more rare or
nonexistent)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
?Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than
monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On
the Economics of Polygamy" [1]
(http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Evolution/polygyny3.pdf) (U. Mich.
Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper
Series 94-11) that "Although overt polygamy is rare in our own
society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the
world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas,
polygamy (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So,
this shows you that the sexual fidelity or monogamy is the minority
around the world. Now, many believe that the idea of sexual fidelity,
or monogamy came from the introduction of the Christian religion.
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm
(This web page has TONS of interesting information, please read through it.)
?The practice of faithful monogamy stipulates that a man can marry
only one wife at any one time in his life. Even though the various
forms of marriages have been practiced through the generations,
monogamy has emerged to become law in some countries today, such that
the legal registration of more than one wife become a violation. This
is termed "Should-be" or "must-be" monogamy. The first instances of
such widespread enforcement were in Western Europe and it eventually
gained woldwide acceptance in the modern world, especially in the
Western Hemisphere. How did it happen? More so, how did it become
known as the only acceptable standard to the God of the Bible when so
many of the Bible?s founding patriarchs were openly polygamous? The
answer of course would be one of greatest concern to Christians. And
it will be an interesting but a very tragic one.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This
explains another reason why monogamy/sexual fidelity ideas may have
came about in humans. We have a much longer gestation period for your
young than most mammals, and the below mentioned reasons may help you
to understand why humans seem to lean towards monogamy much more than
the animal kingdom
http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/other/evolution.html
?As Halladay (1982) points out, the lone human female, with a
nine-month pregnancy and protracted period of care for the helpless
offspring, was poorly prepared to meet the demands of obtaining food
in primitive times. Therefore, mating with (and keeping) a physically
powerful and vigorous man was an assurance for the female of food and
safety. Because of the potential question of paternity of their mate's
offspring, males have developed several innate thought and behavior
patterns designed to control the sexual relationship. Evidence of
these patterns are seen in many cultures, including some which profess
contemporary attitudes towards greater equality of the sexes.
Consistently but to varying degrees, chastity of the bride is
preferred, and female adultery punished more severely (Halladay,
1982). ?
?Evolutionary psychology has not only focused in on how natural
selection pulls us into sexual alliances, but how it leads us out. It
suggests that love and marriage are jeopardized by the seemingly
naturally conflicting sexual strategies of men and women: the male
impulse to sow their abundance of genetic seed as widely as possible,
versus the female desire to find a partner with the best genes and
resources to invest in the care of her offspring. According to Robert
Wright (1994) both gender's reproductive strategies may lead them to
cheat on their mates as well if it seems to be a reproductive
advantage to do so. Cheating males exhibit greater participation in
casual flings, engaging prostitutes, and sex with numerous nameless
partners.
Unfaithful women, in contrast, are more prone to covertly double-up on
mates when one cannot provide both the genetic qualities and the
resources desired. Interestingly, men and women are concerned about
different aspects of infidelity. Men's heart rates increase when
imagining sexual infidelity, however emotional infidelity is much more
distressing for women. Male's ancient unconscious protection of one's
marital turf means making sure your offspring are your own. Women
sense greater danger and fear when loss of resources and protection is
threatened by the shifting of the man's emotional commitment to
another female (Bus, 1994).
SpacThe concern by the primitive female that she find adequate
protection and resources for herself and her offspring appears
surprisingly similar and prevalent today, even among independent
contemporary women quite capable of fending for themselves. Gould
(1989) comments that while such practical considerations might be
unsurprising or expected among fish or even other mammals, these human
desires challenge the commonly held belief that we base mate selection
on rational or ethical principles. Gould also points out that the
female preference female taste for men with wealth and possessions and
male taste for physically beautiful mates as universal mate selection
criteria. Consistent with this correlation, among the most ill-fated
male/female pairings is a mismatch between the female attractiveness
and male earning potential. Gould cites an extensive cross-cultural
study of the mate selection process. Of 10,000 individuals from 37
different cultures and six continents, the results appear amazing
similar to those gathered from US college students. In all cultures
studied, females rated men with greater earning potential higher on
the mate choice scale. Men in all 37 cultures consistently valued
physical attractiveness in potential mates significantly more than did
their female counterparts in the study. While women preferred males
slightly older than themselves, men state that their ideal mate would
be younger than themselves. Although the possibility cannot be
dismissed, such extensive global similarities are unlikely to be the
result of learned patterns. It seems likely that such natural
preferences have evolved to give our- hunter-gatherer ancestors a
reproductive advantage. ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/sex/lolite/nature.html
Also offers some good insight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this answer requires further explanation, please request
clarification before rating it, and I'll be happy to look into this
further.
