Are humans naturally monogamous?

Are humans naturally monogamous?

Only anally.

Well, if they were naturally polygamous, they wouldn't be jealous of their other partner fucking the main partner. Or atleast that's how I would imagine it? Idk.

Ideally, yes.

Practically, no.

We used to be naturally ugly, so monogamy wasn't difficult.

Yes, which is why there are so many humans in monogamous relationships. However, women are more monogamous than men. Men are hard-wired to impregnate as many women as possible, as evidenced by their longer rates of fertility, their physiology, their ability to impregnate women very often, and their higher rates of unfaithfulness. Women, on the other hand, are meant to raise a group of children created by one man, as evidenced by their shorter fertility span, lower rates of unfaithfulness, attitude toward children, and the amount of time it takes for them to birth a child.

Anthropological evidence suggests we didn't become monogamous until the advent of agriculture about 18,000 years ago.

...

The vast majority of mammal species are based on units where a single male has a harem of (at least) several females.

This was only moderated by religious appeal as the priests became a ruling caste amongst the first civilizations. If people can't buy into your society aka find mates, they'll either leave or rebel.

So you have monogamy as a social technology to keep wage/debt slaves wage/debt slaving.

Monogamy is natural for all females and beta males.

Polygamy is natural for alpha males, which is why this generation discourages it.

This.

How the fuck do "scientists" figure out who was fucking who, twenty thousand years ago?
We can't even figure out decipher linear A, but apparently there's "anthropological evidence" that Ugg had a side piece.

Women are equally unfaithful right now.

This

Not him, but the relatively narrow genic variability of the Y chromosome suggests that only a few men, compared to the number of women, managed to reproduce, which probably means they were poygamous.
Women are not exactly monogamous either. The properties of human semen and other traits, like the considerable size of testicles and shape of the penis show that in case a woman has sex with multiple men the sperms compete with each other in order to reach the egg. That means they also have the tendency to have sex with multiple partners, though that doesn't necessarily mean being unfaithful. This is just my personal opinion, but I think the first humans' attitude towards sex and relationships was much more relaxed, because all the autism we have today could potentially create tensions within the tribe, and in a society where everyone depended on one another that wouldn't end up well. On the other hand it's impossible to ignore that a man has more chances of reproducing if his partner doesn't sleep around, so there's that.

>herp derp durrrr

Why do so people few people know the word "cuckquean"?

*so few people

Prolly not

Lel, is this why mensturation synchs when chicks hang out with each other for extended periods of time?

Women are hypergamus

Men are polygamous

That's not really true, and not just because of the incorrect date for agriculture. Ethnographic studies of hunter-gatherer groups have shown that they're mostly monogamous. For as much as we're able to assume about the past from that, humans were probably monogamous for most of the past, too.

Considering that males want to fuck as much as they can, but are naturally compelled to fall in love, I think humans are like gorillas in terms of relationship: a male has a harem of females, one of them being "the favourite" -and this one changes overtime.

What does 'hypergamus' mean?

Hypergamous is somebody who marries somebody of a higher class.

People in colder climates tend to be monogamous more so than people in warmer climates. This is because in colder climates it takes more resources to support children and women. This is called high investment strategy. Rather than have a horde of children with 60% of them dying off with multiple women, you have a couple children with one woman and teach them things that would aid survival. I could give more details but I don't know if anyone would be interested in the nitty gritty of caloric economics in the pre-agricultural world I suggest looking into r/K selection theory and life history paradigm theory.

t. anthropologist

This generation encourages polygamy for both men and women.

>r/K selection theory and life history paradigm theory.
OP here, I'll look into them.
Also can you recommend some books on the social structure of pre-agriculture societies, if you know any?

Yes, but they do not naturally mate for life. There's exceptional cases (both in humans and most mammals) but for the most part, the hormone associated with feelings of devotion and emotional (rather than purely physical) love, triggered by the recognition or recollection of somebody you have had strong feelings for in the past, fade after three to four years.

