psycho, heck, I said I agree with discerning and practicing monogamous behaviours, but that wasn't the minor (I thought) issue. The point is affairs are human behaviour, likewise reasoning is human behaviour. If we could just behave anyway we wanted, regardless of programming we would not be human, so why argue (or bemoan that fact). Better to understand why we do what we do, then we can decide other actions. There is nothing evil or abnormal about our species reproductive strategies, and it is nonsensical to label healthy (as in we still exist, so can have these discussions) behaviour as bad, or evil, or whatever. That just sets up huge interpersonal conflicts (duh) that we observe here daily as people obsess over who hurts more, and try to gain the moral high ground (for obvious reasons). It makes far more sense to simply view an affair as a natural consequence of a failed effort at an unnatrural monogamous effort, not a personal affront, or a mental illness. And instead focus on what exactly happened, the likelihood that a particular monogamous effort can be successful (a complex psychological effort), and how to proceed after the new knowledge (the affair) is added to the mix.

It might make people feel good (and righteous, and all that prideful stuff) to somehow connect affair behaviours to some kind of personal defect, but if that is true, then everyone is defective, so what is the point? Human beings are programmed for affair behaviour, that means everyone. We are not programmed for monogamous behaviour, it should not come as a great surprise affairs are the consequence of failed monogamy, hence one cannot exist without the other, otherwise how would one know a monogamous effort had failed? And if there were no affairs, then there would be no monogamy, because there would be no basis for recognizing failed monogamy. Nor would there be MB and other strategies for affair proofing a marriage.

Qf, you have some personal issue with anthropology? I guess I am confused, are you saying studying and understanding human behaviour is impossible, or of no value?

I was okay with most of that, until " It makes far more sense to simply view an affair as a natural consequence of a failed effort at an unnatrural monogamous effort, not a personal affront, or a mental illness."

What makes "monogamous effort" unnatural? I don't think it is.

"LurkingAbout," I did not realize you were SNL in disguise. Please do not waste your garbage on me. Your logic is so skewed and self-serving it would be laughable if it had not led to such misery for your own family.

Please, please, please, just go out and spread your seed and be the animal you truly want to be. There is no need to waste bandwidth here trolling people who really are interested in saving their marriages.

You have tormented your own wife into a complete breakdown. You care nothing for anybody except yourself. You are a very poor excuse for a human being and I do not see how you can possibly have one ounce of respect for yourself. Believe me, no one else does.

Feel free to report this post if it will make you feel better. But don't waste time responding to me. I will NEVER respond to you again, and I sure wish the others here would do the same. They are only feeding your sick little fantasy.

Please, SNL, get a life. Or if you can't do that, at least have the decency to leave us alone and stop torturing your family. They deserve much better. And so do we.

pepper, yes I can see you are tweaked, I am not sure why. Does discussion about why people do what they do from a scientific viewpoint annoy you? That is not unusual, but I really don't see why, we are what we are, and the genetic, evolutionary viewpoints about all things human and how to conduct ourselves personally and as a society is interesting (I think, and apparently lots do, ie discover channel, learning channel, etc. which have lots of programs about such things). But some feel threatened by such discussions, I just wonder why they don't simply avoid them rather than participate with emotional responses. Should we (as a society) just not try to understand such things? It seems to me understanding (for example) why affair behaviour occurs, would be helpful for all the affected parties, in decideing how to proceed after such an occurence. Clearly (IMO) understanding that affair behaviour is a natural and predictable consequence of human relationships helps to cope with it's occurence, and insure (if one does not want a repeat) more successful behavioural changes. Rules don't work (or work poorly) as a control to behavioural choices), OTOH, informed understanding, and actions taken from that, work much better in behavioural change.

robotic rhetoric annoys me

you understand very little about human behaviour

psycho, there have been occassional references that my posting reminds people about another poster (usally in an unflattering way, or due to some personal issue with them). It is impossible to defend against such things on-line, nor will I waste time doing so now. I am LurkingAbout, and my thoughts are my own, if you prefer not to post to me, that is fine.

SNL:

"Qf, you have some personal issue with anthropology?"

No, I don't. I do have a personal issue with a particular anthropology department where my W got her degree, though. Like I said, I've known many of those people for several years now, and I know what their A's have done to their M's and their own persons. It's very sad. Life doesn't have to be that way.

"I guess I am confused, are you saying studying and understanding human behaviour is impossible, or of no value? "

No, I'm not. I am saying, however, that humans having As, studying that aspect of human behavior cannot be credible. It's a conflict of interest.

