Support NeoGAF

[7DollarHagane]

What does real even mean in this context?

I guess it's not real in the same way farting or blinking are real human bodily functions.

But then our ancestors probably did a lot more rape and murder than we do now so that's probably more real than monogamy.

 

[Triteon]

It's very interesting, anthropologically, to study ancient and prehistoric societies and see just how prevalent "marriage or marriage-analogs" actually are worldwide. Its very existence and universality reflects our penchant for "serial monogamy," however much some might want to dismiss it as a religious thing.

But there are lots of current hunter gatherers right now who dont have monogamy and it definately wasnt universal. Also the definition of monogamy would need to be bend to the point of breaking just considering the many cultures past and present that we have written record of in which many wives one husband was normal.

Also is it serial monogamy if today someone is with x but tomorrow they are with y then the next back with x.

Anyway i think this stuff is super interesting and it might be fun to talk about but i think im bowing out now because this particular thread is a bit all over the place.

 

[NervousXtian]

Well, monogamy isn't exactly ended if someone cheats. In a literal sense, not moral. Cheating doesn't make some polyamory, or what someone would call an open-relationship where someone has multiple partners going on at the same time.

Someone cheating could be polyamory as one could still sleep with their partner and have a side partner, but then it's not really truly polyamory as typically one or more wouldn't know about the other relationship. Polyamory involves everyone being in the know and OK with that.

We aren't naturally polyamory as a species. One can be lustful and be monogamous, and someone could give into urges and still then carry on being monogamous. Human emotions are incredibly complex, and shit happens.

..but to act like people having the urge to cheat makes human monogamy to be a social construct is just wrong.

 

[RedSwirl]

It means random bullshit can be made up on the spot and explained away with combinations of the words alpha, cuck, rational, evolutionary psychology, and something about carousels.

I don't remember most of the study. It was in an article somewhere. I just remembered that they saw that some primates were naturally polygamous and some were naturally monogamous and that one correlating factor was ball size.

 

[Anjelus_]

But there are lots of current hunter gatherers right now who dont have monogamy and it definately wasnt universal. Also the definition of monogamy would need to be bend to the point of breaking just considering the many cultures past and present that we have written record of in which many wives one husband was normal.

Also is it serial monogamy if today someone is with x but tomorrow they are with y?

I really meant "universal" more in the sense that "monogamous relationships for raising children" has existed everywhere there have been humans, well before those civilizations came into contact with each other. Which means they all either developed it independently, or it's even older than the first human migrations... more likely it just developed independently, it's not really rocket science for earlier peoples to organize themselves that way, when you think about it.

I know there's obviously exceptions, but the history & origin of that 'habit' of the overall trend is particularly interesting to me.

 

[Can Crusher]

Love the whole what's natural and what's not talk. Just look around, nothing is natural. Everything is natural.

 

[Cocaloch]

I don't get what about social constructs makes them not "real".

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I don't get what about social constructs makes them not "real".

It's probably a 'common-sense' holdover from early-modern philosophy or the rationalist-empiricist argument where people thought that everything might be neatly divided between subject and object for some reason.

 

[Sunster]

I don't get what about social constructs makes them not "real".

especially since there are many social constructs that we all follow and do not question at all.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's probably a 'common-sense' holdover from early-modern philosophy or the rationalist-empiricist argument where people thought that everything might be neatly divided between subject and object for some reason.

I think your partially right about the early-modern philosophy idea with ghosts of Rousseau and Locke, ironically probably not Hobbes, championing the state of nature. Though I'd also lean towards positivism as part of the issue. People seem to think that since we can't as easily subjugate sociological, psychological, and historical, but again ironically not economic, phenomenon to empirical investigation that they are somehow not or at least less real.

 

[mokeyjoe]

Both.

Individual differences etc.

 

[FinalStageBoss]

Sure as hell feels real to me.

 

[Arkage]

Social constructs have evolutionary benefits, or at least genetic propagation benefits. Not sure why people think non-human animals are essentially robots with no social structures.

I recall one theory saying that female monogamy likely had evolutionary benefits, in that the father would be much more likely to provide for/protect the offspring if he knew they were genetically related to him. So to ensure that genetic relation, monogamy turned into a concept. Not sure if there's any evolutionary reason for male monogamy, but I doubt it considering the patriarchal structure of our species.

 

[Anjelus_]

Responding to some of the recent posts that I've agreed with: Again guys, it's this insane but common philosophy, that things like "language" and "math" is unnatural but things like eating are natural. Ultimately if it requires thinking (reason), we call it "unnatural." So it's unnatural for us to make cities and such (which makes me wonder how, if that were so, we're the only animals living in blatant defiance of our own natures––I don't think that we do defy it nearly so much as we 'think').

