http://www.inquisitr.com/1314121/jay-z-cheating-scandal-rapper-reportedly-carrying-on-affair-with-rb-singer-mya/
MORE PROOF THAT WE'RE NOT EVOLVED TO FORM LIFELONG MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS. "Although some might think we've moved toward a more monogamous way of life to accommodate dependent babies, it's also possible that we became more pair-bonded as parents but have retained our less than monogamous sexual freedom, even to this day..."
IN OTHER WORDS, SOCIETY, ESPECIALLY WESTERN CIVILIZATION ENCOURAGES US AND IN SOME RESPECTS FORCES US TO BE MONOGAMOUS FOR LIFE, BUT GENETICALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY WE'RE NOT PROGRAMMED (DESIGNED BY EVOLUTION) TO BE MONOGAMOUS FOR LIFE. WE'RE PROGRAMMED (DESIGNED BY EVOLUTION) TO BE SERIALLY MONOGAMOUS OR POLYGYNOUS.
If we assume for a moment that humans are "naturally" monogamous, was territory or paternity at stake when our ancestors moved toward a monogamous way of life? We know that our pre-human ancestors roamed the savanna in search of widely spaced patches of food; chances are, they weren't particularly territorial. It also seems reasonable to suggest that ancient human females weren't traveling the savanna alone and thus available for sequestering by one male. More than likely, as I mentioned, these humans lived in small groups of several adult females and probably a few males. Defending a particular territory wasn't much of an issue. A more likely thesis is that about 4 million years ago, pre-humans already had highly dependent infants that needed care from more than one parent. Infant dependency, then, might be the major pressure that formed our particular mating system.
Biologists classify all infants according to a baby's ability to survive on its own. Those who are alert and independent at birth, like deer which run soon after birth, are called precocial. At the other end of the scale are babies which need to be carried, protected, and constantly fed. They're called altricial infants. Present-day human infants have a gestation of 267 days and usually nurse for several years. In some ways, this schedule is in line with other large mammals. For example, black rhino infants gestate for 475 days and nurse for 5 to 6 years; bottle-nosed dolphins are pregnant for 360 days and nurse for about a year; gorillas are pregnant for 252 days and babies nurse for 14 months. In addition, human babies have a brain that amounts to about 12 percent of their body weight, which is just about the same as in other mammal babies. The difference is that the brains of human infants grow at a pace after birth that outdistances any other animal on earth. This means that although human infants are born with the appropriate-sized brain for their large mammal bodies, that brain is really unfinished when you consider what it will be like as an adult brain. Human infants are thus extremely altricial and require intense and extended caretaking because their brains can't yet command the muscle movement and thought processes found in more precocial animals.
Why the human lineage developed along the lines of dependent altricial infants is unknown. Anthropologists speculate that natural selection, in this case, favored animals with large brains and high intelligence. Selection for larger brains resulted in newborns with unfinished neural networks. This in turn meant that parents would have to tend to these helpless infants. But time caring for helpless infants could also be used to teach complex social skills. This evolutionary direction resulted in highly dependent young ones that need years of attention. In the end, humans, both male and female, can only pass on genes, that is improve their reproductive success, if they cooperate and invest heavily in each infant.
Because of the need for intense and extended parenting of children, most anthropologists suggest that a pair-bond with two attentive parents is part of the human ancestral, and therefore genetically molded, mating pattern. In other words, we mate two-by-two today because this type of mating pattern was selected over time as the best context for bringing up infants. The proposed, and unproven, scenario goes something like this: The human infant developed a large brain and had to be born before its neural time. It was therefore highly dependent. Ancestral females could couldn't manage all the child care on their own, and so they needed a partner. The only way they could keep a male close at hand to help with raising the children was to be available to have sex with him all the time. And so females shed any outward signs of their fertility so that males would be fooled into thinking they were always fertile. But this also presented a problem. If males knew when females ovulated, they could guard each one from other males during the important, that is fertile, times and look around for other females the rest of the time. But since there were no outward signs of fertility, males had to form exclusive and guarded pair-bonds with particular females to keep them from other males. As a consequence, males were more assured of the paternity of a partner's infants and might help out in infant care. The female, by being always sexually available, gained paternal care for her infant, and perhaps an increased food supply, such as meat. In this scenario, the nuclear family is born in the roots of sexuality, and females are the initiators of this system because they produce those dependent infants...
