Imperious Entertainment
You are here: Home
Blogs Polygyny and Infidelity: Naughty by Nature? by Drew Stewart (10 Comments) | Polygyny and Infidelity: Naughty by Nature? by Drew Stewart (10 Comments) |
|
|
|
| Written by Drew Stewart | |
| Friday, 19 October 2007 | |
Infidelity has always been one of humankind's most compelling interests. The first great work of Western literature, Homer's Iliad, recounts the consequences of Helen's adultery. And in the Odyssey, we learn of Ulysses' return from the Trojan War, whereupon he slays a virtual army of suitors, each of whom was trying to seduce his faithful wife, Penelope. (By contrast, incidentally, Ulysses himself had dallied with Circe the sorceress, but was not considered an adulterer as a result.) The double standard is ancient and by definition unfair; yet it, too, seems firmly rooted in biology.
One thing is for sure. The whole idea of an Edenic paradise of one-to-one fidelity is a myth. The evidence is as follows: First, men are significantly larger than females, a pattern consistently found among polygynous species. From deer to seals to primates, the harem-keeping sex is the larger one, because competition among harem keepers rewards those who are larger and brawnier. Second, for whatever reasons (I’ll concede that some of it is learned behavior), men are more violent than women (it avails little in acquiring a large number of mates for a male to be physically intimidating unless he is also inclined to make use of his assets). Third, girls become sexually mature earlier than do boys—another tell-tale sign of polygyny, because the intense competition among harem keepers conveys an evolutionary payoff for the "keeping" sex to delay maturation until individuals are large, strong, and possibly canny enough to have some chance of success. And fourth, before the cultural homogenization that came with Western colonialism, the vast majority of human societies were polygynous (read the story of King Solomon to see that God never frowned upon polygamy, only adultery). Comments
(12)
How strange. I was JUST thinking of this subject last night-- the similarities between humans and polygymous animals. I often argue that it explains men's immense difficulty to remain faithful. In some men, it's seemingly impossible. I mean, DAMN, am I the only dude that's been perfectly happy with a chick and still felt this internal need to bed the secretary at work? Don't fool yourseves thinking all men are making this conscious decision to be cheating asses. It's in our nature. But Drew was right about one thing: we are different from animals in that we can choose and reason. Therefore, we have little excuse to succumb to those biological inclinations... at least sometimes...damn, that's hard...shit, I'm going to Utah too.
 written by TPickens , October 20, 2007
This argument seems to not take into account several things. I wonder how you account for them and still come to the same presuppositions upon which your argument rests.
First, it seems reductive to equate sex with simply a biological need to reproduce. Sex is - according to Freud, who you endorse - not just a biological desire but an emotional one as well. The reductive idea that sex is a need only posits and would lead to the conclusion that men and women are governed by one physical need rather than a complex and interlocking set of emotional and physical and biological needs. Second, the nurture argument doesn't seem to take into account that the nurture comes from a patriarchal society. It would make sense that a world governed by men would sanction a double standard for sexual behavior. It also wouldn't take into account the idea that women's needs and desires are similar to men's. Part of what people never seem willing to accept is the idea that lust, passion, desire, and like are indiscriminate when applied to gender. They function much the same way as hunger, thirst, fatigue and, dare I say it, love. What's more, the religious argument seems a farce: Edenic paradise and covenant is not a myth. God did accept polygamy, but endorses monogamy. His own example of one groom and one bride at the dawn of creation (Eden) and in eschatology (Church as bride, Christ as groom) belies a desire for one partnership to exist with only two partners.
This argument seems to not take into account several things. I wonder how you account for them and still come to the same presuppositions upon which your argument rests.
First, it seems reductive to equate sex with simply a biological need to reproduce. Sex is - according to Freud, who you endorse - not just a biological desire but an emotional one as well. The reductive idea that sex is a need only posits and would lead to the conclusion that men and women are governed by one physical need rather than a complex and interlocking set of emotional and physical and biological needs. Second, the nurture argument doesn't seem to take into account that the nurture comes from a patriarchal society. It would make sense that a world governed by men would sanction a double standard for sexual behavior. It also wouldn't take into account the idea that women's needs and desires are similar to men's. Part of what people never seem willing to accept is the idea that lust, passion, desire, and like are indiscriminate when applied to gender. They function much the same way as hunger, thirst, fatigue and, dare I say it, love. What's more, the religious argument seems a farce: Edenic paradise and covenant is not a myth. God did accept polygamy, but endorses monogamy. His own example of one groom and one bride at the dawn of creation (Eden) and in eschatology (Church as bride, Christ as groom) belies a desire for one partnership to exist with only two partners. anyhow, its all crap to me, you can do as many studies as you'd like, but in the end, you make a choice to commit yourself to someone because you are mature enough and strong enough to endure what "natural" fight may rise up in you. moral of the story, IF YOU STILL DOUBT YOURSELF IN THE LOINS, DONT BE IN A RELATIONSHIP. some people just arent meant to be married, and thats the truth.
