Myrmecodon said:
We aren't specifically wired biologically to build civilizations either, guy, but build and adapt to them we did. In any case, the divorce rate only reached 50% because A: Family court is incredibly biased toward women(though that's changing!) and B: Mandatory child support rewards women who walk out on their husbands for another guy. In a state of nature without a politically-skewed legal system, the stability of de facto marriage would far outpace the stability of de jure marriages in this society. Incentives matter.
are you implying that most divorces are caused by women looking for 'easy money' via mandatory child support?
Because I'd like to see some statistics on that if it's true, and no, proving it can be done doesn't mean that it's happening as often as you claim.
More than likely these people just grew apart, have you ever lost a friend over an arguement? same idea.
No animals or insects that I know of have to learn Chaucer, compound interest, the multiplication tables, or atomic theory. If you're done with your biological absolutism we'd like to continue this conversation on our Earth planet.
just because we don't have dogs splitting atoms doesn't mean we aren't, in the very simplest sense, animals by nature.
we don't need to do atomic theory, build civilizations, multiply numbers or learn music to continue the human race. If animals needed to multiply 3x4 to breed you can bet your ass they'd figure it out.
WOMEN want to produce the best offspring possible(Hypergamy. Look it up.) Men simply want to produce as many as possible from as much a variety of women as they can stand(Polygamy, which you should already know about.) Civilization and tradition, in it's infinite wisdom, decided that the inevitable wars from allowing man's polygamous and woman's hypergamous instincts to rule were intolerable, and thus created the institution of marriage, in which one man and one woman were bound to be responsible for each other and their children. You want a state of nature, go back to Africa where we came from.
Required reading: Sexual Utopia in Power [http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/sexual-utopia-in-power-part-1/], for the proper definition and psychology of hypergamy.
again, I don't see the problem comparing humans to animals. In fact I did read the website you posted and even they compare the two:
It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female ?sexual orientations? are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.
so you're ok with your source of information comparing humans with animals but not me?
furthermore:
Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one ?alpha male? at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner?s humorous story ?I Can?t Breathe??the private journal of an eighteen-year-old girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on her preferred number of ?sex partners,? she would presumably respond ?one?; this does not mean she has any idea who it is.[2]
So how is this supposed to prove marriage was ever been anything other than a religious tradition?