...
Our notions about monogamy are in need of revision. Monogamy is an extremely rare system in nature. In fact, pair-bonds are found more often in our own order, the primates, than in any other. There are about 200 species of primates, and about 14 percent of them live in pairs and mate monogamously. Monogamy is found throughout the primate order, including prosimians, monkeys, and among apes. This evidence would seem to offer biological evidence for human monogamy. But a study of supposedly monogamous titi monkeys in the Amazon basin conducted by psychologist William Mason of the University of California at Davis conducted in the 1960s gave primatologists their first hint that all was not as it appeared among seemingly monogamous primates as well. Titi monkeys occupy patches of forest high in the rain forest canopy. They wake up each morning singing in unison, guarding their territory from other titis who might want to usurp their territorial rights. The typical titi couple spends much of the day side by side, tails entwined - surely a sign of an intimate and permanent attachment. Permanent, that is, until the female decides to unwind her tail, run over to the next territory, and check out a neighboring male. She sometimes copulates with the neighboring male and returns as if nothing happened.
ThosE who believe humans are naturally monogamous point out that at least one of our ape cousins, the gibbons, live in close-knit pair-bonds where the male and female mate exclusively for life. But a recently published two-years study of gibbons in northern Sumatra has revealed a surprising discover - a pair-bond is not always a pair-bond, and a family is not always a family. It is true that gibbons spend their time in small groups of one male and one female with a few young, but this isn't necessarily a permanent nuclear family. The male might be a recent widow who has been joined by a female who just deserted her previous mate. And those so-called offspring may in fact be two young males from the neighborhood who left their relatives in favor of reconstituted family. This study also showed that the siamang, the other type of small ape which is also supposed to be a staunch monogamist, isn't strictly monogamous either. At least one siamang female in the study area repeatedly left her usual partner and copulated with three different males in the area before returning home. Monogamy, then, at least for other animals, isn't what we thought it was.
Although research on other animals suggests that monogamy might be somewhat different than the traditional definition, this doesn't necessarily discount the role of monogamy in human societies today and in the past. After all, there's an important evolutionary reason why humans should pair up - to bring up a dependent offspring. Monogamy, if it was selected for in our ancestors, must have therefore been driven as much by a need for males as well as females to invest in offspring. In other words, when nature opts for intense parenting, both genders must benefit when they stay together. The question remains, are humans compelled by their genes to stay with one partner?
LOVE IS A BATTLE FIELD!
Within this framework, humans are a mildly polygynous species that has evolved from a highly polygynous species. Australopithecus afarensis was a highly dimorphic species - so much so that paleontologists once thought the smaller and larger skeletons represented two distinct species. Female afarensis were only 64 percent of the size of males, which makes them less dimorphic than gorillas but more dimorphic than modern humans. This difference in body size is in line with chimpanzees, which suggests our ancestors might have had a mating system like chimps'. And chimps certainly aren't monogamous. Males vie for females and females usually mate with several males during estrus.
Through our evolutionary history, humans became less dimorphic. Today, women are about 80 percent the size of men, which suggests that even though men and women might not be as different as our 3-million-year-old ancestors, males are still a bit larger than females on average. Our body size then underscores the possibility that we might be naturally less monogamous than we might like to believe. It's possible to speculate that the difference in male and female body size decreased over millions of years to its present 80 percent figure because we have evolved more and more toward a monogamous mating system. Data on the mating status of our present species, however, suggests that our bodies are right in line with our sexuality and mating habits.
...
The natural history of our sexuality can't be separated from the rest of our human biology. We are large bipedal mammals who give birth to highly dependent infants that grow up to be dependent juveniles. Our reproductive success, that is, how we pass on genes, has evolved over millions of years and is focused on these intensely needy packets of genes we call children. The history of the primate order is one of babies becoming more and more altricial and needing caretakers, and although we might not be able to explain why this form of human animal has evolved, it must have been a reasonable strategy to have survived so far. The pieces of the puzzle suggest that our ancestors, perhaps as late as 2 million years ago, lived in small groups of unrelated females and several males who might have been related. These groups moved about the savanna, stepping in and out of patches of forest, gathering vegetable matter as they went. They probably didn't defend any particular area since their large body size required large tracts of land to sustain them. At some point these early hominids, or human, began to exploit meat as a food resource. They probably started as scavengers, lurking behind lions and hyenas, waiting in the noonday sun for everyone else to fall asleep so they could sneak up and drag off a carcass. They were already bipedal so they could easily carry meat to a safe haven. With large brains, they became excellent strategists and used their wits to stay alive and get enough to eat. They may also have used puzzle-solving skills to wipe out others who shared their resources and land. And someday down the line they became organized hunters, artists, and computer programmers. But what of the relationships between group members?
