Sexual Relationships
+1 y

A brief history of evolution - from polygamy to monogamy

A brief history of evolution - from polygamy to monogamy

As most of you are aware, men and women use different reproductive strategies. As some of you may be aware, the meaning of life, at least in its design: as genetic expression, is to reproduce and to maintain. One could therefore argue that this is the meaning of life but I digress.

Essentially, men want quantity, which is one of the reasons why men are keen on what you could call superficial (or obvious) features, such as youth, beauty, big boobs, big asses (which all supposedly indicators of good breeding material, symmetrical faces indicate good genetics, youth indicates higher fertility, big boobs alludes to the ability to feed the offspring, wide hips indicate less natal complications). Going on such superficial traits, the decision can be quickly made, which is essential if your goal is quantity.

If you're wondering why quantity, it's because they can. Theoretically a man could impregnate several hundred women a year, a thousand or more even and assuming they all survived that would result in 100s of offspring. Women on the other hand are usually limited to having about 1 per year, maybe up to 9 as in those rarely documented cases of nonuplets.

This of course aligns the selective power to the women as their "goods" are in higher demand and therefore a female's decision process has to be more distinctive and her strategy is thus quality. While once again physical attractiveness is a factor, they do not discriminate as much against age, as males stay fertile longer and older males tend to have more of the traits they look for which are: Power, money and connections. These are important as these are traits that are considered successful in our society. Connections are particularly important as that shows her that he is capable of forming lasting bonds, as a female would want her mate to be involved in the childrearing. Instinctively they may know that these successful traits are not entirely genetic, but cultural and if he would help raise the offspring he could pass on his particular set of values which in turn would lead to successful children.

However, for the alpha males in question, with their high demand, it wouldn't suit their strategy to be locked down to one woman so their incentive would be to fuck all the women they can without forming lasting relations. Not exactly the most efficient allocation of "resources", even though it would be the best allocation of genetics (in a time where cultural evolution has long overtaken genetic evolution).

There would be some other unwanted effects as it would come with all sorts of strife with the eternally fuckless resenting such a system, and this is where the marriage compromise comes in. Through the establishing of sexual exclusivity contracts more people get more of what they want.

This of course leads to cheating, for men will still want to fuck as many as they can, and women will still want to fuck the alphas.

0 0

Most Helpful Girl

  • I do generally agree with you. I just find that a lot of those takes are very focused on male sexuality and neglect female sexuality, just as you do which is annoying

    "big boobs alludes to the ability to feed the offspring" - No not really. Size is mostly determined by fat and this is not relevant in feeding children

    I do think at times you're mixing evolution with today's world.
    Like "older males tend to have more of the traits they look for which are: Power, money and connections" - true for today, however what would make a man powerful and thus a good mate in caveman times is highly related to youth and physical strength. Women DO discriminate against age. Maybe not to the extend men do but we are not blind to age, because as I said youth and strength are vital to survival in caveman times. Money is a modern thing that indicates power and social status, however I don't think it has established itself as an innate factor in mate selection yet. Certainly not over physical fitness.
    And men don't stay that fertile either. Their sperm count and sperm quality decreases significantly after 30. There's a reason old men often have issues getting it up. They shouldn't father children anymore. As I was saying before I think you're whole analysis of female mate selection is very shallow.

    "Connections are particularly important (...), as a female would want her mate to be involved in the childrearing"
    I actually think that is a very odd statement. Clearly the idea in a species moving from polygamy to monogamy is that there is an unspoken social contract that men take care of the children they have with the woman they pair bonded. Connections aren't relevant to that. As a matter of fact it would have never occurred to me to put that in a list of things that make men attractive. Social Status, sure, it indicates the ability to provide for your children, it does not in any indicate that you will provide for your children. I think you're way off

    • I was thinking allude would mean something along the line of men may think that way even though it is not the case. Strength is important, but youth only so far as it gives advantage in strength, which must also overcome the by then heightened power projection through the connections and established power that comes with age. Of course women discriminate against age, but not that much... just as I said. While fertility also decreases with age, it's at quite different rate and doesn't really disappear. Prior to bonding, connections could serve as an indicator that this man is (maybe highly) capable of forming such bonds. And that last part, you'd have to help me identify where I said that.

