Some of this is misleading. Yes, polygamy has been normal throughout history, but it's possible that even in these polygamy-practicing societies, monogamy was/is more common than polygamy. For example, he mentioned the majority of the Muslim world recognizes polygamy. But he didn't mention that the vast majority of these Muslims are not polygamous. I think it would be interesting to look at the ratios throughout polygamous societies.
There were few that could afford it, so the ones that could, would. Simple. Why would you take on more women and kids, if you are all dying of starvation.
Simplified, not misleading. Majority conformity isn’t what determines normalcy. Skin color is a great example of this. On a global scale, whiteness is by no means the majority, but it is normal. Children are another. Kids aren’t the majority in any given space, but rarely ever regarded as abnormal in that space
Monogamous arrangement might just be the institution of a particular time, place, culture, etc., rather than something intended, much less demanded, by Nature (or a deity).
In fact, nature tends to make more socially complex animal less monogamous. Patriarchal harems are very common especially in mammals, as well as common in abrahamic scriptures.
Gosh, this comment section is depressing me. You're all fighting so much. It's actually tearing me up... History is very important, yet I think people forget we live in the present. Thousands of years from now what we do in this time will be history. It doesn't matter who is monogamous or polygamous, it's all a choice. I suggest you find who you feel you're compatible with, keep open communication and hope for the best. We've evolved in more ways than one compared to the humans of 1000 years ago and honestly should we be comparing ourselves with them? We have been raised in an almost entirely different world, and an amazing one at that. Also I don't mean we've evolved in just the physiological sense (which we have by the way), it's just the way we think presently is so different. It really is amazing to be who you are, right now in this time. Think and share your opinions but do try not to shove it down everyone else's throats. No laws are absolute, everything changes and it will continue to evolve with the times. Just wait, when we're dead and long gone from this period, other humans will be judging us on the way we thought. I just wish I could see it; wouldn't that make for a good laugh? I hate forcing opinions down people's throats but I'm going be a bit of a hypocrite here, sorry. Listen to one another! Think on what has been said by both parties and please try to be empathetic. Love one another. We're humans after all, right?
I, for one, am getting sick & tired of the apparent need to justify monogamy, polygamy, polyamory, etc... with a historical context. Not all practices thousands of years ago have an effect on what we choose to practice today. I'm monogamous because I prefer it that way. Whether or not polygamy was rampant, or monogamy was spread by Christianity has NOTHING to do with it. Neither one is any more or less natural than the other.
Human beings are meant to be what they choose to be; unfortunately many of them think they are entitled to force their way on others, in western society this is particulary true for cheaters
You may prefer to think so, but actually, you have no idea what conditioning is influencing your actions. If you lived in a natural tribe, it would never occur to you to be monogamous, and you would be happy :)
How do you know I'd be happy? Look, a lack of options doesn't breed happiness. We just make due with what we have at our disposal. And I'd go so far as to say that being able to choose one or the other provides a better landscape for each of us to be happy. Whether mono or poly. If I (or you, or anyone else for that matter) lived in a "natural tribe", we wouldn't have indoor plumbing, or cars to drive, or electricity, or air conditioning, or refrigerators for that matter. Sure, we'd find ways to survive, and we wouldn't consider an alternative if we didn't know it to exist... But could any of us honestly say that it was a better way to live? The fact is, that we DO know of the options out there. I can choose to be poly, or I can choose to be mono. Just because some of us choose the method that the majority also chooses, doesn't mean that I was "conditioned" to do so. In reality, I can choose poly today, but I have no desire to... It's MY preference, not society's.
Interesting about this theory of how Rome exported Monogamy. But he neglects to mention that the Main reason the Greek classics, their history and knowledge of the Roman empire survived is because a Muslim kingdom kept that knowledge, as well as the scientific method. Until shortly after the Renaissance ,the middle east was the first world.
@Kingston Hawke 1. There are two strategies. One is quantity, the other quality. Monogamy is a quality strategy, less offspring but more investment in them and thus higher survival rates for them. That is what humans do. 2. Who says that? You? Where is your degree in anthropology?
