4 ms·

This is the whole reason monogamy was standardized. It is a stabilizing force in society and creates equality instead of a winner take all situation. Without mo

This is the whole reason monogamy was standardized. It is a stabilizing force in society and creates equality instead of a winner take all situation. Without monogamy you end up with a small number of men having the attention of the majority of women. This causes huge problems, with the loosers being the average and below average men and women. Certain things about how society evolved to function are there for a reason.

scotty79 8y ago
In other places of the world polygamy was standardised. And wide spread religiously backed monogamy stabilisation didn't save us from two world wars.
- simonh 8y ago
  The stabilising effect of monogamy isn't to prevent wars between nations and societies, it's to manage violence and conflict within a society. It works too and is not just a small effect. Of the 20 most unstable countries in the world, all 20 are very to somewhat polygamous[0]. [0]https://medium.economist.com/big-love-and-big-war-exploring-the-link-between-polygamy-and-violence-67306fb3c41b https://medium.economist.com/big-love-and-big-war-exploring-...
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    Actually it makes sense when I think about it - one of biggest frustrations of young male life is not able to have a (sexual) partner. Hollywood makes fun of this in teen movies, but reality is much darker. If society is geared into perpetual state like this, the poor/unattractive folks become properly desperate and act accordingly. Just look what long celibate does to priests. Soldiers in war have to be 'neutralized' via some mild suppressants in the rations (at least WW II was done like this from what I had read).
    - michaelt 8y ago
      Anaphrodisiacs in soldiers' food is an urban myth, according to https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-saltpeter-principle/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-saltpeter-principle/
    - BurningFrog 8y ago
      Soldiers are typically supplied prostitutes, and one of the main spoils of war is the opportunity to rape the enemy women. Also, if you survive the war and come home, being a war hero is very attractive to the ladies. You can speculate about an evolutionary background to that.
      - raducu 8y ago
        And even if they don't rape, they usually marry a lot in the conquered/liberated/whatever country they are victors in(just lookup war brides).
  - scotty79 8y ago
    You are right.
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    You might consider that formal polygamy is directly linked to (a) religious authoritarianism, (b) gender inequality, (c) reduced education for women, (d) lowered economic productivity, (e) low standard of living. When all those things travel together, it's not clear that polygamy should be viewed as the primary cause.
    - simonh 8y ago
      That's a good challenge, thanks. I suppose we'd have to do a historical analysis of societies to try and tease out the relative effects of each of those factors independently. It’s not clear to me how the first three would lead to social instability though. There have been plenty of religiously authoritarian cultures that were quite stable. Similarly gender inequality and reduced education for women have been common historically and it’s hard to see how they would lead to social instability and violence. After all it’s not very common for women to rise up violently against gender based oppression, that just doesn't seem to be the dynamic. I can certainly see how low productivity and standards of living could lead to violence. Desperate people can reach for desperate means. Nevertheless there are many very poor countries round the world and only some of them are significantly polygamous. The fact that the most unstable 20 are all to some degree polygamous seems to me to be a pretty strong correlation. If polygamy can be a driver of social instability though, it’s fairly straightforward to draw a logical causal link from that instability to all sorts of other social and economic ills.
      - ivanhoe 8y ago
        It's hard to draw conclusions on that subject as many prosperous polygamous cultures in the past have been destroyed or assimilated simply because Christianity and other monogamist cultures were technologically superior and/or simply more aggressive. IMHO far too many variables were in play through ages to just pull a simple connection like that today.
        simonh 8y ago
        The Economist article I linked to provides pretty convincing examples of direct causal links, and personal testimony from those affected and why and how it affected them. As for conquest and Imperialism, Islam has strong polygamous tendencies and has been very aggressively expansionist in it's history. It even has formal rules spelled out in the Koran for acquiring women through conquest (their non-Muslim marriages are automatically rendered invalid on capture). Funnily enough Muslim countries rank high on instability metrics, and we can see from recent history how stable and developed Muslim countries under autocratic rule collapse into chaos once that autocracy fails. If even just the top 10% of men only have one extra wife, or 'girl friend' in a flat and secretarial role, as is common for middle eastern businessmen and politicians, that means the bottom 10% of men cannot ever marry. People will go to great lengths to get out of that bottom 10%. I wonder to what extent the recent shift in sexual access for young men is a factor in political radicalisation in America. There seem to be a lot of angry young white kids around these days.
- luckylion 8y ago
  Are the non-monogamous societies today that can rival the monogamous societies in their developmental state?
  - enriquto 8y ago
    Yes: western society is notoriously becoming non-monogamous, and it is indeed unrivaled.
    - luckylion 8y ago
      "is becoming" != "is". If it does, it might very well fall behind as inner conflict consumes too much energy.
      - enriquto 8y ago
        I would argue that western society is already non-monogamous, since in many countries about half of the couples divorce. This results in "serial-monogamy", that is certainly non-monogamous.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        FWIW, I think most reasonable people would call this moving the goal posts. Most people in western societies at any given time are engaged in monogamous relationships. In fact, it's a crime in the U.S. to get married when you're already married to another person. Western governments don't recognize polygamous arrangements for tax purposes, etc.
    - a_tractor 8y ago
      Western society was historically monogamous. >it is indeed unrivaled. Its unrivaled status is fading fast, a product of its vanishing legacy and traditions. >becoming non-monogamous And now it is becoming unraveled.
- rhizome31 8y ago
  I was surprised to learn that historically Islam allowance of four wives per men is actually a restriction. It's not an authorization to polygamy created in a monogamous context, it's a limitation put in a context where some men would have many more women.

