Quote:
Originally posted by Lilith
Biologically I do not think humans were developed to necessarily be monogamous. I know I would not be if it weren't for cultural and emotional reasons. I do find the idea of " spreading the seed" to be an interesting idea. How would societies through out the world be if more people were not monogamous???
As for the "mate for life" idea. I have but that does not erase my biologic and emotional need to explore. I am not sure "mating for life" is a biological occurrance, many female animals care for their offspring entirely alone, I think it is an adaptation.
|
Serial Monogamy is certainly only a recient invention (comparatively speaking).
According to many biologists, our unusually large genitals (compared to most other primates and animals) is indication that promiscuity was a large feature of our early history. Competition for sperm was paramount.
Sharing of spouses is not something that has entirely died off either, the eskimos practiced spouse sharing, many native indian americans practiced it as a way of tribal "bonding". And much sharing is going on in the suburbs as "Swingers" or people in "The Lifestyle"..
Indeed, WWII airforce pilots would have "key parties" where the men would put their keys in a hat.. and their spouses would then draw keys at random out of the hat to determine who they would be with that night. It was done as a way of bonding them together as a group, and thus an insurancy policy for their wives, as they lived in extreemly high risk jobs. If a pilot died, the others of the now "tribe" would still look after the wife.
But it seems in most cases, there is always still a "primary" spouse. This seems to be the key to making swinging work.
Being polyamourous without a primary spouse sounds like a very lonely lifestyle IMHO.