Against polygamy

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

I didn't mean cheat, but the union of marriage universally has always been 1:1 and evolved that way for humans because of the postpartum feeding problem.

You need to define what you mean by "post-partum feeding problem."

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

The what?

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

You need to define what you mean by "post-partum feeding problem."

Yeah.

[Perry Winkle]

Maybe by "union of marriage" fresh means it in the very limited modern sense. Marriage between common people has only been an institution for about 2,000 years, and doing so with any formality is an even more recent invention. Even then, that's only sufficient in the Christian west.

That's a pretty small damn universe.

[Perry Winkle]

I assume that the post-partum feeding problem can be defined thus:
How does a group of humans ensure that all members are fed, including newborns, which can only ingest liquids?

This is pretty unsatisfactory to me. It doesn't seem to have any cultural implications (marriage and monogamy are most definitely cultural).

(I had a whole rant listing reasons why it's not a problem, but I'll hold onto that...)

[freshnesschronic]

What I was meaning to say was the origins concept of "marriage" or mutual agreement between a man and a woman and their offspring.

All forms of marriages came about because of the postpartum feeding problem. I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact. And then culture took over and and variances/differences happened.

BUT marriage and everything related to it happened because of this: as the species homo sapiens produce offspring with very long childhoods and usually only one at a time, the human mother did not collect food/hunt while taking care of this offspring. The father takes the responsibility for being the food provider for his mate and offspring. We are not a mate-and-leave-your-offspring type of species, and because of that marriage has developed universally.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact.

[monster]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact.

transcript or it never happened.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

I took a cultural anthropology class; this is fact.

This is the funniest thing I've read in a week. Thanks.

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

the human mother did not collect food/hunt while taking care of this offspring.

What about women of the Aeta tribe in the Phillipines? They hunted with great success. And a woman that has newly given birth can hunt, she only needs an elder and/or a lactating woman to stay behind to care for the infant.

Also, what would prevent a woman from collecting food while caring for a child, no matter how freshly hatched?

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

We are not a mate-and-leave-your-offspring type of species, and because of that marriage has developed universally.

I don't see where you're getting that those marriages were 1:1.

Be careful with universalities. There's always a counter-example.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

Because in a biological sense, marriage for homo sapiens is and always will be universal. Throughout the globe it has been one husband one wife.

It may be fact that you took cultural anthropology, but it is absolutely not fact that mariage has always been 1:1. That isn't true now, let alone throughout history. Unless you beg the question by saying that anything that isn't 1:1 doesn't count for some reason.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

You need to define what you mean by "post-partum feeding problem."

Who gets to eat the baby. If there's more than one wife, there will be competition over the devouring of the young.