I think that even in societies where polygamy is common, monogamy is still prevalent because in every society resources are limited, making polygamy a matter of who "can", not who "wants to".
Very interesting talk. I would love to see this cultural study extent to the modern times. Take Laura Kipnis, Against love: A polemic. It fits in with a wider cultural phenomenon that people don't 'believe' in monogamy anymore. Fueled with social biology, cultural studies and resentment of old dominating values open relations start to become more prevalent. Women demand the same freedom as men. Raises the question, is jealousy by men biological encoded, or culturally depended? What about women?
Its both biologically encoded and culturally dependent. Its the result of a fragile ego (biological) combined with delusional narcissistic paranoia (cultural). Jealousy is just the emotional manifestation of insecurity and the lizard brain trying to assimilate the concepts of ownership and loyalty.
It is always men who want polygamy ..... not women .... ... and frankly it has to do with selfish behaviours and no way will i ever support polygamy .. no way
How were greeks monogamous? What about greek pederasty? I think this guy just forces the western mindset on anscient cultures. Just like he regards land ownership solely on the basis of "property" and "investment" hugely modern and capitalistic views. Why does everybody fail to see that land and property ownership in primordial societies tends to be owned collectively. Agrarian societies do not necessarily carry along the concept of division of property.
As always it comes down to resources. Right now for me, as a man, it does not make a lot of sense to share my limited resources with a woman who has access to her own resources but wants me to share due to cultural tradition. It actually is much easier to survive being single in this world to me so the main reason for a partner is companionship, experiencing this world together. I would not want multiple partners because it already is hard to learn, accept and thrive with a single person let alone multiple. I feel it makes the relationships more shallow if you have multiple because there is not enough time to delve deeply with each other. This goes not only for romantic but also platonic relationships I think.
Your first statement is interesting bc even in the past and outside of the western world (think Islam) it is very normal. There is even a joke about it cross-contextually “ her money is her money, and his money is her money” and how it’s always been biologically and culturally I guess (since we bare the biological burden as the ones getting pregnant and potentially dying) so I don’t think it’s just for “cultures sake” it’s to even the playing field as we are the ones who give birth
@@HG-eo6utThat normal comes with a lot of stuff women in western society would never accept in this age. So, in my opinion, it's a relic of times long gone - at least in the west. Right now I'm together with a woman who has a child from previous relationship and I actually want to share my resources with her more and more but.. not because she expects it but rather because I want to of my own volition. This is an important distinction since the former is a "want" and the latter comes naturally. But I don't have to. And if she or anyone else would say I do have to, I would stay single and let them say what they want and go happy about my business. Hope it makes sense. 😌
The question is: Given there are 49.2 % men and 50.8 % women globaly, what the rest of men do when in polygamous cultures one man takes multiple wives?
@@WomenofHighValue there’s no responsible polygamous man. Most men can’t protect and provide for their kids and woman that’s why we have single mother problems because men are very problematic and think that spreading their seeds makes them a man. Pathetic
@@WomenofHighValue More polygyny? I was thinking that we should use technology to produce fewer male offspring. It would cut down on a lot of violence and wars in the world and improve the world as a whole.
Jasmine Marie depends on the man you choose. If he is a wealthy good man, he’ll make sure you get to choose the other women, that you guys don’t have to work, and that you can choose when and if you have kids. “3 girls in love” is the family structure of the future
@@WomenofHighValue The main thing that I want/crave in relationship is loyalty. The idea of sharing my partner with multiple other women, while I don't get to sleep with any other men seems crazy to me. I don't mind working, I have a business that runs from home, so being one of many housewives is unappealing. "3 girls in love" is a hard sell to a very straight woman. Interesting concept. Definitely get those girls tested for stds first because herpes is forever lol
@@jasminemariedarling I think polygamy doesn't need to necessarily only mean polygyny. And I think that what you feel is mainly a product of your socialisation.
@Marten Dekker it's very easy to verify. "Mormons", that church with about 14M members, has not practiced polygamy since 1890. Offshoots of that religion (Mormon, LDS or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) MAY STILL practice polygamy today. Lumping those two together is like lumping together Catholics and protestants.
