Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It should be remembered that monogamy and polygamy are forms of social living, not sexual. These concepts describe life in the family, in marriage, and not sexual needs. This is important because a person's sexual behavior is largely determined by subconscious physiological processes, and social behavior is determined by the experience of consciousness, accepted stereotypes, and formed connections in the mind. That is, if one of the spouses discovers the sexual attractiveness of a new person, he or she does not think about how to change the way of the family, introduce the spouse, persuade the spouse to take another person into the family, etc. In extreme cases, he / she changes one monogamous family to another monogamous family. Now most societies promote the idea of a family consisting of two people. Group marriages, Swedish families, harems are now rare. People who live in group marriages simply do not have the opportunity to register such a marriage in any way. They may be inconvenienced by an unsuitable social structure for such a life. They may feel public censure. That is, monogamy and polygamy are determined not by the physiology of a person, but by the way society influences the individual, the structure of society. Therefore, the gender of the spouses is not at all important here.
If we consider the concepts of polygamy and monogamy, then we can say that most people during their lifetime feel the sexual attractiveness of many people. There is no such switch in the body: I met a nice person, click, and all the others disappeared. People who are in love can also continue to be attracted to other sexually attractive people. How they behave in this case depends only on their upbringing, on their internal behavior model, which provides comfort to the mind.
What does Schopenhauer have to do with it? Is this the greatest sex therapist of all time?
This nonsense has been repeatedly voiced by a variety of moralists, passing off the requirements of traditional morality as a natural law.
In the biological sense, man is NOT a MONOGAMOUS being. There is nothing to discuss here, if you focus on scientific knowledge.
Just as there is nothing to discuss in the fact that the requirement of traditional sex ideology in terms of monogamy for a woman is much stricter than for a man. What is there to discuss?
We are a mixture of biology and ideology (understood in a broad sense). Moreover, the requirements of ideology are at odds with biology. Society acts here under both external and internal pressure, forcing us into the framework it requires. How successful it is depends on a lot of things.
But for some reason, ALL moralists and even some sexologists miss one purely mathematical fact: the average number of sexual partners of one woman must be equal to the average number of partners of one man.
Polygamy and monogamy of the species depends on the period of gestation and maturation of the offspring. If it is long, like in humans, elephants, etc., then the species is monogamous, and if it is short, like in mice, then polygamous.
However, some men may be polygamous. This involves competition to push losers and weaklings down and prevent them from breeding by breeding themselves. Nevertheless, most people as a species are monogamous.
Therefore, Schopenhauer's opinion is only partially true.
Since the number of men and women in the world is almost identical, and most men are not characterized by long-term abstinence or homosexuality, such a statement contradicts elementary mathematics.
The same Schopenhauer proposed to discuss the phenomenon, and not our attitude to the phenomenon.
If we are guided by this postulate, then the task of a man is to fertilize as many women as possible, and the task of a woman is to get pregnant from the most status and physically strong man. Man-husband and rank.
Otherwise, why did the creator provide for such a physiological human device?
As it turned out, one man in 2 weeks produces enough sperm to fertilize all the women of the earth. True — one sperm in one hand.
It seems that the time is not far off when women will keep 1000 individuals and not bother with washing and borscht. There's enough for everyone.
Philosophy is not concerned with opinions, but with knowledge. Schopenhauer is positioned as a philosopher, but is known mainly for his extravagant opinions. And personally, I treat him with sarcasm, because, firstly, he did not like Hegel, and secondly, he did not like people at all, loved dogs, and even was a zoophile: he lived with his poodle named Atman. The nickname is also not accidental and hints at the main merit of Schopenhauer: he was one of the first Europeans to read the Upanishads and introduce Indian philosophy to Westerners. In terms of European philosophy proper, he was a stubborn Kantian and brought Kant's insanity to logical absurdity and pessimism.
As for human sexual behavior, our ancestors and relatives have different options: so gorillas prefer a harem structure, and chimpanzees prefer a promiscuous one, and there is reason to believe that the choice between these strategies is determined economically, that is, depending on the habitat conditions and methods of obtaining food. Ancient humans were closer to chimpanzees, but actually our separation with them is just due to the fact that we began to adhere to several different ways of existence and sex: chimpanzees usually copulate with the whole herd, and Australopithecus appeared serial monogamy: that is, the ancestors entered into marriage unions for 4 years – just enough to give birth to a child and raise it to the stage where it could run on its own feet. At the end of this period, the contract was either renewed if the hominids liked each other, or considered themselves free and could form a new pair. The herbivorous gorilla-like paranthropes once again have harems and associated physical traits: males are noticeably larger than females and have large canines-but the paranthropes are extinct, and our kind remains. And since then, with various variations, the main sexual strategy of a person is serial monogamy (that is, loyalty in a couple, but couples periodically converge and diverge), and in some cases strict monogamy (that is, a strong union for many years or for life) – more depends on individual characteristics. However, our family is very prolific, and in such cases God always favors experiments, so both harem and promiscuous schemes are sometimes used at the level of both individuals and individual populations.