Human behavior is just as much about feelings, sprituality, "intangible" things along those lines, which do not easily fit within scientific methods. It may be possible someday to describe all human behavior scientifically, and I applaud efforts in the community to do so. But we're a long ways from being able to do that. Theology is much better at it than science, at the present time.

SNL, LurkingAbout, whowever you are. I don't know your story, don't know your W's story. I don't care if you, or even if my W, believe that monogamy is "unnatural." The point is that we're sentient beings capable of empathizing with those we affect in our lives. Who can we affect more, deliteriously or otherwise, than our own spouses? Put aside your base animal urges, and redefine NATURAL from a position of empathy and compassion.

I'm gone now.
-Qfwfq

Pepper? This is not my research (I am not an antropologist, or genetic researcher), I just read alot. If you disagree with this information, post a rebuttal, perhaps you have differing info, I don't know, but I do know what I posted is pretty much the same across a variety of sources. Why do you think affair behaviour occurs? And if it is not "normal" species behaviour how come it is so widespread? Shouldn't an unsuccessful strategy been eliminated from the genepool by now?

oops double post

<small>[ February 05, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: LurkingAbout ]</small>

qw, huh, anthropology dept, I can appreciate that being a trigger of sorts. For the record I am a firm believer and proponent of monogamy, and I think one can make the case for it scientifically as well. But it is not a natural behaviour, saying that does not mean I endorse non-monogamous behaviour (why must I keep saying that, sheesh). I just think the best way to change ones behaviour is to understand the reasons we do what we do instinctually, and build on that.

SNL, You are a very annoying little man, do you ever just go away!
Tell us OH GREAT AND RATIONAL ONE, did you enjoy beating your wife as much as baiting hurting people on these boards?

Calling monogomy unnatural behavior is not addressing the scientific root and repeating statements like that just give people are target to shoot at.

There is no monogomy gene. Human behavior is more accurately described in terms of what makes us react. Happy, sad, pain. We chose to get closer to those things that make us happy and farther from the things that make us sad. From these simpler rules are derived (as opposed to programmed) the end state behavior.

The big failure in people is an inability to see the complete picture. This may be because of time differences (I want it now!) or lack of full information (He's so dreamy) or faulty intepretation (my W won't mind). Other factors as well.

To say that faulty behavior would be weeded out is also simplifying the issue a bit. To say that humans would not exist without affair behavior is just crazy talk. Affair's being a reproductive strategy is also faulty since we'd be more likely to just kill our partners/abandon families for betraying us if it were all up to nature - ending the reproductive incentive for As.

Yes, there is a biological basis that explain affair behavior (just as there is oe for the euphoria of love), but to say we are "supposed" to because of the biology? You might as well say we are supposed to kill our coworkers who are competing for the same promotion.

I think there's been too much paraphrasing of the papers. Promiscuity is probably a better word to use anyway rather than infidelity or affairs.

<small>[ February 05, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: est ]</small>

Perhaps a less charged way to discuss this is to place in to terms of where humans are in the balance between selfish v. altruistic behaviors and how they both have contributory effects towards propogation of one's genes.

Or is this too close to Evolution-talk?

selfish vs altruistic is a good model. We are inherently selfish (as we must be), but we recognize (and have genetically incorporated) a social need too, because groups will survice where an individual will not. Altruism is the measure by which we can define individual behaviour in group terms when it does not directly benefit us (which would be selfish behaviour). ie selfish behaviour would be to pursue whatever reproductive strategy you see as immediately beneficial. Affair behaviour would be selfish behaviour within a group (by 2 individuals whose selfish interests coincide for the moment), we (the group) allow such behaviour more readily than say theft, or murder, because it does have benefits (or we would just kill anyone who does so). However, we try to encourage (and rightly so IMO) the altruistic notion of monogamy. Meaning we don't actively condone affairs (as a group), and we encourage people to not seek affairs (even if won't get caught) cause there are many benefits to fidelity. The physical benefits are obvious, decreased std's, which benefits ws, bs, op, and society...also reduced unwanted pregnancies.

But there are also psychological benefits, more stable interpersonal relationships, whether folks divorce/break-up or not. Due to the emotional componment of human beings that reacts poorly to the act of an affair...ie depression, rage, fear, and such. Such powerful emotions are draining on all parties (including kids) for very little gain. Then there are practical benefits as well, mostly economic, wasted money, lost jobs, etc. On the whole, a pretty good case can be made for the altruistic behaviour of monogamy. The flip side, what is given up by excluding affair behaviuour, not much. An affair can lead to a good relationship, but it is a very long shot, compared to other methods of establish relationships. An affair can provide the emotional strength to break free of a toxic relationship, but again at a high price usually. Mostly people get used in affairs, either directly by predators, or indirectly by others acting out various personality disorders using pursuit as the drug of choice.

