🚀 go-pugleaf

------
In article <1990Nov16.203058.7780@ariel.unm.edu>, bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes...
> For me, centuries of spontaneous monogamous behaviour is enough to
> convince me that SOME of us ARE naturally monogamous and that
> promiscuity, where it exists in SOME, is largely a culturally
> imposed phenomenon.
>  
> Apologies if this seems to simplistic to Netters at large.

Not simplistic; rather, cleverly wrong.

First, if the author is monogamous, it undoubtedly stems in part
from cultural influences.  It is foolish in the extreme for him
to claim that he knows what his sexual behavior would be had he
(miraculously) survived to adulthood on a desert island absent
culture -- which means: absent language, absent religion, absent
social mores, absent any stories of romance or sex, absent any
examples of romance or sex. 

It is natural for humans to develop their individual behavior
within a cultural context.  Both monogamous behavior and
polygamous behavior as we know them are reached in this fashion.
To the extent that it makes sense to ask which of these is
natural, one can only look at the variety of cultures that have
existed.  The answer is then: humans are biologically capable of
cultures that are polygamous, cultures that are monogamous, and
cultures that are both.  (Actually, the question of what sexual
behavior a culture sanctions is too complex to be summarized so
simply.)

Russell