scotty79 8y ago

In other places of the world polygamy was standardised. And wide spread religiously backed monogamy stabilisation didn't save us from two world wars.

simonh 8y ago
The stabilising effect of monogamy isn't to prevent wars between nations and societies, it's to manage violence and conflict within a society. It works too and is not just a small effect. Of the 20 most unstable countries in the world, all 20 are very to somewhat polygamous[0]. [0]https://medium.economist.com/big-love-and-big-war-exploring-the-link-between-polygamy-and-violence-67306fb3c41b https://medium.economist.com/big-love-and-big-war-exploring-...
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  Actually it makes sense when I think about it - one of biggest frustrations of young male life is not able to have a (sexual) partner. Hollywood makes fun of this in teen movies, but reality is much darker. If society is geared into perpetual state like this, the poor/unattractive folks become properly desperate and act accordingly. Just look what long celibate does to priests. Soldiers in war have to be 'neutralized' via some mild suppressants in the rations (at least WW II was done like this from what I had read).
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Anaphrodisiacs in soldiers' food is an urban myth, according to https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-saltpeter-principle/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-saltpeter-principle/
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    Soldiers are typically supplied prostitutes, and one of the main spoils of war is the opportunity to rape the enemy women. Also, if you survive the war and come home, being a war hero is very attractive to the ladies. You can speculate about an evolutionary background to that.
    - raducu 8y ago
      And even if they don't rape, they usually marry a lot in the conquered/liberated/whatever country they are victors in(just lookup war brides).
- scotty79 8y ago
  You are right.
- dsr_ 8y ago
  You might consider that formal polygamy is directly linked to (a) religious authoritarianism, (b) gender inequality, (c) reduced education for women, (d) lowered economic productivity, (e) low standard of living. When all those things travel together, it's not clear that polygamy should be viewed as the primary cause.
  - simonh 8y ago
    That's a good challenge, thanks. I suppose we'd have to do a historical analysis of societies to try and tease out the relative effects of each of those factors independently. It’s not clear to me how the first three would lead to social instability though. There have been plenty of religiously authoritarian cultures that were quite stable. Similarly gender inequality and reduced education for women have been common historically and it’s hard to see how they would lead to social instability and violence. After all it’s not very common for women to rise up violently against gender based oppression, that just doesn't seem to be the dynamic. I can certainly see how low productivity and standards of living could lead to violence. Desperate people can reach for desperate means. Nevertheless there are many very poor countries round the world and only some of them are significantly polygamous. The fact that the most unstable 20 are all to some degree polygamous seems to me to be a pretty strong correlation. If polygamy can be a driver of social instability though, it’s fairly straightforward to draw a logical causal link from that instability to all sorts of other social and economic ills.
    - ivanhoe 8y ago
      It's hard to draw conclusions on that subject as many prosperous polygamous cultures in the past have been destroyed or assimilated simply because Christianity and other monogamist cultures were technologically superior and/or simply more aggressive. IMHO far too many variables were in play through ages to just pull a simple connection like that today.
      - simonh 8y ago
        The Economist article I linked to provides pretty convincing examples of direct causal links, and personal testimony from those affected and why and how it affected them. As for conquest and Imperialism, Islam has strong polygamous tendencies and has been very aggressively expansionist in it's history. It even has formal rules spelled out in the Koran for acquiring women through conquest (their non-Muslim marriages are automatically rendered invalid on capture). Funnily enough Muslim countries rank high on instability metrics, and we can see from recent history how stable and developed Muslim countries under autocratic rule collapse into chaos once that autocracy fails. If even just the top 10% of men only have one extra wife, or 'girl friend' in a flat and secretarial role, as is common for middle eastern businessmen and politicians, that means the bottom 10% of men cannot ever marry. People will go to great lengths to get out of that bottom 10%. I wonder to what extent the recent shift in sexual access for young men is a factor in political radicalisation in America. There seem to be a lot of angry young white kids around these days.
luckylion 8y ago
Are the non-monogamous societies today that can rival the monogamous societies in their developmental state?
- enriquto 8y ago
  Yes: western society is notoriously becoming non-monogamous, and it is indeed unrivaled.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    "is becoming" != "is". If it does, it might very well fall behind as inner conflict consumes too much energy.
    - enriquto 8y ago
      I would argue that western society is already non-monogamous, since in many countries about half of the couples divorce. This results in "serial-monogamy", that is certainly non-monogamous.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        FWIW, I think most reasonable people would call this moving the goal posts. Most people in western societies at any given time are engaged in monogamous relationships. In fact, it's a crime in the U.S. to get married when you're already married to another person. Western governments don't recognize polygamous arrangements for tax purposes, etc.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    Western society was historically monogamous. >it is indeed unrivaled. Its unrivaled status is fading fast, a product of its vanishing legacy and traditions. >becoming non-monogamous And now it is becoming unraveled.
rhizome31 8y ago
I was surprised to learn that historically Islam allowance of four wives per men is actually a restriction. It's not an authorization to polygamy created in a monogamous context, it's a limitation put in a context where some men would have many more women.