Agreed. I used to be Mormon too. I actually left them because they don’t practice polygyny when it is such a perfect family system. It just makes sense
@@WomenofHighValue the opposite is financially favorable. Women with many men now makes sense. Were not in shortage of children. Polygyny is outdated if you look at the reason it was done.. More children
How do you expain poverty stricken folks having 5-7 kids all the time with very little capital investment. With them just hoping that social programs will provide.
Very informative video. Now it will be back to polyamory as one has found a way to evade infectious diseases and keep the fertility rate at the same level. I wonder if at some point of time the concept of marriage will be abolished.
Uhh, the greeks weren't monogamous, they had side partners. It's where the concept of "Soul" Mates. Soul mates were side partners, not life partners lol
Very well done in my opinion. Of course, you have to realize that I am viewing this from a background in history. I see two other possibilities that might have contributed to monogamy. The males of pre-agrarian societies had to do a lot of dangerous hunting, which resulted in many early deaths. This caused a shortage of males. The second is the development of diplomacy, peace treaties, and agreements between nations. You can see this in Israel under David and Soloman. It became a dominant player between Egypt to the west and Persia to the east. This allowed for longer periods of peace and fewer male deaths from war. This would mean that more males got at least one wife. I also believe that there is a correlation between monogamy and less violence. I'm not suggesting that there is no violence in monogamous societies. However, if you look at the world ŕight now, there is more violence coming from countries in the Middle East and Africa that practice polygamy. Why would this be true? Possibly because the singles males in those are sexually frustrated, have no hope of changing that, and are willing to blow themselves up. Note that Bin Laden did not carry out the attack on the United States. He only ordered it.
He makes some good points in this talk but he is way off base in other ways. You cannot speak about monogamy without mentioning PATRIARCHY. Or the Hebrews. They started it, and it started as a way to control women so men with property could pass it to their sons. For the first million or so years , our human and porto-human ancestors had no interest in paternity. It wasn't agriculture that caused this shift -- it was patriarchy. Which came 5000 years later. Before patriarchy and polygamy, there was just -- free love. Even as late as the classical greeks, if you read Herodotus the historian, the patriarchal greeks were surrounded by neighbors who were promiscuous -- the whole village made love together. We are , both men and women, evolved for promiscuous sex. Read about "sperm competition". Ignoring this fact is the elephant in the room.
+Elicia Deva -- "the whole village made love together. We are , both men and women, evolved for promiscuous sex". Can you please tell me how communities managed this? Any references to read up more on this? I am interested to know. Was it something like the "Walking Marriages" of the Mosuo? I think the whole deterioration into patriarchy was due to economic greed.
+Pradeep Desai Well before patriarchy there were as many different customs are there were cultures. If you know about the Mosuo, you probably read Sex at Dawn, certainly the book mentions them and a few other of the non-patriarchal cultures that have survived into recent times. Sex at Dawn has a great many references. So certainly it is impossible to generalize about how cultures “managed” but some of the ones they mention in the book give you some ideas. Another thing that the presenter of this talk is completely off base about is his dismissal of “cavemen”. Our paleolithic ancestors were far more able than any of us modern folk, and artistically more advanced. And - women focused. Millions of figurines have been found, all of the female figure. There is no evidence for violence or for polygamy until the last few thousand years of patriarchy. Polygamy would simply have not existed before patriarchy. The evidence from sperm competition shows that both sexes were very promiscuous. And finally, he mentions “sexual dimorphism”. Well the amount of sexual dimorphism among humans is slight, not enough to doom us to alpha male domination paradigm, although enough to make this a possibility for our species. But for tens of thousands of years humans were as intelligent, religious, and artistic as we are now, but female-focused, goddess-worshiping, and highly promiscuous. Sexual shame and control are very recent on the human scene. Certainly in India (where you appear to be from) there was no monogamy until the Islamic invasion, and this sexual freedom went for both sexes. (After the Muslims, the Portugease, and the English though, India is now one of the most sexually repressed places on earth). A glance at the temples of Khujaraho gives one a very good idea that these were not harems of enslaved females, but enlightened, autonomous women engaged in spiritual sexuality. And, your hunch I suspect is partly right (as I have spent 20 years researching the question of why patriarchy happened). It seemed to be connected to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of few, violent men, (in the form of horses and cattle mostly) who wanted to pass this wealth on to their sons, hence the need to control womens’ sexuality. However, what led to this hoarding was probably some kind of experience of deep global trauma, earth changes such as the desertification of the planet. Trauma leads to scarcity leads to hoarding and fighting over resources. Take a population of peaceful apes and give them access to a single hoard of bananas, they will fight.
