= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bentarm comments on Unknown knowns: Why did you choose to be monogamous? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (651)
Steve Landsburg makes a fairly plausible case that monogamy is essentially a cartel formed by men to prevent them having to work too hard to keep onto their wives:
If true, this would suggest that women have more to gain from polyamory than men on average (although high-status men might well have the most to gain).
I recall one of the Evolutionary Psychology books I read discussing this (I think it was The Moral Animal). It claimed that polygamy was relatively beneficial to high quality males and low quality females; high quality males would end up with more mates and low quality females would end up with a higher quality mate than they would otherwise. For the same reasons, monogamy was relatively beneficial to low quality men and high quality females; low quality men would have a higher chance of finding a mate at all and high quality females would end up with a higher quality mate.
Don't you mean that high quality females would wind up with the exclusive attention of a high quality mate? The quality itself probably doesn't change between scenarios.
I was thinking of "quality" as "overall attractiveness".
I didn't suggest otherwise.
Interesting point, thanks. I enjoy living in a mostly-monogamous society way better than the alternatives, and your comment gives us old hats a new weapon against those pesky free-love liberals: elect girls who win beauty contests into positions of power. Shouldn't be too hard.
...Wait, did I just confess to being a low-quality male?
Is that a backhanded reference to a certain U.S. Vice-Presidential candidate?
Whaa? I'm not in the US and don't even know what you're talking about :-)
Sarah Palin?
er, I suppose I should specify that this refered to polygyny
Polygamy is definitely to women's advantage. Since there's no real limit to the number of children a man can father, women can agree to share the very best male genetic material amongst each other and leave all the other men out in the cold. Think of the private harems that any number of rulers have maintained. In a monogamous culture, any given sub-excellent male has a much better chance of mating.
Polygyny (not necessarily generic polygamy) is to women's genetic advantage insofar as the selection of husbands depends on things that correlate with valuable genes. It is not necessarily to our advantage in other ways or under other circumstances.
Women weren't the ones who set up those harems.
Evolutionary fitness is not morality. It doesn't have a thing to do with our preferences. We are adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers.
Consider the stereotype: Beautiful young woman marries rich older man, cheats on him with the handsome young pool boy.
There is an element of truth behind what you say, but ask yourself what your desired response was to this comment and whether it is the optimal way of eliciting that response.
Far more care is required when presenting facts that could support positions that are not politically correct. Without such care such claims can actually immunize against future acceptance of the information.
</condescension> ;)
See Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife for an extended example for why there's more to life than reproductive fitness.
The author is from a fringe Mormon sect which pushes families to be one man, seven wives, and as many children as possible.Going on welfare isn't feasible because of fears that the illegal arrangement might be discovered. The result is not only a serious level of poverty, but an emotional mess because of jealousy among the women. They each wanted more time and attention from their husband than he had available.
I feel like I should point out that the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has officially repudiated polygamy (except insofar as men can be "sealed" to several wives if it happens that each dies before he marries the next). I've lived in Utah and this repudiation is carried out in everyday social stigma; it's not just on paper. Since "Mormon" is recognized as a nickname for that religion more readily than its spinoffs, calling polygamist sects "Mormon" instead of the distinct "Mormon fundamentalism" is misleading and perpetuates stereotypes. "Fringe" is a nod to this, but it doesn't specify what it's on the fringe of (even standard-issue Mormonism could be considered on the fringe of, say, generic Christianity).
How would you recommend that I describe such groups? Always mention that what they're doing is repudiated by the vast majority of Mormons?
You call them "fundamentalist Mormons", or name the specific sect.
I think that naming the specific sect is a lot more likely to miscommunicate than "fringe."
I agree on that.
In my experience, the polyamorous community generally includes more women than men, and the women are frequently higher status. Most books on polyamory have been written by women, and they're much more involved in high-level activism than women usually are in other communities; this seems to support your hypothesis.
That would depend on whether you include the PUA literature, which uses the term "MLTR" (Multiple Long-Term Relationships) to describe more or less the same concept.
Of course, this still might be relevant to the "high-status men might gain most" hypothesis, since the concept of "MLTR" might be a higher status indicator (because it emphasizes the man's choice to have multiple partners) than an interest in "polyamory" (which emphasizes the options of both partners).
While I'm not terribly familiar with the PUA literature, based on your description I would say that most definitions of polyamory exclude it. There's a great deal of scorn in the poly community for relationships with a "one-penis policy," as well as a general emphasis on egalitarianism.
Actually, PUA discussions of MLTR (at least the few I've seen) seem to completely ignore the question of whether the women involved have other partners or not, although I suppose that is not strong evidence in either direction.
Perhaps the authors assume that "of course" exclusives are the default (and thus don't mention it), or perhaps they assume that "of course" things should be egalitarian by default (and thus don't mention it).
(And of course, there may be discussions I haven't seen, since my limited study of the PUA field is focused mainly on personal development and in-relationship applications, and limited to free materials almost exclusively.)