IIRC the study I read on the matter (which, mind you, was years ago, so I'm bound to get details wrong) involved measuring the levels of oxytocin and seratonin produced when looking at both attractive faces of the preferred sex and at the faces of previous partners. The conclusion was that small amounts of oxytocin (the hormone associated with committed love) were produced when looking at an unfamiliar but attractive face, but large amounts of seratonin were. With a familiar face some seratonin would be produced but primarily large amounts of oxytocin, with this no longer being the case with partners one fell in love with over 4 years ago in most cases. However, longterm partners (as in, those who had been together for over a decade without separation) would still produce large amounts of oxytocin when looking at each other's face, demonstrating that there are exceptions.

The reason this reaction continues for about 3-4 years is presumably that that is how long it takes to conceive a child, carry it to term and breastfeed it until it can eat real food, at which point the mother is no longer vulnerable for a considerable portion of the day (necessitating the presence of a man to protect her).

Also one supposed cause of autism is being deficient in oxytocin receptors. Just a fun aside.

Retard

Animals in nature who are polygamous tend to have large gender differences in size and strength. That said its not a black and white issue, humans have had both practices going at the same time. It is historically normal for the ruling caste to have multiple wives for example.

>alphamales

Go back to /r9k/ or /pol/, retard

>INB4 yo don't agree with my retarded autistic view about humanity so you must be beta!!!

Actually you're right, there's no such thing as an alpha male species since that's just how all males are supposed to be. But with the rise of beta males such as yourself, the term had to be used to make the distinction.

I meant actual polygamy. Alpha males don't use words loosely.

ITT: Angry numales defending sluts, and denying social hierarchy.

Yes. There's a reason it's become so popular.

>diversity is a sign of beta males
You're the supposed "alpha" /pol/TARDS that only have the guts to swear at minorities online and not in real life. Go pick up a knife and stab someone black in real life if you're not a pussy bitch you fucking nigger

Nah, I respect laws and state authority and only defend my positions legally. I dont play victim lying down in front of vehicles too.

>However, women are more monogamous than men.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Kill yourself

It seems to be the most widely utilized system. Can't really think of any functional examples of other setups on a large scale that didn't involve treating one of the sexes like animals. And I get that monogamy doesn't garuntee anything, but it seems the least dysfunctional.

>women
>monogamous
top kek m7

yeah, more like when they live under the same roof

Two of our closest relatives, chimps and bonobo aren't, so there's no reason to believe we "naturally" are. Chimps basically have a strict male social hierarchy, with alpha male fucking all the females, while bonobos are promiscuous af. Monogamy is a recent innovation, born out of necessity to regulate social interaction and property issues among a large number of people living together in settlements, once agriculture had kicked off.

Sorry things didn't work out with your high school crush kid, but it is what it is.

Lone Survivors by Chris Stringer touches on it, iirc. And I believe the 10,000 year explosion does as well. Most of the stuff needs to be found in journals or Jstor, if you have access to it.

Chimps and bonobos also have thick hair all over their bodies, peanut shaped faces and a completely different body structure and psychological makeup as well as much more limited intelligence.

I would argue that, in humans, polygamy is probably the (more) recent "invention." It comes from social power, an idea that only arises when you have a society to rise to the top of. Most of us are, however, naturally psychologically wired to have one partner at a time. It is trauma, the functions of higher reasoning in someone with the social power to exploit others for the arbitrary tokens of "sex" or "money," or mutation from this norm that leads to polygamous habits.

Though insofar as the latter is genetic or memetic, it is only likely to continue growing unless society harshly punishes it or collapses- Now that polygamy is no longer punished by nature because humans are not living in small, isolated groups where your mates offspring are unlikely to survive if you abandon them to dally with every woman you can, polygamy has become a genetically beneficial trait that is much more likely to be passed down via either genes or the example of our fathers.

>le virgin xD
Why do women always default to the same, uninspired insults? There are far worse things than being a virgin, sexual attraction is not the most important thing in life you shallow whore.
>But I never claimed you were a virgin. *poops panties*
That's clearly what you were implying, kill yourself

Insightful wall of text coming through.

There's nothing wrong with being virgin. Why do you even take it as an insult?

Depends on what you mean by "humans". If its the collective, then societal have found monogamous to be the natural pairing.

If its single human acting on their desires, its whatever they can deal with. As its individual mandate that differs from person to person.