+Elicia Deva I found your comments extraordinarily interesting and informative. I always wondered about the pre-country society of my nation. Could I bother you to tell me more about the status of the sexes and sex in early Slavic states, or perhaps South Slavic? Or perhaps point me to some articals?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but science has recently proved that the emotion of jealousy is natural for both males and females; that's the true reason monogamy was introduced. Also, jealousy is connected to paternity uncertainty avoidance and securing a better partner. Newsflash: No one in western society is forcing you to be monogamous, and not everyone wants your "free love" shoved down their throats. I also would love to see how well you would put up with a husband who constantly has sex with younger, more attractive women behind your back and in front of you, while no one wants to sleep with you. The only elephant in the room i see is your blatant penis envy. Now, before you waste your time writing more tripe, do you think i care to read more of the opinions of a biased person such as yourself, who will accuse me of "misogyny"?
So, what now? All men know that monogamy is unnatural and many women understand it as well, but how to go about it? Can we create a (non-religious) polygynous society, with new social ideas, norms and rules?
ficktao I’m fine with polygamy as long as it’s not only polygyny. It’s always about one man with many women. Women should be then equally as free to have more than one husband. In fact that IS happening in societies where female children were not valued. In places like Tibet polyandry is the the only way some men can have a wife.
I replied to this 10 months ago, but will reply again with new info: We have started two channels, sharing our views on “3 girls in love” - responsible polygyny - where three women choose and love each other and together love the same man. There is family planning and spacing between the children, and never recommend more than 2-3 kids per woman. Tons more on my channels
Christianity did NOT adopt monogamy from Romans. The speakers is woefully wrong. Please read Jesus's answer when questioned about divorce. Please read Gospel of Mathew - Mt: Chap 19-Vs 3-9.
Some of this is misleading. Yes, polygamy has been normal throughout history, but it's possible that even in these polygamy-practicing societies, monogamy was/is more common than polygamy. For example, he mentioned the majority of the Muslim world recognizes polygamy. But he didn't mention that the vast majority of these Muslims are not polygamous. I think it would be interesting to look at the ratios throughout polygamous societies.
There were few that could afford it, so the ones that could, would. Simple.
Why would you take on more women and kids, if you are all dying of starvation.
Simplified, not misleading. Majority conformity isn’t what determines normalcy. Skin color is a great example of this. On a global scale, whiteness is by no means the majority, but it is normal. Children are another. Kids aren’t the majority in any given space, but rarely ever regarded as abnormal in that space
I’d rather be broadly correct than precisely wrong.
Polygamy is not natural
Only people who are weak can't be monogmou6
Thank you so much TED,thank you so much Kyle! This is what needs to be taught in schools.
It is. It's called history class
"Every man for himself" is what typifies our age, and it prevales in this talk as well.
Monogamous arrangement might just be the institution of a particular time, place, culture, etc., rather than something intended, much less demanded, by Nature (or a deity).
I totally agree
Maybe, that idea is a lot less plausible though.
In fact, nature tends to make more socially complex animal less monogamous. Patriarchal harems are very common especially in mammals, as well as common in abrahamic scriptures.
Gosh, this comment section is depressing me. You're all fighting so much. It's actually tearing me up...
History is very important, yet I think people forget we live in the present. Thousands of years from now what we do in this time will be history.