Nenna-GA
Google Answers Researcher |
Clarification of Answer by
nenna-ga
on
02 Jun 2004 13:57 PDT
*** I'm very sorry, for some reason, when I pasted my answer out of MS
Word, it formatted oddly here. I wanted to re post it to make sure it
was clear to you.***
I?m glad I came across this question; it is a subject that has
interested me for sometime myself. It?s biological. Males are set out
to reproduce with as many as possible to ensure their genes and
lineage goes on. Females are wired to find the best mate and to be
precise. Therefore, just like in the animal kingdom, humans have the
same biological traits. I believe that sexual fidelity was a learned
behavior in humans, which it is not something that is hardwired into
our genetic makeup, and I believe these articles show that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example,
http://www.thestranger.com/2001-06-21/queer5.html
?In nature, sexual fidelity is virtually nonexistent. Biologists used
to believe otherwise, but DNA testing has revealed that while some
animal species, mostly birds, are socially monogamous, virtually none
are sexually monogamous.
Sperm-makers spew forth vast numbers of very cheap, plentiful
pollywogs, and are endowed by natural selection with bodies and brains
designed to spread their sperm about. A squirt costs nearly nothing,
and there is little to lose and potentially much to gain by playing
fast and loose. Therefore, males in virtually every species are easily
excited. They prefer novelty to familiarity, opportunity to
inhibition, sex to celibacy.
By contrast, egg-makers are inclined to be careful comparison
shoppers. After all, females are born with a very small number of eggs
(compared to the sperm-slingers), and if a woman gets pregnant, she
must produce a placenta, milk, and care for the child; so it pays for
egg-makers to be picky, and to be comparatively slow to warm up. A
female who plays fast and loose with her eggs is likely to get saddled
with lower-quality offspring, and possibly with a "mate" who isn't
available for anything other than mating. For females, therefore, it
pays to choose a sexual partner carefully.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, read:
http://www.dhushara.com/paradox/intro.htm
About the choices between biological choices and monogamy/sexual fidelity
?While fidelity is the 'desired condition', to maintain genetic
selection, reproductive choice and hence covert 'deceit', remains
essential, inescapable, and central to successful evolution (p 18),
with men sewing wild oats and women covertly engaging strange affairs
- all in a ground swell of public declarations of at least temporary
monogamy (p 180). The prisoners' dilemma in its varied two and many
person forms spans a variety of situations rearing their heads in the
evolutionary process, the diversity of genetic and ecosystemic life,
and in human society. Crowning this foray, we have biological
sexuality as we know it, and the paradox of sexual selection, with its
extensions into gender and its diverse and contradictory
manifestations in human society and culture. Although the genetic
process and with it the reproductive strategies of each sex in a given
species are partially independent and even in conflict, neither sex
can escape the double-bind of mortality in the immortal dance of
reproduction.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Or:
http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.22C.html
?This again reflects the facts of human biology as discussed earlier.
Men do not want their wives to be promiscuous, lest they end up
raising other men's children instead of their own. Women do not want
their husbands to be promiscuous either, since sex and love are so
tied together, and they would run the risk of being abandoned for
another woman. And for both sexes, the tie between love and sex is
important: love is the glue that binds them together, and they do not
want that love compromised: sex is as powerful a wedge as it is a
glue. As usual, this is reflected on the emotional level: when you
love someone, generally you want them for yourself, and want only them
in your turn.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It
It seems that the sexual fidelity of Monogamy (1 woman, 1 man) is much
less popular then Polygamy
(Polygamy refers specifically to one man having multiple wives.
Polyandry refers to one woman having multiple husbands. Historically,
both practices have been found, but polygamy appears far more commonly
than polyandry. Truly polygamous combinations such as multiple men
officially married to multiple women (group marriage), or a man with
two wives, one of whom has also another husband, are even more rare or
nonexistent)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
?Polygynous societies are about four times more numerous than
monogamous ones. In 1994, Theodore C. Bergstrom noted in his paper "On
the Economics of Polygamy" [1]
(http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Evolution/polygyny3.pdf)
(U. Mich. Center for Research on Economic and Social Theory, Working Paper
Series 94-11) that "Although overt polygamy is rare in our own
society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the
world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas,
polygamy (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So,
This shows you that the sexual fidelity or monogamy is the minority
around the world. Now, many believe that the idea of sexual fidelity,
or monogamy came from the introduction of the Christian religion.
