From: "idleeric" Subject: ASSC-AFTSD: Monogamy Prof. Pinker --> >>Hmm. I think I want to see your citation regarding most human cultures >>sanction polygany (polygamy?). Prof. Flynn -> >>Harumph. Obviously you didn't bother to read the letter to Science from an >>ASU anthropologist that I posted to the GOS last week. (Sorry, I don't >>still have it on line or I'd repost it.) Anyway, the author said (in >>response to an article about the lack of monogamy in the animal kingdom) >>that of 1100+ human cultures archived in a database at Yale, about 70% >>sanctioned some form of polygyny. BTW, "ploygyny" (sorry about the original >>misspelling) refers to the condition of a male having more than one wife or >>female partner at one time. "Polygamy" is not gender-specific, referring to >>the practice of having more than one mate or spouse at one time. I did mean >>"polygyny" in my original comments. >> >>The letter was in the Nov 6 issue of Science. Prof. Pinker --> >You mean the quote that went: > >"Monogamy is rare not only in nature, but among humans. Of 1154 societies >in the Human Relations Area Files (a large database originally compiled at >Yale University), more than 1000 (93%) recognize some degree of sanctioned >polygyny (that is, at least ocacsionally, males can mate with more than >one >female), and polygyny is the preferred choice in 70% of them (ref). > >? > >Hmmm. Interesting stat, but I don't buy it. I'd like to know their >definition of a society that "recognizes polygyny." Does Western society >count as a "society that recognizes polygyny" because certain Mormans >practice it, and they're part of our society? Do the 93% of cultures that >recognize it account for only a small fraction of population, while the >7% that don't account for a huge fraction? (I.e., those 154 >non-recognizing societies include Jews, non-Mormon Christians, Buddhists >and Muslims.... er, or do Muslims still sanction polygyny?) Does a small >sect of 20 polygamists in Montana count as a society? Well, you get my >point. > >I wonder if I can access the Yale data on the web? Prof. Wright --> this is a half-full/empty proposition ... i'll cc: this to my guru/expert, cuz i'm sure i'm wrong .... in primate "cultures" & in many "lower" species, the Victor (Alpha-prick, the Leader of the Pack ... vrrrrummm...vrrrummm) gets the Spoils (aka the Harem) .... the outcasts, 98 pound weakling Chimps, get sand kicked in their faces .... the Mate-pair is an phenomenon that suits females somewhat better than males, but offers "middling" males a lifetime opportunity to carry on the Progeny thru Dint of Effort w/ One Roll of the GeneDice ... so yeah, monogamy does have an EvPsych basis, but the Bull Republicans'd rather fool around ... serially, Cheating ... whatever ... Brigham Young & the Old Testiment Patriarchs would Understand .... I'm of the Hugh Hefner- Huey Long "Every Man a King in his Mansion" School .... Having as many Naked females as can't be hand-led swarming around is more than an adolescent fantasy .... it's the American Dream!!!!!! If it's sound psychology, good ... if it isn't, then i'll confess: I'm a Subversive Deviant Commie Perv.