--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > 'Living in pairs, what researchers call social monogamy, > > has repeatedly evolved among animals, although in widely > > varying proportions among different groups. Thus, about > > 90% of bird species are socially monogamous, probably > > because incubating eggs and feeding hatchlings is a > > full-time job that requires both parents. But in mammals, > > females carry the babies inside their bodies and are > > solely responsible for providing milk to young infants— > > and only about 5% of species are socially monogamous.' > > > > 'Scientists have proposed three major hypotheses: Monogamy > > provides more effective parental care for infants, as in > > birds; it prevents females from mating with rival males, > > especially in species where females are widely spaced and > > cannot all be easily monopolized by one male; or it protects > > against the risk of infanticide, which is very high among > > some primate species, including chimpanzees and gorillas, > > and is often explained by the desire of a rival male to > > quickly return a mother to a fertile state so that he can > > sire his own offspring.' > > > > http://tinyurl.com/oeqayn6 > > > > [ > > http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/07/monogamy-may-have-evolved-prevent-infanticide > > ] > > Interesting. As you might have suspected :-), I might > have a few things to say about this, having been a fly > on the wall of a polyamorist family for some time now.
However, you ended up *not* saying anything about this. It might help to read the article if you're not sure why. I'll make a few comments on what you *did* say on its own terms: > I would propose a fourth theory. That is, that society's > notion of "parental care" tends to revolve around ideas > forced upon them by male-chauvinist-dominated and > authoritarian religions that dominated that society. "Parental care" in this context simply means ensuring the offspring's survival to adulthood. The research was done on nonhuman mammals in an attempt to determine at what point monogamy entered the evolutionary picture. Turns out it was millions of years before there were any "notions" about parental care (or "notions" about much of anything at all, for that matter). > The men in such religions tended to think of their women > as property, and thus wanted that "property" all to them- > selves. Many such societies, however, practiced polygamy rather than monogamy (and many still do). And even societies that don't practice polygamy aren't fully monogamous. The women, for their part, put up with the monogamy > shit because if they just hung in there long enough, either > the male-chauvinist guy would take care of them and their > kids most of their lives, or they could soak him for a big > divorce settlement and have him take care of them for the > *rest* of their lives. :-) > > OK, it's more complicated than that, but not *much* more > complicated than that. > > IN PRACTICE, something that as far as I know no one else > on this forum can comment on, watching Maya grow up with > three parents and one uncle seems to be an unmitigated > success. I suspect at least some of us grew up in extended families in which grandparents, siblings, and other close relatives shared in the childcare duties. Nuclear families are a relatively recent development historically and are far from universal. Compared to a nuclear family, an extended family can provide children with all the advantages that you cite of a polyamorous family. > Unlike most kids her age, she's never shuttled > off to people she doesn't know to watch her while her > one or two full-time parents buzz off to Have A Life. > One or more of us is *always* available to her. > > *Four* incomes contribute to her well-being, not two, or > one. *Four* people care about her, and the number gives > her the opportunity to choose one or the other of us > when she needs company, or comfort. No relying on Mom, > or Dad, especially when they might have had a Bad Day, > and aren't as child-available as usual. On any given > day, one of us IS available, and willing. > > Maya has grown up in a household in which she has never > seen a verbal argument in which anger, jealousy, or any > of the afflictive emotions that most people consider > "normal" has appeared. We all get along just *remarkably* > well, so well it's nigh unto mind-boggling. > > I am, as mentioned before, a fly on the wall in all of > this, not being involved either sexually or romantically > with any of the three parents. But *they* don't do drama, > either. That's why I can live with them. Admittedly, this > behavior on their part may be out of the ordinary, even > in the worlds of polyamory, but it's the truth. The > *equanimity* of these three people amazes me on a > daily basis. > > To sum up, a couple of platitudes that may be more than > that: > > "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it." I don't believe anyone here has "knocked" polyamory. Not sure why you're always so defensive about it. > and > > "It takes a village to raise a child." Which is akin to my point about extended families. In many societies, child-raising is not just an extended-family function but a community function.