It is all well and good (and interesting) to discuss these things, but everyone here (for the most part) is after the fact. We should do this preperatrion pre-maritally, including supporting divorce/seperation as the proper solution when a spouse (by being radically honest with themself) is unwilling to continue a monogamous relationship. But because we encumber divorce/seperation with social animus, as well as unfair legal outcomes (financial and custody), we keep people in marriages longer than we should...that, coupled with a poor understanding of the behavioural consequences of a withdrawn marriage, gaurantees instinctual behaviour will kick in, and affairs will occur. This is all related, you can't just say affairs are bad don't do it, you have to understand why they happen, and support an acceptable means to end a marriage if you want altruism to flourish.

Monogamy is not an altruistic behavior at all. It's actually very selfish (for selfish meaning something that provides a real benefit to ones self). We have had many, many studies showing that men, especially, get a huge number of benefits from monogamy/marriage. They live longer, report being happier, have fewer disease processes (possibly tied to better nutritional support), and have more and better sex. If you look a little harder at these numbers, you actually find out that, across the board, men and women report being happier in and having fewer problems with their first marriages than with subsequent ones, even if the subsequent marriage was not an affair marriage.

But that's not what I was about to say here. I just caught a glimpse of your post claiming that monogamy was an altruistic behavior on my way to talk about previous ones.

I used to post frequently on a diet board where many people were starting some of the various low carb diets or diets based on glycemic index values, and I frequently ran into people asking the same questions. One of which was: "I'm so tired of bacon and eggs. What else can I eat for breakfast?"

Over and over, I posted the same information. What do you eat for lunch? What do you eat for supper? Why not have it for breakfast? And over and over, I ran into people who were so culturally indoctrinated into the idea that there are specific types of foods that you eat for breakfast that they were completely unable to comprehend that soup tastes just as good at 8am as it does at noon. We have no natural desire to eat wheaties for breakfast. It's a cultural affectation. It's a bahavior based on expectations and our historical understanding of the people we associate with, and by association, the people they associate with. It is one of the ways that we fit in with and understand the culture around us.

Anthropology is not a hard science. You can write up all the population studies you want. You can follow individual subgroups of people for generations, documenting their habits, their health stats, their family makeups, and in the end, you have a lot of information that says nothing without interpretation. It's not the raw numbers and observations that cause trouble. It's that, at some point, all that raw data is filtered through the biases of whatever group or individual is doing the study and out comes their interpretation of the data.

I've read the studies LA is referring to. I've also read others that lead me to consider other interpretations of the data.

Adultery/monogamy statistics vary wildly from group to group in the US. It has been demonstrated that the sexual behavior of a certain individual is influenced by the subgroups they belong to.

So the question becomes does society inhibit the natural inclination of humans toward what we would call adutery behavior or does it encourage an unnatural inclination to it based on the cultural expectations of the subgroups they belong to? And anyone who thinks they can answer that without prejudice of their own cultural biases is laughably underestimating the impact of our culture on our belief systems and subsequently our behavior.

So, in short, La, saying that there's evidence to support an evolutionary theory that adultery behavior is preprogrammed into our genes and the only thing holding us back from our natural inclination toward serial monogamy/adultery/ploygyny is cultural repercussions and the strictures of religion or law is correct. But it's only one interpretation of the data and leads to many more questions than it answers.

For instance, if serial monogamy or polygyny is our natural state, how exactly did it come about that nearly every culture on the face of the planet has had some form of monogamous marriage activity, regardless of their religion? What would induce so many individual cultures to violate their so-called natural inclinations toward adultery behavior and create an man-made system that excludes or limits this behavior, insetad of creating a system whereby we could continue our natural desire toward adultery behavior while limiting any negative effects it might have on the larger society? What would induce so many people to voluntarily support and encourage the introduction of this unnatural stricture to their behavior (if indeed it is unnatural)? What possible positive aspect to monogamy could there be that would induce all these various cultures to force compliance to an unnatural form of sexual bonding?

Or maybe. Just maybe. It's not unnatural at all, and the answers lie not in any sort of necessary evolutionary theory of survival, but in other natural processes that affect our bonding behaviors. Your guess is as good as mine, but keep in mind; it's still just a guess. You can put all the letters you want behind your name (in general, not speaking directly of LA), but when it comes to understanding and interpretting the historical and anthropological data on human pair bonding and adultery behavior, you're still just guessing.