It doesn't matter who is monogamous or polygamous, it's all a choice. I suggest you find who you feel you're compatible with, keep open communication and hope for the best. We've evolved in more ways than one compared to the humans of 1000 years ago and honestly should we be comparing ourselves with them? We have been raised in an almost entirely different world, and an amazing one at that. Also I don't mean we've evolved in just the physiological sense (which we have by the way), it's just the way we think presently is so different.
It really is amazing to be who you are, right now in this time. Think and share your opinions but do try not to shove it down everyone else's throats. No laws are absolute, everything changes and it will continue to evolve with the times.
Just wait, when we're dead and long gone from this period, other humans will be judging us on the way we thought. I just wish I could see it; wouldn't that make for a good laugh?
I hate forcing opinions down people's throats but I'm going be a bit of a hypocrite here, sorry. Listen to one another! Think on what has been said by both parties and please try to be empathetic. Love one another. We're humans after all, right?
Thank you!
Haha! This guy is my uncle! Seriously! He is my uncle!!!
@Antonio Giuseppe He (Bozeman) stated that I am his uncle!
Why does the question have to be raised male centric initially?
I, for one, am getting sick & tired of the apparent need to justify monogamy, polygamy, polyamory, etc... with a historical context. Not all practices thousands of years ago have an effect on what we choose to practice today. I'm monogamous because I prefer it that way. Whether or not polygamy was rampant, or monogamy was spread by Christianity has NOTHING to do with it. Neither one is any more or less natural than the other.
Human beings are meant to be what they choose to be; unfortunately many of them think they are entitled to force their way on others, in western society this is particulary true for cheaters
You may prefer to think so, but actually, you have no idea what conditioning is influencing your actions. If you lived in a natural tribe, it would never occur to you to be monogamous, and you would be happy :)
How do you know I'd be happy? Look, a lack of options doesn't breed happiness. We just make due with what we have at our disposal. And I'd go so far as to say that being able to choose one or the other provides a better landscape for each of us to be happy. Whether mono or poly.
If I (or you, or anyone else for that matter) lived in a "natural tribe", we wouldn't have indoor plumbing, or cars to drive, or electricity, or air conditioning, or refrigerators for that matter. Sure, we'd find ways to survive, and we wouldn't consider an alternative if we didn't know it to exist... But could any of us honestly say that it was a better way to live?
The fact is, that we DO know of the options out there. I can choose to be poly, or I can choose to be mono. Just because some of us choose the method that the majority also chooses, doesn't mean that I was "conditioned" to do so. In reality, I can choose poly today, but I have no desire to... It's MY preference, not society's.
"EVERYTHING IS NOT ABOUT YOU"------->Correct. That's why you'll never get the special treatment you belive to deserve in that deranged mind of yours
Hmm, depends on which tribe and your gender. Many tribal, not all, societies treated women as property.
Interesting about this theory of how Rome exported Monogamy. But he neglects to mention that the Main reason the Greek classics, their history and knowledge of the Roman empire survived is because a Muslim kingdom kept that knowledge, as well as the scientific method. Until shortly after the Renaissance ,the middle east was the first world.
Polygyny died out as human life-spans lengthened: Each new wife brings in more In-Laws.
HAHA! I did not see that coming.
Hahahahaha! Love it!
Could also explain why divorce rates have become so high
This was not the most easy talk to follow. It didn't grab and keep my interest the way the other talks have.
I wholeheartedly disagree
@Kingston Hawke
1. There are two strategies. One is quantity, the other quality. Monogamy is a quality strategy, less offspring but more investment in them and thus higher survival rates for them. That is what humans do. 2. Who says that? You? Where is your degree in anthropology?
I think that even in societies where polygamy is common, monogamy is still prevalent because in every society resources are limited, making polygamy a matter of who "can", not who "wants to".
I wish I could like this comment 100 times!
the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions were the BEST and the WORST things that has happened to us
This talk has been influential in my understanding of bringing polyamoury to the forefront of the modern culture
aeroslimatic polygyny worked in the past. Polyamory is what monogamy caused, and it is the downfall of society.
@@WomenofHighValue how is it a downfall? Isn’t that just an opinionated perspective?
