What was the Origin of Monogamy?

[jankren]

Its a fact that monogamy is not natural. The concept of exclusive couple until death is not known in any other primates except humans.

So I wonder how did monogamy come about?

My own hypothesis is that monogamy was created by men as an attempt at social engineering so that not all women were hoarded by a few men.

[godol shmok]

Male indicated "monogamy" exists in nature but among primates there are mostly the females that chose a specific partner. In Gorilla groups the dominante male has regulary several females while in Chimpanzee groups the dominante female can have several partners. Afaik. Among humans relations are more complex, so monogamy or selected preferences in mating behavior may have something to do with group stability and maybe the long period of time it requires to rise the off-spring. Human core groups appear also to be smaller and require a high degree of organization to gather food that can also be factors (division of work).

[Himster]

In societies that allow polygamy 80% of relationships are/were monogamous.

In societies where the majority rule that society will become monogamous sooner or later.

[godol shmok]

Polygamy goes hand in hand with suppressing women's rights and sexual exploitation in contemporary contexts of human societies. It is a measure we would not lay on in case of Gorilla and Chimpanzee societies because our terms are not vaild there. Male domination and having several females is necessary in a Gorilla group for reproduction. Afaik. In a human group that can result in the females killing the male together (in the worst case). Something I assume Gorillas or Orang Utans would not do.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Polygamy goes hand in hand with suppressing women's rights and sexual exploitation in contemporary contexts of human societies.

why do assume no woman could have multiple husbands?

So I wonder how did monogamy come about?

Humans take longer to reach maturity than most animals' entire lives. They require parenting all the way through that period.

[Squiggle]

why do assume no woman could have multiple husbands?

Because its done in literally only one place on the entire planet in an entirely remote and enclosed mountain range?!

[Claudius Gothicus]

I have this feeling Polygamy tends to create more ''inner unresolved conflict'' and ''less liberty of action'' into a Family System than what Monogany does, that's not the reason for it's desmise though.

[Yersinia]

Because its done in literally only one place on the entire planet in an entirely remote and enclosed mountain range?!

*Ahem* Polyandry is found in some regions in India, Sri Lanka, and especially Nepal, and Tibet.

Polygamy has been popular on all continents with the exception of Europe.

Currently, I believe only members of religious groups, some pastoralists (eg the Mukogondo's in Kenya), and tribes that live with stone age technologies are polygamous. But then again, the women of such tribes (e.g. the Papuans) also tend to have several consecutive husbands through the course of their lives, as men tend to murder each other to get each others wives or for revenge - temporal polyandry?

Polygyny is most common today in Moslem nations, among cattle herding societies of East Africa, and in the remnants of the old kingdoms of West Africa. Also, if the husbands are consecutive then that should be referred to as "serial monogamy". I'll have to read more about the Papuans. They sound an awful lot like the Yanomomö. I suppose, ritualized war can do that to a society.

[godol shmok]

why do assume no woman could have multiple husbands?

Polyandry is rare in anthropology. I do not assume it is not possible.

[Stario]

Its a fact that monogamy is not natural.

To the contrary, monogamy exists in nature across various taxa; i.e. mammals, birds, fish, insects, and parasites.

The concept of exclusive couple until death is not known in any other primates except humans.

See Callicebus moloch (hope i spelled it right)

So I wonder how did monogamy come about?

Makes rearing offspring easier and improves the survivability of offspring as both male and female contribute to food resources and safety of the offspring. In other words just makes things easier when you have two looking after offspring/family instead of one.

My own hypothesis is that monogamy was created by men as an attempt at social engineering so that not all women were hoarded by a few men.

I doubt monogamy was invented by men, it probably always has been and always will be in nature. Basically just makes things somewhat easier. Arguably; with the high divorce rates and multiple partners some/most of us have during our lifetime, we're probably not the best example of monogamous species.

[Incesticide]

Its a fact that monogamy is not natural. The concept of exclusive couple until death is not known in any other primates except humans.

Yes, it is rare in primates, but as Vaultdwella pointed out, it does exist in various taxa. Even if, and this is purely hypothetical, humans were the only organism that engages in monogamy, by what means have you decided that it is not natural? A population takes on a reproductive strategy that makes most economical sense.

What is most interesting about human beings are the things that are common between individual humans — things like grammatical language, hierarchy, romantic love, sexual jealousy, long-term bonds between the sexes ("marriage,"in a sense). These are trainable instincts peculiar to our species and are just as surely the products of evolution as eyes and thumbs.

My own hypothesis is that monogamy was created by men as an attempt at social engineering so that not all women were hoarded by a few men.

True from a certain point of view. If you take a look at history, the practise of monogamy is actually only feasible in more egalitarian cultures. The connection between sex and power is a long one.

To take an example, in the ancient empire of the Incas, sex was a heavily regulated industry. The sun-king Atahualpa kept fifteen hundred women in each of many "houses of virgins" throughout his kingdom as emperor's concubines: Beneath him, each rank of society afforded a harem of a particular legal size: Great lords had harems of more than seven hundred women. "Principal persons" were allowed fifty women; leaders of vassal nations, thirty; heads of provinces of 100,000 people, twenty, etc. That left precious few for the average male Indian whose enforced near-celibacy must have driven him to desperate acts, a fact attested to by the severity of the penalties that followed any cuckolding of his seniors. If a man violated one of Atahualpa's women, he, his wife, his children, his relatives, his servants, his fellow villagers, and all his lamas would be put to death, the village would be destroyed, and the site strewn with stones.