Mere

merentha, you have expanded the discussion, one cannot do justice to such a complex subject with little snippets. I fully agree all behaviour is selfish, including altruism. The trick is to use our species special skill of cognition (which grants us the ability to act in opposition to instinct) to percieve and choose actions which could be labeled altruistic, but in reality benefit us, just not in immediate obvious ways.

I have also read the studies about the benefits of monogamy, and bottom line (and a good standard to measure by) is that monagamists live longer, healthier lives. The downside is at some point dysfunctional monogamists live shortened lives, due to stress I imagine. Another sort of horrible outcome is one member of a monogamy may live longer (usually the male) at the expense of the other member, cause they are selfish, get their needs met, and neglect their partner...which is why one has to feel empowered to leave an unhealthy marriage with a dysfunctional partner.

me...Anthropology is not a hard science. You can write up all the population studies you want. You can follow individual subgroups of people for generations, documenting their habits, their health stats, their family makeups, and in the end, you have a lot of information that says nothing without interpretation. It's not the raw numbers and observations that cause trouble. It's that, at some point, all that raw data is filtered through the biases of whatever group or individual is doing the study and out comes their interpretation of the data.

la...Oh yes, most definitely interpretation. In the past been a big problem. But as those who study such things have learned to apply genetic considerations for behaviour, and how to model out cultural affectations, we are getting a clearer picture of the underlying principles that unite all the cultural observations. Indeed there are observations that monogamy is becoming the dominant model, the reasons for this might be are fascinating to contemplate. I do not think it is mere coincidence that the rise of monogamy parallels the emancipation of females to egalitarian status in our societies. I suspect also infant mortality rates (dropping) have relieved some of the pressure to make more babies (for example). Also the dynamics of a technoculture, greater incomes, etc), undoubtedly play a role. In the past males dominated the reproduction paradigms, trying to own/control females in typical fashion. However at all times in all cultures (in all species for that matter) "affairs" are commonplace (ie normal) occurences (there have to be sound survival reasons for this). I have read estimates that even today in the US, 20-30% of children thought to be the married males biologic child...are not. When we go to universal DNA registration it will be very very interesting. Even here, we have had posters who were pregnant from an affair debateing whether to tell the H it may not be his baby.

me...For instance, if serial monogamy or polygyny is our natural state, how exactly did it come about that nearly every culture on the face of the planet has had some form of monogamous marriage activity, regardless of their religion?

la...Not up on all this, but isn't polygamy the more common state historically? And the reasons for that are obvious. But curiously there were two polygnous cultures (tibetan, and eskimo), and the enviromental reasons for that were very interesting, and culturally based. In the eskimo case it essentially boiled down (maybe same for tibetan) that the living conditions were so harsh, that monogamy couldn't work, had to have pluralistic marriage. By making it polygnous, no male could be certain whose child was their's, so you avoided male aggression against offspring not theirs, and all children were equally supported...and the tribe flourished.

me...What would induce so many individual cultures to violate their so-called natural inclinations toward adultery behavior and create an man-made system that excludes or limits this behavior, insetad of creating a system whereby we could continue our natural desire toward adultery behavior while limiting any negative effects it might have on the larger society?

la...IMO it is fairly simple. We realized (through experience) that vesting resources in things other than the reproductive chase paid dividends (including more successful offspring as they grew to adulthood, quality over quantity. As well as a different quality of life, all that chasing is wearying, and dangerous. Monogamy is reproduction at the lowest cost, one can use cognition to figure that out, act on it, and start promoting it culturally.

me...What would induce so many people to voluntarily support and encourage the introduction of this unnatural stricture to their behavior (if indeed it is unnatural)? What possible positive aspect to monogamy could there be that would induce all these various cultures to force compliance to an unnatural form of sexual bonding.