I think it's entirely wrong to suppose, that reason is unnatural, or that our "social constructs," which are our rational constructs, don't have objective referents existent in nature––they clearly do, and human reason itself is existent in nature and functions within the context of nature. Even living in brick houses and shittalking on NeoGaf strikes me as being equally "natural" for human animals as flying is for birds. How could it possibly be otherwise when we're here doing it?

I'm going off-topic but this (simplistic) duality is extremely prevalent and has always rankled my feathers (no pun intended). To answer the actual thread question, I'd say monogamy is both natural ("real") and rational ("social construct"), and I don't think we'd even conceive the concept of monogamy if it had no objective referent. Step 1, me thinks, would be taking a hammer and breaking the presupposition that creates the question ("Is it real or is it 'just' a concept?") in the first place.

These dualities between subject and object, as someone just said (which was well said!), are holdovers of some bad Enlightenment philosophy and, I pray, will one day be put to death. Schopenhauer already ranted against this in 1830s but no one has listened!

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I think your partially right about the early-modern philosophy idea with ghosts of Rousseau and Locke, ironically probably not Hobbes, championing the state of nature. Though I'd also lean towards positivism as part of the issue. People seem to think that since we can't as easily subjugate sociological, psychological, and historical, but again ironically not economic, phenomenon to empirical investigation that they are somehow not or at least less real.

Yeah, it seems like positivism is almost always implicit.

 

[cryptosporidium]

monogamy probably helps stop the spread of STDs. Especially in more religious communities who marry young etc

 

[Anjelus_]

Yeah, it seems like positivism is almost always implicit.

Which is weird when you think about it, because since the 60s, even positivists have said positivism is terrible

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

I don't get what about social constructs makes them not "real".

It's an easy copout for people who can't fulfill them. "Well it's not 'real' anyway so WHATEVER I'M DOING PERFECTLY FINE"

 

[MisterShine]

... Not sure if there's any evolutionary reason for male monogamy, but I doubt it considering the patriarchal structure of our species.

Investing more resources in a smaller number of offspring to better ensure their success over having a large number of children but having to divide your efforts more is a not-rare occurrence.

Obviously this strategy changes in effectiveness depending on the situation. In a situation with scarcity, having loads of partners and kids is a recipe for disaster. If you have loads of resources/power in your social structure, having a lot of kids and partners is more workable.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

edit: A good point to remember when I'm talking about the science and evolution here is to remember that they look at group/social success and not individuals. So yeah, there might be many perfectly healthy and successful non-monogamous couples out there that work great. Or even that a non-monogamous societies work out (they clearly do and have), but rather that monogamy provides some notable benefits on the whole and seems to have outcompeted non-monogamy in terms of success

The problem with this is that there is little evidence of group selection. Evolution by natural selection occuring at the individual or gene level occurs much faster than the group or species level (greater turnover rate). This is why you will see traits beneficial to the individual accumulate and dominate traits that benefit entire groups -- even when those individual traits decrease the fitness of the group as a whole!

You are probably saying that evolution occurs in populations, not individuals, which is correct. However, selection occurs most strongly at the level of the individual or the gene, not groups, so if we are discussing adaptations like number of mates, we have to determine how it affects the fitness of individuals.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Social constructs have evolutionary benefits, or at least genetic propagation benefits. Not sure why people think non-human animals are essentially robots with no social structures.

I recall one theory saying that female monogamy likely had evolutionary benefits, in that the father would be much more likely to provide for/protect the offspring if he knew they were genetically related to him. So to ensure that genetic relation, monogamy turned into a concept. Not sure if there's any evolutionary reason for male monogamy, but I doubt it considering the patriarchal structure of our species.

Yeah, when resources from both parents are needed, monogamy is most common. It's also most common when the environment's resources are uniformly distributed, which makes sense. If the environment's resources are heterogeneous, it would improve an individual's fitness to take or guard some of those resources and then collect multiple mates (and it improves the mates' fitness to find the male or female with the largest territory). The most common scenario of polygany is polygamy where a male establishes territory and acquires a harem of females, but there are plenty of examples of polyandry, like with the Jacana bird.

 

[Syrus]

I dont want anothet woman other then my wife.

Obviously im attracted to others but I dont actually want any of them.

 

[SciencePilot]

I think monogamy makes sense given human nature.

People want to love and be loved, but they get jealous if the person they love also loves someone else. Jealousy arises because people are insecure, and they cannot believe that the person they love is able to love multiple people equally. But maybe this is a valid concern to some degree, because people can only spend so much effort on love and simply aren't able to love too many people.

In a system with love and jealousy, the only stable configuration is pairs.

 

[loaf of bread]

I guess its a kind of social construct, but I mean, so is not killing some dude in cold blood to get the burger he's eating, so in the end it doesn't really matter.

 

[TaterTots]

I'm a one lady type of guy. Never had a desire to cheat. Not sure if that answers your question.