Very interesting talk. I would love to see this cultural study extent to the modern times. Take Laura Kipnis, Against love: A polemic. It fits in with a wider cultural phenomenon that people don't 'believe' in monogamy anymore. Fueled with social biology, cultural studies and resentment of old dominating values open relations start to become more prevalent. Women demand the same freedom as men. Raises the question, is jealousy by men biological encoded, or culturally depended? What about women?
Its both biologically encoded and culturally dependent. Its the result of a fragile ego (biological) combined with delusional narcissistic paranoia (cultural). Jealousy is just the emotional manifestation of insecurity and the lizard brain trying to assimilate the concepts of ownership and loyalty.
I’m the only one who fall in love with this man?…
It is always men who want polygamy ..... not women .... ... and frankly it has to do with selfish behaviours and no way will i ever support polygamy .. no way
BS!!!!!
I agree. That is BS.
As a woman, I respectfully disagree. What's so selfish about loving more than one person?
BlueEyes Brittany not true.
Monogamy is possessive and selfish! Why should you feel you have the right to posses one person?
Monogamy may be practical, but it is not natural.
How were greeks monogamous? What about greek pederasty? I think this guy just forces the western mindset on anscient cultures. Just like he regards land ownership solely on the basis of "property" and "investment" hugely modern and capitalistic views. Why does everybody fail to see that land and property ownership in primordial societies tends to be owned collectively. Agrarian societies do not necessarily carry along the concept of division of property.
I think in my professional opinion that monogamy derived from men stareing at Geese. Geese have only 1 partner.
As always it comes down to resources. Right now for me, as a man, it does not make a lot of sense to share my limited resources with a woman who has access to her own resources but wants me to share due to cultural tradition. It actually is much easier to survive being single in this world to me so the main reason for a partner is companionship, experiencing this world together. I would not want multiple partners because it already is hard to learn, accept and thrive with a single person let alone multiple. I feel it makes the relationships more shallow if you have multiple because there is not enough time to delve deeply with each other. This goes not only for romantic but also platonic relationships I think.
Your first statement is interesting bc even in the past and outside of the western world (think Islam) it is very normal. There is even a joke about it cross-contextually “ her money is her money, and his money is her money”
and how it’s always been biologically and culturally I guess (since we bare the biological burden as the ones getting pregnant and potentially dying) so I don’t think it’s just for “cultures sake” it’s to even the playing field as we are the ones who give birth
@@HG-eo6utThat normal comes with a lot of stuff women in western society would never accept in this age. So, in my opinion, it's a relic of times long gone - at least in the west.
Right now I'm together with a woman who has a child from previous relationship and I actually want to share my resources with her more and more but.. not because she expects it but rather because I want to of my own volition. This is an important distinction since the former is a "want" and the latter comes naturally.
But I don't have to. And if she or anyone else would say I do have to, I would stay single and let them say what they want and go happy about my business. Hope it makes sense. 😌
The question is: Given there are 49.2 % men and 50.8 % women globaly, what the rest of men do when in polygamous cultures one man takes multiple wives?
Women take multiple men. Problem solved.
Low value men improve themselves.
This is why responsible polygyny must he brought back. I teach it on my channels
@@WomenofHighValue there’s no responsible polygamous man. Most men can’t protect and provide for their kids and woman that’s why we have single mother problems because men are very problematic and think that spreading their seeds makes them a man. Pathetic
@@WomenofHighValue More polygyny? I was thinking that we should use technology to produce fewer male offspring. It would cut down on a lot of violence and wars in the world and improve the world as a whole.
In esence as societies develop and civilized they turn to the best mode of living in large groups
869 likes and 87 dislikes -____- had to make it 870
Good deed done for the day! YAAAY!
So men get to have multiple wives, and women get ......