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm
(This web page has TONS of interesting information, please read through it.)
?The practice of faithful monogamy stipulates that a man can marry
only one wife at any one time in his life. Even though the various
forms of marriages have been practiced through the generations,
monogamy has emerged to become law in some countries today, such that
the legal registration of more than one wife become a violation. This
is termed "Should-be" or "must-be" monogamy. The first instances of
such widespread enforcement were in Western Europe and it eventually
gained woldwide acceptance in the modern world, especially in the
Western Hemisphere. How did it happen? More so, how did it become
known as the only acceptable standard to the God of the Bible when so
many of the Bible?s founding patriarchs were openly polygamous? The
answer of course would be one of greatest concern to Christians. And
it will be an interesting but a very tragic one.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This
This explains another reason why monogamy/sexual fidelity ideas may have
came about in humans. We have a much longer gestation period for your
young than most mammals, and the below mentioned reasons may help you
to understand why humans seem to lean towards monogamy much more than
the animal kingdom
http://www.umkc.edu/sites/hsw/other/evolution.html
?As Halladay (1982) points out, the lone human female, with a
nine-month pregnancy and protracted period of care for the helpless
offspring, was poorly prepared to meet the demands of obtaining food
in primitive times. Therefore, mating with (and keeping) a physically
powerful and vigorous man was an assurance for the female of food and
safety. Because of the potential question of paternity of their mate's
offspring, males have developed several innate thought and behavior
patterns designed to control the sexual relationship. Evidence of
these patterns are seen in many cultures, including some which profess
contemporary attitudes towards greater equality of the sexes.
Consistently but to varying degrees, chastity of the bride is
preferred, and female adultery punished more severely (Halladay,
1982)."
?Evolutionary psychology has not only focused in on how natural
selection pulls us into sexual alliances, but how it leads us out. It
suggests that love and marriage are jeopardized by the seemingly
naturally conflicting sexual strategies of men and women: the male
impulse to sow their abundance of genetic seed as widely as possible,
versus the female desire to find a partner with the best genes and
resources to invest in the care of her offspring. According to Robert
Wright (1994) both gender's reproductive strategies may lead them to
cheat on their mates as well if it seems to be a reproductive
advantage to do so. Cheating males exhibit greater participation in
casual flings, engaging prostitutes, and sex with numerous nameless
partners.
Unfaithful women, in contrast, are more prone to covertly double-up on
mates when one cannot provide both the genetic qualities and the
resources desired. Interestingly, men and women are concerned about
different aspects of infidelity. Men's heart rates increase when
imagining sexual infidelity, however emotional infidelity is much more
distressing for women. Male's ancient unconscious protection of one's
marital turf means making sure your offspring are your own. Women
sense greater danger and fear when loss of resources and protection is
threatened by the shifting of the man's emotional commitment to
another female (Bus, 1994).
The concern by the primitive female that she find adequate
protection and resources for herself and her offspring appears
surprisingly similar and prevalent today, even among independent
contemporary women quite capable of fending for themselves. Gould
(1989) comments that while such practical considerations might be
unsurprising or expected among fish or even other mammals, these human
desires challenge the commonly held belief that we base mate selection
on rational or ethical principles. Gould also points out that the
female preference female taste for men with wealth and possessions and
male taste for physically beautiful mates as universal mate selection
criteria. Consistent with this correlation, among the most ill-fated
male/female pairings is a mismatch between the female attractiveness
and male earning potential. Gould cites an extensive cross-cultural
study of the mate selection process. Of 10,000 individuals from 37
different cultures and six continents, the results appear amazing
similar to those gathered from US college students. In all cultures
studied, females rated men with greater earning potential higher on
the mate choice scale. Men in all 37 cultures consistently valued
physical attractiveness in potential mates significantly more than did
their female counterparts in the study. While women preferred males
slightly older than themselves, men state that their ideal mate would
be younger than themselves. Although the possibility cannot be
dismissed, such extensive global similarities are unlikely to be the
result of learned patterns. It seems likely that such natural
preferences have evolved to give our- hunter-gatherer ancestors a
reproductive advantage."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/sex/lolite/nature.html
Also offers some good insight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this answer requires further explanation, please request
clarification before rating it, and I'll be happy to look into this
further.
Nenna-GA
Google Answers Researcher
|
