🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Nov22.191009.20772@watserv1.waterloo.edu> alternat@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Ann Hodgins) writes:
>In article <4836@lure.latrobe.edu.au> ECSGRT@lure.latrobe.edu.au (Geoffrey Tobin, Electronic Engineering) writes:
>>In article <1990Oct26.000754.24765@odin.corp.sgi.com>, milt@sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) writes:
>>> In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> reiser@pmafire.UUCP (Steve Reiser) writes:
>>>>Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>>>>be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?
>>> 
>>> I think it is culturally ingrained.  Men can impregnate as many fertile
>>> women as they can have sex with.  This allows men to 'spread their DNA
>>> around' as much as they can.  Women, on the other hand can only bear one
>>> child at a time.  Therefore it is evolutionarily(?) advantageous for a
>>> man not to be monogamous. 

I think it's more of a power thing among humans than anything genetic.
In most of society; men hold the cards and use that power to keep women
from sleeping with other men ("sleep around and I'll divorce you and
you'll starve.")

Sometimes the situation is reversed.  Where I went to school, there
were very few women and they held the cards.  It was not at all unusual
for a woman to be sleeping with several men and insist that some or all
of those men to be monogamous.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).