Jasmine Marie depends on the man you choose. If he is a wealthy good man, he’ll make sure you get to choose the other women, that you guys don’t have to work, and that you can choose when and if you have kids. “3 girls in love” is the family structure of the future
@@WomenofHighValue The main thing that I want/crave in relationship is loyalty. The idea of sharing my partner with multiple other women, while I don't get to sleep with any other men seems crazy to me. I don't mind working, I have a business that runs from home, so being one of many housewives is unappealing. "3 girls in love" is a hard sell to a very straight woman. Interesting concept. Definitely get those girls tested for stds first because herpes is forever lol
@@jasminemariedarling I think polygamy doesn't need to necessarily only mean polygyny. And I think that what you feel is mainly a product of your socialisation.
He wasn't advocating for polygamy to be fair
It's Leonardo DiCaprio!
David O Brien he’s my uncle! Not Leonardo DiCaprio..
Correlation: Happiness levels have fallen as monogamy levels have risen.
It is not so....it is the vice versa....
If you walk around with your eyes shut it’s amazing what you can learn from staring at your own eyelids isn’t it.
for women, polygyny sucks. For men, it’s great.
♦ ♣ *_Nobody likes a cheat._* ♥ ♠
so im not mormon anymore but i know for a fact that mormons havent been polygamous since like the 1800s
@Marten Dekker it's very easy to verify. "Mormons", that church with about 14M members, has not practiced polygamy since 1890. Offshoots of that religion (Mormon, LDS or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) MAY STILL practice polygamy today. Lumping those two together is like lumping together Catholics and protestants.
Agreed. I used to be Mormon too. I actually left them because they don’t practice polygyny when it is such a perfect family system. It just makes sense
@@WomenofHighValue the opposite is financially favorable. Women with many men now makes sense. Were not in shortage of children. Polygyny is outdated if you look at the reason it was done.. More children
Remember guys monogamy is for specialky important for the kids
Well the monogamous talk was good and boring after all...
Worth the time in Quarantine..2020
How do you expain poverty stricken folks having 5-7 kids all the time with very little capital investment. With them just hoping that social programs will provide.
Cool video with very interesting insights. 73-93% of societies as far as we know very polygynous. There are reasons for this
Very informative video. Now it will be back to polyamory as one has found a way to evade infectious diseases and keep the fertility rate at the same level. I wonder if at some point of time the concept of marriage will be abolished.
Uhh, the greeks weren't monogamous, they had side partners. It's where the concept of "Soul" Mates. Soul mates were side partners, not life partners lol
Very well done in my opinion. Of course, you have to realize that I am viewing this from a background in history.
I see two other possibilities that might have contributed to monogamy. The males of pre-agrarian societies had to do a lot of dangerous hunting, which resulted in many early deaths. This caused a shortage of males.
The second is the development of diplomacy, peace treaties, and agreements between nations. You can see this in Israel under David and Soloman. It became a dominant player between Egypt to the west and Persia to the east. This allowed for longer periods of peace and fewer male deaths from war. This would mean that more males got at least one wife.
I also believe that there is a correlation between monogamy and less violence. I'm not suggesting that there is no violence in monogamous societies. However, if you look at the world ŕight now, there is more violence coming from countries in the Middle East and Africa that practice polygamy.
Why would this be true? Possibly because the singles males in those are sexually frustrated, have no hope of changing that, and are willing to blow themselves up. Note that Bin Laden did not carry out the attack on the United States. He only ordered it.
According to the Old Testament, Jacob had 4 wives... not 5
He makes some good points in this talk but he is way off base in other ways. You cannot speak about monogamy without mentioning PATRIARCHY. Or the Hebrews. They started it, and it started as a way to control women so men with property could pass it to their sons. For the first million or so years , our human and porto-human ancestors had no interest in paternity. It wasn't agriculture that caused this shift -- it was patriarchy. Which came 5000 years later. Before patriarchy and polygamy, there was just -- free love. Even as late as the classical greeks, if you read Herodotus the historian, the patriarchal greeks were surrounded by neighbors who were promiscuous -- the whole village made love together. We are , both men and women, evolved for promiscuous sex. Read about "sperm competition". Ignoring this fact is the elephant in the room.
+Elicia Deva -- "the whole village made love together. We are , both men and women, evolved for promiscuous sex". Can you please tell me how communities managed this? Any references to read up more on this? I am interested to know. Was it something like the "Walking Marriages" of the Mosuo? I think the whole deterioration into patriarchy was due to economic greed.
