|
You're probably right, but there's a lot of things we're not "naturally" prone to do that we do
because it is more socially advantageous for us to do. What's natural doesn't necessarily mean it's
better, only that it occurs in nature. After all, since when is driving a car natural? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I do believe some are naturally monogomous BUT they're a minority. The vast majority of us are
hardwired to have sex often and with a variety of mates over our lifetime. YET each individual
still chooses for themself. I personally have stayed monogomous and don't regret it, but that
doesn't mean I don't feel temptation, and I think the majority of people feel temptation too whether
they're able to admit it or not. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
In what way is promiscuity more natural than monogamy? Both are evident quite often in other social
species. Both in fact are well exhibited just within the human species. I’ve heard this statement
made often enough by people that, no offense; I have no particular reason to put much credence in
their statement. But the fact is the history of mating systems among our prehistoric ancestors is
still very much in doubt. There is no doubt however that between 2 and .5 million years ago Homo
erectus (kind of an ironic name given the discussion) certainly began to shift towards less
promiscuous mating patterns than Australopithecus is suspected of having. The problem is our testis
size and limited but present sexual dimorphism leaves it quite open to debate what our ‘natural’
mating habits are. But you can make a strong case that we have been evolving towards less
promiscuous and even monogamous mating habits now for literally millions of years. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
24 Aug 2009 10:16
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