la...The same forces that forced us past tribal behaviours (kill/enslave everyone different than you), and we invented civilization to promote these "unnatural" behaviours, in other words, a celebration of cognition. Instinctual behaviour ultimately insures extinction, when the reactionary race is lost. Ultimate survival depends on proactive choices, and lies in our ability to successfully apply cognitive oversight to instinctual behaviour.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LurkingAbout:
<strong>The downside is at some point dysfunctional monogamists live shortened lives, due to stress I imagine. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Dysfunctional members of society, in general, tend to live shortened lives. We usually recommend that they receive some sort of therapy for their dysfunction, and if that fails they are often removed from society because of their inability to live within its strictures (laws). So in that sense, yes there is a clear model for ending a marriage based on the dysfunction of one or more of its members.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LurkingAbout:
<strong>
la...Oh yes, most definitely interpretation. In the past been a big problem. But as those who study such things have learned to apply genetic considerations for behaviour, and how to model out cultural affectations, </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">LA, in the past 10 years (my own history of following genetic research) genetic research has grown tremendously, but while I can tell you that the study of genetics has managed to link a fairly small number of diseases to specific gene patterns on specific chromosomes, anyone who tells you that they can link anything so complex as the behavior of healthy human beings to genetics is LYING.

Case in point, cloning -- CC the copy cat cloned kitty. CC and Rainbow have an identical genetic structure -- and that's pretty much where their similarities end. They do not share the same behavior patterns or personality. They don't even look the same. Why? Because no amount of identical genetics can change what is fostered and developed from environment and experience.

As for the idea that biased interpretation is a thing of the past: I just can't express to you how hard that made me laugh. Everyone wants to believe that they're the person who can see everything clearly and everyone else is blinded by their own inability to see past their cultural biases. I'm not holding my breath for the day that someone proves a way to do this. It ain't gonna be in my life time. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LurkingAbout:
<strong>I do not think it is mere coincidence that the rise of monogamy parallels the emancipation of females to egalitarian status in our societies. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As they say: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No, I don't think it's coincidence at all that as male dominated power structures have been infiltrated by women with equal power, polygyny (sanctioned by marriage or not) has lost some ground. No one wants to be part of a crowd. If they did, we'd see a lot more men volunteering for polyandrous relationships, rather than demanding the fidelity of their partner(s) as their right, while engaging in multiple relationships themselves.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LurkingAbout:
<strong>
However at all times in all cultures (in all species for that matter) "affairs" are commonplace (ie normal) occurences (there have to be sound survival reasons for this). </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, there don't. There does NOT have to any good or positive reason for why affairs have occured or do occur.

There are all sorts of things we could say this about. Just because a significant portion of a population can be addicted to a given substance does not indicate that there are sound survival reasons for the addiction process -- and addiction has been with us just as long as adultry.

Remember that the statistics we have on affairs are not equitable. In other words, you can't say that 40% of all men, across the board, no matter what they do for a living, where they live, or any other variable will have affairs. Doesn't work that way. So while you can say that affairs have happened as a result of the human condition. I say that environmental factors play the defining role in determining who will have an affair and who won't.

As someone else put it, there is no adultery gene. No one is compelled by their genetic structure to engage in adulterous behavior. They might choose to based on a huge number of other variables, but genetics ain't gonna cut it here.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LurkingAbout:
<strong>
la...Not up on all this, but isn't polygamy the more common state historically? And the reasons for that are obvious. But curiously there were two polygnous cultures (tibetan, and eskimo), and the enviromental reasons for that were very interesting, and culturally based. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You know, I almost wrote polygamy because I knew it would confuse someone if I used the correct term for what I was referring to. Polygyny refers to a man having more than one female mate. Polyandry refers to a woman having more than one male mate. Polygamy refers to someone of either sex having multiple mates of either sex.

And yes, the polyandrous cultures you refer to are incredibly interesting to me. I'm more familiar with the Tibetan model, and most interesting to me is that while a woman will have several mates, usually brothers, it's not because she's the one holding the power -- unlike traditional polygyny.

So I maintain, non-monogamous behavior occurs, not because of some in-born genetic "need", but mainly because cultural forces accept it or allow for it, even at times expecting it. And as women have gained more power in society, you have the increasing dichotomy of a demand for monogamy from women who have traditionally been the ones expected to be a part of that structure while their husbands played around and an increase in adulterous behavior from wives who are suddenly finding that the cultural pressures and opportunity to cheat that used to apply mostly to men are now open to them too.

So I guess in that sense, what's good for the goose really is good for the gander. Or bad, as the case may be, because it turns out, men don't like being cheated on any more than women do.

Mere -- going to do some real work now

Hey DeWayne!

Look what you started!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Mitzi <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Hi Mitz <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> Leave it to me, right??? At least that would be the general opinion on EN....

You know I've seen several people here accused of being snl, but I think this ID is right on!!!

Hey Pepper, there is no excusing what snl did, but thinker wasn't exactly an MB'er....It was always a kind of tit-for-tat situation. She was just as dishonest on these boards as he...They rank the same in my book...