+Pradeep Desai Well before patriarchy there were as many different customs are there were cultures. If you know about the Mosuo, you probably read Sex at Dawn, certainly the book mentions them and a few other of the non-patriarchal cultures that have survived into recent times. Sex at Dawn has a great many references. So certainly it is impossible to generalize about how cultures “managed” but some of the ones they mention in the book give you some ideas.
Another thing that the presenter of this talk is completely off base about is his dismissal of “cavemen”. Our paleolithic ancestors were far more able than any of us modern folk, and artistically more advanced. And - women focused. Millions of figurines have been found, all of the female figure. There is no evidence for violence or for polygamy until the last few thousand years of patriarchy. Polygamy would simply have not existed before patriarchy. The evidence from sperm competition shows that both sexes were very promiscuous.
And finally, he mentions “sexual dimorphism”. Well the amount of sexual dimorphism among humans is slight, not enough to doom us to alpha male domination paradigm, although enough to make this a possibility for our species. But for tens of thousands of years humans were as intelligent, religious, and artistic as we are now, but female-focused, goddess-worshiping, and highly promiscuous. Sexual shame and control are very recent on the human scene.
Certainly in India (where you appear to be from) there was no monogamy until the Islamic invasion, and this sexual freedom went for both sexes. (After the Muslims, the Portugease, and the English though, India is now one of the most sexually repressed places on earth). A glance at the temples of Khujaraho gives one a very good idea that these were not harems of enslaved females, but enlightened, autonomous women engaged in spiritual sexuality.
And, your hunch I suspect is partly right (as I have spent 20 years researching the question of why patriarchy happened). It seemed to be connected to the accumulation of wealth in the hands of few, violent men, (in the form of horses and cattle mostly) who wanted to pass this wealth on to their sons, hence the need to control womens’ sexuality. However, what led to this hoarding was probably some kind of experience of deep global trauma, earth changes such as the desertification of the planet. Trauma leads to scarcity leads to hoarding and fighting over resources. Take a population of peaceful apes and give them access to a single hoard of bananas, they will fight.
+Elicia Deva I found your comments extraordinarily interesting and informative. I always wondered about the pre-country society of my nation. Could I bother you to tell me more about the status of the sexes and sex in early Slavic states, or perhaps South Slavic? Or perhaps point me to some articals?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but science has recently proved that the emotion of jealousy is natural for both males and females; that's the true reason monogamy was introduced. Also, jealousy is connected to paternity uncertainty avoidance and securing a better partner. Newsflash: No one in western society is forcing you to be monogamous, and not everyone wants your "free love" shoved down their throats. I also would love to see how well you would put up with a husband who constantly has sex with younger, more attractive women behind your back and in front of you, while no one wants to sleep with you. The only elephant in the room i see is your blatant penis envy. Now, before you waste your time writing more tripe, do you think i care to read more of the opinions of a biased person such as yourself, who will accuse me of "misogyny"?
P.S. If you betray men, it's not their fault, it's yours
Ah so it is all about size
So cavemen developed agriculture 😂
So, what now? All men know that monogamy is unnatural and many women understand it as well, but how to go about it? Can we create a (non-religious) polygynous society, with new social ideas, norms and rules?
ficktao I’m fine with polygamy as long as it’s not only polygyny. It’s always about one man with many women. Women should be then equally as free to have more than one husband. In fact that IS happening in societies where female children were not valued. In places like Tibet polyandry is the the only way some men can have a wife.
I believe we can.
I replied to this 10 months ago, but will reply again with new info:
We have started two channels, sharing our views on “3 girls in love” - responsible polygyny - where three women choose and love each other and together love the same man. There is family planning and spacing between the children, and never recommend more than 2-3 kids per woman. Tons more on my channels
Christianity did NOT adopt monogamy from Romans. The speakers is woefully wrong. Please read Jesus's answer when questioned about divorce. Please read Gospel of Mathew - Mt: Chap 19-Vs 3-9.