    • I really do not see the connection you're trying to make there. No pun intended. Maybe define connections? Because I still don't see how that is a desirable attribute In todays world, ya... kinda... maybe but in cavemen times no way. We are a sociable species, for men there is no advantage in being more sociable than they are by default. What I mean is that there is a difference between being capable of making connections and being a good parent. Frankly I don't see the correlation. In pair bonding what women need from men is a being a good parent. And it determined by your ability to provide (hunt) and protect (fight) as well as your willingness to commit. Now your willingness to commit has nothing to with "connections". Men with less testosterone are more likely to do that, so women often look for lower testosterone men in long term partners And as for allude, well I would think that sometimes between discovering fire and

    • inventing the wheel men would have figured out that big boobs only have disadvantages and therefore are a waste of your priorities, which is important because as we all know mating is a trade off, you can't have it all

    • Show All

Most Helpful Guy

  • I've made an argument against the "Men are sex-obsessed animals that will f*ck just about anything" hypothesis. Humans are tribal nomads by nature. If the males in the group all tried to have more than 2 or 3 children, an entire generation of that tribe would have to face starvation. Now, the game changes if you've got an agricultural society with surplus food stores, but that's only been a recent development. Evolutionarily speaking, a woman who can raise your offspring to maturity successfully is as much (if not more) than winding up with the best set of genetic "goods." When men are put under stress for some reason (due to resource constraints or societal pressures) however, this is the only time when the "f*ck as many women as possible before you die" strategy becomes a viable option.

    As far as status goes, that's a little complicated. Obviously you need to have the ability to get along with and contribute to the survival of the group, at the same time the sexual attraction to authority applies for many men as well (as evidenced by the proliferation of femdom). Being in control of the love and affection you receive from someone of the opposite sex is something that appeals to a lot of people.

    • Maybe I'm still drunk, but I'm having problems understanding this sentence. "Evolutionarily speaking, a woman who can raise your offspring to maturity successfully is as much (if not more) than winding up with the best set of genetic "goods."" I understand the overproduction issue, so to speak, though even then you'd probably want all the offspring to be yours.

    • By that, I mean that a woman with good maternal qualities should be able make up for a less vibrant or youthful appearance.

    • Unfortunately, men do not select for that.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

6 12

  • There were societies in which women had polyandrous relationships. Sexysl history is neither linear binary nor complete. It's not as if this us the end of history. Manogomy may again be on its way out now that in mist places it's an option and not enforced by law and women and men are capeablcapeable if working and being single don't rely on two partner rekationships to survive nor do they even need a partner to have a baby.

    I think promiscuity is resurfacing and it will become the norm. Separate from love rekationshios which are different than sex relations.

  • You are right about the alphas... men in positions of power are incredibly attractive.

  • I know it's nature for men to want to "spread their genetics", though I doubt they want a child with every woman they sleep with, I'd like to think that becoming emotionally intelligent human beings would allow men to be monogamous. If women are loyal, men can be too.

    • "If women are loyal, men can be too." most women I know have cheated on their partner at least once and have a lot less guilt about it than the few guys who'd do the same - for instance look at how many women in relationships specifically choose a guy to 'handle' their intimate medical exams, if I guy was to make the same choice he'd be dumped faster than he can say 'I thought it didn't count'... The argument that men are driven purely by a natural urge to copulate whereas women don't look similar elsewhere simply isn't true...

    • " If women are loyal, men can be too" - that's a bit sexist...

    • @HarryStyles Where I live, it's the girl's who get cheated on the most and the guy's have that mentality, whilst the girls crave a committed relationship. Men mainly cheat because of that drive which they can control, women cheat because there's something lacking but they don't want to give the relationship up. @kleinteef There was nothing sexist about that comment.

    • Show All

  • This is totally on point, and i am in love with that last sentence. i will probably use tidbits from here when im done concluding my research as why women don't cheat sexually as much as men, im almost done. I know people will say they know why, but i usually like to narrow things down.

  • Males are also capable of many orgasms per session (directed towards Anon female), that's not strictly a female trait. The topic of discussion by the the person providing the take, has no basis. And @yaddayaddayadda02, is generally right, with regards to the fact human behavior (until very recently) was entirely about the process of producing another generation of YOUR offspring or ensuring the survivability of YOUR offspring. Whether it's serving a monarhc, leader, etc. to ensure the safety of your offspring as part of being a member of a more powerful nation/empire/kingdom/tribe over it's surrounding nation/empire/kingdom/tribe OR the likelihood that copulating (an extremely relevant word here) will not only increase the liklihood of your genes surviving through number but through diversity of genetics (by being involved with more than one partner). For example, you father/mother one child with Partner A, partner A is for all intensive purposes perfectly fine

    • yet, you father/mother another child with a different partner. A sudden outbreak of

    • UGH I don't understand why it cut it off AGAIN. yet, you father/mother another child with a different partner. A sudden outbreak of, let's just say, bubonic plague occurs. You're now to old to father/mother another child, but you have two children. One child appears to be more resiliant to the plague, let's say child two, while child one seems to contract the disease and dies, child two survives, thus your geneology survives into the next generation. Such a scenario is the only thing we can say towards polygamy or monogamy. Without a lot of studies and statistically significant results, nothing from this take can be taken into account as @Findesemana stated.

