<p>
well there are two parts to reproduction: having the child and then raising it. all you’re talking about is having the child; you didn’t acknowledge that you still have to raise it; otherwise, it won’t survive, it will die.</p>
<p>read richard dawkins lol guys</p>
<p>PRARIE VOLES FORM MONOGAMOUS BONDS LOLOL.</p>
<p>and ducks seem to form them, but they have one of the highest rates of bird rape and incest of any bird. there are videos of ducks gang raping each other on youtube…</p>
<p>==
but anyways dudes, there’s a good reason for monogamy. See, without monogamy, most of the guys in the lower classes have no chance at marriage. no marriage + idle time will make a lot of the guys resort to crime (especially since they have fewer incentives NOT to commit crime). see, once you end up marrying, you finally have to grow up and be responsible. If you never marry, all the fewer incentives for responsibility.</p>
<p>EDIT: that sounded cynical… =/</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>really because wouldn’t a communal group of females raising the children together, as most hominid species do/did, function pretty well? </p>
<p>hey ladies, you ever wonder why girls living together tend to go on the same menstrual cycle? that’s because y’all evolved so that all the babies would be had at once, so that our nomadic ancestors wouldn’t have to stop every couple of weeks to have one baby at a time. you ever wonder why female behavior is hugely influenced by the hormone oxytocin, which in addition to being related to sexual response and maternal behavior controls the female need for social bonding, networking and contact (aka why girls talk on the phone so much)? because female social networks were crucial to shared raising of the children. </p>
<p>now, that’s not an argument against monogamous relationships, and it’s likely that humans have always engaged in at least semi-monogamous behavior. but the actual institution of marriage being tied to the survival of offspring? no way. traditional marriage is part of the judeo-christian ethic, and humans did just fine without it for hundreds of thousands of years, and are doing fine without it today.</p>
<p>but don’t take my word for it: [Media</a> Release: Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association](<a href=“http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm]Media”>404 Page Not Found - The American Anthropological Association)</p>
<p>arrgh I have to clarify my post above
“See, without monogamy, most of the guys in the lower classes have no chance at marriage.”</p>
<p>==> since females often are attracted to wealth and intelligence in a partner (for whatever reason… =/). (intelligence correlates with wealth; they used to look for other characteristics). marriage allows us males in socially undesirable positions to actually get a female partner who might have otherwise sought out a higher status person with multiple wives.</p>
<p>
true, but the OP is against relationships in general, or at least it seems that way. but anyways, like you said this is not an argument against mongamous relationships (marriage). also, in my opinion, the communal thing sounds like it would just work out to be a form of a marriage except its definition would be more flexible than that of the Judeo-Christian faith. i mean the community would be somewhat exclusive to ensure the protection of the children; thus, the women would be forming a relationship similar to that of husband-wife.</p>
<p>i have not read any of the articles that you posted, but my initial reaction is that things got much better (in terms of development, etc.) after the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage became more popular. not saying that human progress was spurred by this type of marriage. it’s just something i find interesting…</p>
<p>InquilineKea:
interesting points to ponder.</p>
<p>i concur with sheed</p>