That said, you cannot simply conclude that monogamy is a social construct. I could explain it, but it would involve a lot of game theory, examples from different species in the wild, and it would be a very long post.

I wouldn't want to bore everybody - so I'll point you towards a good summary of the topic, which can be found in Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen", which deals with the evolution of sex (more specifically, chapters 6 and seven). You can easily find pdf copies of it online.

why do assume no woman could have multiple husbands?

There is only one truly polyandrous society on Earth; it is in Tibet and consists of women who marry two or more brothers simultaneously in an attempt to put together a family unit that is economically viable in a harsh land where men herd yaks to support women. The junior brother's ambition is to leave and obtain his own wife, so polyandry is plainly a second-best outcome for him.

Men are polygamous for the obvious reason that whichever sex has to spend the most time and energy creating and rearing offspring tends to avoid extra mating. It is a fair bet that Casanova left more descendants than the Whore of Babylon. Women, though far less interested in multiple partners, will commit adultery if stuck with a mediocre mate.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

There is only one truly polyandrous society on Earth; it is in Tibet and consists of women who marry two or more brothers simultaneously in an attempt to put together a family unit that is economically viable in a harsh land where men herd yaks to support women. The junior brother's ambition is to leave and obtain his own wife, so polyandry is plainly a second-best outcome for him.

Men are polygamous for the obvious reason that whichever sex has to spend the most time and energy creating and rearing offspring tends to avoid extra mating. It is a fair bet that Casanova left more descendants than the Whore of Babylon. Women, though far less interested in multiple partners, will commit adultery if stuck with a mediocre mate.

And has there ever been a society on Earth where more than a handful of men had multiple partners?

[Incesticide]

And has there ever been a society on Earth where more than a handful of men had multiple partners?

By multiple partners do you mean legally allowed multiple marriages or do you mean mistresses and adulterous relationships? I believe in the 18th and 19th century it was quite fashionable and acceptable for high ranking, married women to become the mistress of a higher ranking man than their husband for social advancement.

I believe polygamous societies have occurred several times in the past. Mankind is both a polygamist and a monogamist, depending on the circumstances. Relax the antipolygamy laws and it flourishes. Utah, for instance, has a tradition of theologically sanctioned polygamy (among the Mormons and Latter Day Saint Fundamentalists) and in recent years has been less forceful about prosecuting polygamists, so the habit has re-emerged.

Currently, I believe only members of religious groups, some pastoralists (eg the Mukogondo's in Kenya), and tribes that live with stone age technologies are polygamous. But then again, the women of such tribes (e.g. the Papuans) also tend to have several consecutive husbands through the course of their lives, as men tend to murder each other to get each others wives or for revenge - temporal polyandry?

[Molly Norris]

Fidelity can be an expression of loving and being affected by someone.

[godol shmok]

Fidelity can be an expression of loving and being affected by someone.

Now, you are talking about this Leonard Cohen song with the two background singers where the looks tell stories.

[basics]

" My own hypothesis is that monogamy was created by men as an attempt at social engineering so that not all women were hoarded by a few men. "

jankren,

Perhaps an original thought but of course not the true one. It has only been since the fall of man that sex became a free for all but it was not that way as shown by the garden of Eden. The world had to be populated so that in time God Himself woud come into it to save man from the results of the fall.

But we see that God was not pleased by what He saw and when choosing the Israelites to be an example to the other nations He instituted laws by which these tribesmen and their women had to live. So apart from the garden we now see again the will of God regarding man woman relationship.

Did Jesus in His day not elaborate a little more by explaining that even if a man slept with a prostitute that female and him were one in God's eyes. So in effect from a Godly perspective what our Creator sees are men with countless wives and women with countless husbands. Jesus put the key in the lock and turned it by saying that in heaven there isn't going to be giving and taking in marriage or sex.

[Sher Khan]

It's because unlike chimpanzees humans have developed a degree of civilization where more than one 'tribe' and family group can coexist as a functioning unit. Monogamy as a social institution is an extension of this agreement.

[Incesticide]

It's because unlike chimpanzees humans have developed a degree of civilization where more than one 'tribe' and family group can coexist as a functioning unit. Monogamy as a social institution is an extension of this agreement.

My point is that monogamy cannot be solely a social institution because several species are monogamous yet have no civilisation to speak of. Monogamy and civilisation are not mutually exclusive.

As I mentioned earlier, mankind is both a polygamist and a monogamist, depending on the circumstances. Social institutions help, but are not essential to monogamy.

[Claudius Gothicus]

As I mentioned earlier, mankind is both a polygamist and a monogamist, depending on the circumstances. Social institutions help, but are not essential to monogamy.

It's key in here to understand that living in couples is not the same of the Monogamous Social Institution of Marriage... biology can't be held accountable for all of our acts, and transplanting biological facts to Human/Socially human areas is dangerous and reductionist.

Social Institutions form the way in which we as human beings behave, and social institutions are collective first and general later, not the other way around.

EDIT: Nevermind I see that the issue has been resolved

[Sher Khan]

That's because these are two separate concepts, marriage and sexual habits, which are confusingly combined thanks to appropriation of the term monogamy for a wide variety of topics in biology and sociology.