interesting, and whats even more interesting are the comments below the article. I feel every so often someone writes an article trying to convince us that we just have to accept the fact that a man will cheat because its "natural"
bullshit, when you commit, you make a choice and a promise to another person and in the case of marriage, a vow before God /allah, who ever. is being dishonerable natural as well? are we to accept deceiptfullness and dis-honor as women because, heck, our men cant be expected to fight whats naturally in them at all times? and so if that is acceptable, where is the acceptance for women that chose to give in to their nature? as per the article, we too produce mass amounts of eggs over a liftime, and hold the need to develope and birth children, is that not in our nature as well? why are we whores and chicken heads when we are only fighting the same war as our genetic counterpart? anyhow, its all crap to me, you can do as many studies as you'd like, but in the end, you make a choice to commit yourself to someone because you are mature enough and strong enough to endure what "natural" fight may rise up in you. moral of the story, IF YOU STILL DOUBT YOURSELF IN THE LOINS, DONT BE IN A RELATIONSHIP. some people just arent meant to be married, and thats the truth.
I completely agree with the TPickens. Drew I thought you were on a roll :
I find it interesting that we pick and choose what we should live by regarding the laws and way of life in the old testament. If it works in our favor (polygamy) then we use it. If it doesn't we argue that it only applied during the old testament. Oh Drew (shaking my head) ... Enjoy Utah! I guarantee that you will not stay long. The need for sincere acceptance, belonging, and love always trumps the idea that emotions can be left out of an act as intimate and spiritual as sex.
Look ladies men are going to cheat, it's just a matter of being respectful and not doing it blatantly. No woman should have to deal with a man cheating right in front of her face, that's just wrong on so many levels!!
Man, I better keep my biology book next to the bed so next time my girl busts in on me screwing around, I have some sort of justification. Shit, I need all the help I can get so help me science!
written by TPickens , October 23, 2007
I totally disagree Jamaar.
By saying that this is a part of your biology, you relinquish your humanity by implying that you are incapable of making a decision. Hypermasculinity is not something that should ever be accepted, even piecemeal. You can't say that your biology drives you to cheat and then renounce the same presuppositions that would say you're a violent, misogynistic, rapacious animal. (By virtue of having aligned yourself with a confused and might I add capricious biology, you've already relinquished your capability of choice.) What's more, that particular understanding of biology lends itself to racist argument: you would equate yourself with the animals that racists have compared you to so that they can justify lynching and other degradations.
Preach TPickens. Jamaar, never knows what he's talking about, lol!
I never said we didn't have a choice TPickens, what I said was that men are going to cheat (i.e. choose to cheat) so just accept it, unless he's cheating right in your face. Society is set up to reward men for being with a bunch of women so why shouldn't we take advantage of the system?!! If you were able to cash a one million dollar check every year simply because your last name was Pickens would you turn the check down?!! I don't think so lil' mama, and if you did you're either crazy or live an "alternative" lifestyle!! You feel me?!!
written by TPickens , October 24, 2007
hmm, cheating is wrong. Are you advocating that we do what is rewarded without regard for instances of right and wrong? It seems that you're advocating a demolition of the double standard by name-calling or acceptance of a societal reward, but I don't hear anyone acknowledge that the practice is wrong.
In reference to your example, I would want to know where the money is coming from. That seems to me socially responsible and not crazy or an indication of "alternativity" (though I'm not entirely sure what you mean).
I am really sorry that I just saw this one and it just lets me know that I need to both check and weigh in a little more often. Ladies, this is something that we are never going to agree about partially because of the sighted double standards in this male-driven society.
There have always been more men that women on the planet, as far as I have known, since Adam and Eve...and the fact that this does not just pertain to humans is leading me to believe that the biology argument might hold more weight than the ladies are giving it. Men are the minority, but are the majority decision maker/ruler in every species that comes to mind. Therein leaving the male with the option to select a mate that best suits his needs at the time… Why not pick one that is chaste? The concept that a woman's infidelity is inherently worse than a man's is one that is going to be a little more long-lived than any of you might think. Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved.       |
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 24 October 2007 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Subscribe
Subscribe to our free week in review newsletter. The "name" field is optional.
Do the Right Thing
Here lies the "Do the Right Thing" poster to remind people what they're supposed to do.