As for the extent to which two sexes of the same species can have a different strategy – no, you can't say that. It's just that male and female roles initially have their own specializations: women are more fixated on reproducing offspring and receiving stable resources from men, and men are more fixated on inventing new things and on sex as such. But this is not a general rule: you can find a lot of fucking women and married men – and they are also people.
Well, in my humble opinion-who forgot to ask for advice about sex, so it's a zoophile.
Not all men are polygamous, and not all women are monogamous. But men are more likely to exhibit polygamous behavior than women, due to the effect of social norms. If there were biological reasons for such differences, then polygamy among women would be encouraged by most men. In real conservative patriarchal societies, on the contrary, polygamy of women is condemned or punished. The double standards of patriarchal morality that restrict women's sexuality reduce women's chances of sexual satisfaction and the average sexual activity of women compared to men, which reduces men's chances of finding sex, especially in the case of polygamous and short-term relationships, where women's sexual activity is most restricted, and men are encouraged to do so.�
Women's economic dependence on men can occur in both monogamous and polygamous relationships. Many women's expectation of a high income and mandatory self-confidence from men is not caused by instincts, but is a consequence of discrimination against women in employment and remuneration and the lack of sufficient social protection for the birth and upbringing of children, in a situation where raising children is considered a woman's responsibility. In these circumstances, men with high incomes and power do not reduce their chances of finding sex in conditions of repression of women's sexuality and support these norms, including as a form of power in everyday life, in order to control the population and support other patriarchal norms in their interests.
An extreme form of economic dependence is prostitution, with the economic coercion of women into formal polygamy most often without desire and sexual pleasure, which often leads to problems with this and beyond this occupation and negative consequences for physical and psychological health. The reasons for prostitution are both the repression of women's sexuality, which reduces the average sexual activity of women and the demand for sex, especially for polygamous, short-term relationships and relationships without emotional intimacy, compared to men, and the lower average income of women due to discrimination in the workplace.
These double standards in sexual behavior and gender division of responsibilities are harmful to both women and most men. Explaining them by biology is convenient to justify social inequality and disadvantage. Studies show that women who are economically and morally independent of men are less likely to be victims of partner violence and are better satisfied sexually, which is an argument against the biological causes of patriarchal double standards. In addition, the higher the level of social protection for women in a society, the less likely women are to rate men by income level, but cultural differences also have an impact on this. According to research in developed countries, polygamous women are somewhat better satisfied sexually, but in polygamous and short-term relationships, the problem of male sexual selfishness is more pronounced, which men should get rid of. Such selfish and aggressive sexual behavior and polygamous behavior in men are often considered confirmation of masculinity and are encouraged in society by gender inequality. Questions of the duration of relationships, the number of partners, the strength of emotional closeness, and others should be considered a personal matter for a person regardless of gender, and in any case, equal relationships should be maintained. As gender equality is achieved, gender differences, including issues of polygamy and monogamy, should gradually disappear, but individual differences will remain.
I also answered similar questions by clicking on the links:
https://thequestion.ru/questions/370145/pochemu-muzhchina-gorditsya-tem-chto-u-nego-bylo-mnogo-devushek/answer/525686#answer525686-anchor
https://thequestion.ru/questions/279658/pochemu-nekotorye-osobi-muzhskogo-pola-starayutsya-poimet-kak-mozhno-bolshe-zhenshin-t-e-nabit-kolichestvo/answer/390856#answer390856-anchor
https://thequestion.ru/questions/148147/pochemu-esli-u-parnya-mnogo-devushek-to-on-alfa-samec-a-esli-u-devushki-mnogo-parnei-to-ona-shlyukha/answer/413181#answer413181-anchor
Well, probably not everything is so clear, although for most it is more likely yes than no.
The bottom line is that women store the gene pool, while men expand it. This protective function of nature, sustainability is provided by women, and new skills and qualities are provided by men.
No. Everything is much more complicated. At the biological level, both men and women are monogamous and polygamous. In most species, a certain strategy of procreation prevailed: someone forms a stable pair, someone forms a polygamous family, and large predators are found only for fertilization – they can not feed nearby.
Two strategies worked for the men:
Fertilize everything you can reach.
Start a family and raise your children, increasing their chances.
Two strategies also worked for women:
Start a family to increase your children's chances of survival.
Give birth to children from different men (you never know what qualities will help children in the future).
This is the legacy left to us from the wild nature at the level of instincts. And already on top of this, a culture is superimposed. Society in most cases favored the family as a factor of stability. A single man is poorly managed.
We are still animals, children of nature,and therefore polygamous.Both males and females.Simply, due to pregnancy, feeding and raising offspring, females are very limited in the implementation of the sexual instinct. In human society, morality, economic dependence, etc. are added to this.