    • Not to sound alarmist, but who is to say that there is no calamity on its way? As oil prices start rising again and global warming and what not, who say that, for example water could suddenly become a very scarce thing and society collapses or something. I'm pretty sure I also mentioned how this all plays into cultural evolution and why that was the t decisive factor to swap over to monogamy, right? However... and maybe with all the cultural learning being institutionalized through schools or so family stability wouldn't matter anymore. Well, our experience tells a different story.

  • Hmm.. this was a really interesting take to read. It made me think about something I didn't really think of before. Thanks! :D
    I think @Roycaryn made some really good points, too. ^^

    • You're welcome.

  • Interesting. I understand the primal urge to "spread your genetics," but I am still just a one-woman kind of guy.

    I enjoy knowing someone and connecting with them.

    More girls for y'all, I guess.

    • sure about that?

    • @Tdieseler Sure about it

    • Alrighty...

  • There is no evidence pointer to mankind ever being non-monogamous.

    Sure polygamy have coexisted with monogamy all along, but humans have been having both as long as we have had historical records.

  • In western society, we're led to believe we're now mongamous, but in eastern society they still have freaking kingdoms where the king has multiple wives

    • And this isn't their prerogative. England for example has a monarchy as well, and if you're American, Mormons also have polygamy. Not sure what your complaint or question is.

    • polygamy is illegal.

    • I though that in the US that religious freedom somehow trumped law. My mistake I guess.

    • Show All

  • sex in exchange for resources is the main reason human monogamy exists

    • Oldest profession in the world.

    • Yeah, they have found a politically correct version of prostitution, although it isn't a conscious thing for women and a female's sex drive is based more on emotion, they have just evolved to use the greatest biological advantage their gender has (sex) to their advantage.

  • erm... there's no proof we're inherently monogamous or polygamous... unless you're an expert in evolutionary psychology...

    • There are very little things we are inherently, and being of a certain profession doesn't prove anything, though it would hopefully come with the tools of the trade to create such a study. All these points aside, I never said we are either, what I say is that our main purpose is to reproduce and that men favor quantity and women quality. In the natural state (so to speak) and without competitors these gender specific strategies are the most efficient, but if you add competitors, monogamy would turn out to be the Nash-equilibrium.

    • i know... just both monogamists and polygamists say we are inherently such... there's no way to prove... and yep, humans are largely a blank slate..

  • why do people keep making excuses for guys to fuck everyone?

    • It also makes excuses for women cheating.

  • couldn't have said it better myself i have been saying this for a long time but people don't understand how much evolution actually controls human behavior.

  • Pretty much on point.

    However, there were possibly also periods in human history where the dynamic was reversed, due to conditional high male value.

    Example: In paleolithic Europe , there was no plant food, so women couldn't survive on their own. There was a lot of dependence on meat, and men were much better at hunting. Men's value thus rose.

    In addition, because many men would die on risky hunts and journeys, the male population was further lowered. The remaining men's value thus rose even more.

    As a result, men were sought after by women more than vice versa. Men picked the women they liked the most, which were the blue eyed/blonde haired women, which is why Europeans have light eyes and light hair. They may have fucked the darker women, but in the absence of provisioning, the darker offspring tended to not survive.

    If you look at unrelated tribes in Siberia and Canada, and even northeast Asia, there is some light eye evolution as well.

  • Actually both men AND women were poly back then, at least that's what experts say.

    • I never said anything to the contrary.

    • there's a country that a woman can marry many men, and they take Her name. I thought that was interesting. There had to be one anyway, considering the popularity of its counterpart.

  • I'd love to live in a world where I'm the tribe leader and I get to fuck thousands of girls a year. O M G

    • Pretty sure every man would.

    • LOL @ the thumbs up and thumbs down... haha. Girls : "What a fucking pig, ugh" Guys: "Holy shit yesss me too"

  • Lots of truth in this article. Unfortunately you'll get plenty of naysayers driven by political correctness and a general condition of denial.

  • Well actually they have found out that women are more polygam then men.. and its logical if u think that a
    woman can have many orgasms in one hour, while practically men dont. also a woman could have sex all day long if she would like to but a man not :) So this theory that men are polygam and women monogam is just a sh** , women just dont show her polygamy because of society. and also they ve found that women who dont want sex in a marriage because they are "bored" truth is they want but not with their husband :)

    • Orgasms don't produce another generation of offspring. While I'm proud of you for being able to have sex all day - it really doesn't matter, biologically. I'm not saying I believe women are monogamous... obviously they aren't since a human penis is shaped like a shovel to push out rival's sperm. In all likelihood, neither gender is monogamous.

    • yes I agree biologically men and women are polygam. I just dont belueve people who say that women are monogam while en are polygam, I think men say it just as an excuse for cheating. Women need sex too but I think the 2 gender can be momogam if they are willing to be.

    • But I must say I do think ability to have so mamy orgasms matters cause if we werent meant to be polygam why having the ability to have many orgasms?

    • Show All
Home >  Sexual Relationships  > A brief history of evolution - from polygamy to monogamy