Quote:
|
If you take an evolunistic view of psychology, being monogamous is the best way to ensure survival, especially from a female's standpoint.
|
Really? Wouldn't a female survive better with two males taking care of her, rather than one?
Quote:
|
The value of monogamy is determined by the value a society places on monogamy. It isn't inherent, it's just currently more advantageous in our culture.
|
In the past, you would be correct. But I don't think monogamy is most advantageous today, at least not from the standpoint of individuals.
Quote:
|
From an evolutionary standpoint animals choose monogamy or promiscuity based on their which has a more positive effect on the ability to continue one's genes.
|
Correct. As I understand, there are biological imperatives for both monogamy and promiscuity, depending on the situation. Though very, very, few species are monogamous. And few human cultures are completely monogamous throughout history.
I think monogamy is useful for raising children. But because of contraception now ideas, not all relationships are going to involve children. If there are no children, what is the point of monogamy?
In my various intellectual meandering, I have come to the conclusion that
polyamory makes the most sense nowadays. Check out "The Ethical Slut" by Easton and Liszt, and "Against Love" by Laura Kipnis. And
here is an interesting article on polyamory. I am happy to explain some of these basic arguments and the problems with monogamy...