Humans are no different from other social animals. They develop attachments, choose mates, have sex, and produce babies. Although we might like to believe we come from finer stock, our ancestors, just like chimpanzees and gorillas, had sex because their genes pushed them to do so. And our ancient human sexual system was molded by the need to obtain enough food to live and protect oneself from predators. The clues to our sexual biology include a difference in male and female body size which was dramatic 3 million years ago, but decreased over generations. This dimorphism points to a polygynous heritage with males mating with several females and females having access to several males. Although some might think we've moved toward a more monogamous way of life to accommodate dependent babies, it's also possible that we became more pair-bonded as parents but have retained our less than monogamous sexual freedom, even to this day...
What's Love Got to Do with It? Small, p. 12-20, 29-30.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/12/plow-cultures-v-hoe-cultures.html
Did anyone ever say that the Shoshone of the Great Basin were clever? I never read any such thing, but they were hunter-gatherers surrounded by farmers. And remember that "agriculture" is not really a good variable. In history, or across societies, there is a continuum between (a) gardening on the one hand and (b) labor-intensive agriculture on the other. Along this transition there is a change from bride-price to dowry, from males being cads to males being dads, from males being fierce to males being drab workers, and so on. Gardening societies are at most invariably associated with females doing the work and men being rather worthless [or] else heavily involved in local warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price
An evolutionary psychology explanation for dowry and bride price is that bride price is common in polygynous societies which have a relative scarcity of available women. In monogamous societies where women have little personal wealth dowry is instead common since there is a relative scarcity of wealthy men who can choose from many potential women when marrying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-american-wedding-system-in-direct.html
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/09/our-brideprice-culture.html
You have to remember that in sub-Saharan Africa, according to decades of anthropological research (e.g., Jack Goody), women do most of the work... One African feminist organization estimated that in sub-Saharan Africa, women put in 80% of the hours worked...Much of the agricultural work in sub-Saharan Africa is weeding with light hoes, at which women are at least as good as men at. There’s very little of heavy plowing behind draft animals, the classic medieval male peasant’s job...So, sub-Saharan African women are often valued on the marriage market for being sturdy workers, while men tend to be valued for things like being large land owners, good dancers, singers, athletes, fighters, conversationalists, and lovers...Because wives do most of the work to feed themselves, their children, and their husband, sub-Saharan Africa is where you most often see mass scale polygamy: some handsome devil with several dozen wives...How can the husband afford all those wives and children? Well, he’s not paying much for them...How can he keep all those wives satisfied and faithful? He’s probably not. He’s not keeping his wives home in a harem, he’s sending them out into the fields to work, where lonely local bachelors try to lure them into the bushes. But if his nominal children include a number of cuckoos’ eggs, it’s no big deal. He’s not paying much to keep them fed.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/serial-monogamy-and-women.html
Perhaps the worst social problem of African-Americans: the culture that African-Americans brought with them from Africa is one of low paternal investment. Traditionally, an African husband was not much expected to bring home the bacon for the wife and kids. Today, this is reflected in the very high American black illegitimacy rate—currently about two out of three children are born out of wedlock.
Anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy of UC Davis wrote in Mother Nature:
"Many fathers are only sporadically in residence with the mothers of their children; and fathers, when they are on the scene, may be unpredictable regarding which children they invest in, and how much. A substantial number of women conceive at a young age, often prior to marriage or formation of any stable relationship… relatively few fathers provide a great deal of care."
While this may sound like inner city black neighborhoods in the U.S., she's actually describing "large areas of sub-Saharan Africa."
The anthropologists Jack Goody and Ester Boserup first explored how continental differences in raising food affected family structure. Boserup noted in 1970:
"Africa is the region of female farming par excellence. In many African tribes, nearly all the tasks connected with food production continue to be left to women."
James Q. Wilson summarized their findings:
"In Europe, where animal-drawn plows were used to farm rich land, intensive agriculture made monogamy important… In these places, men did much of the agricultural work …
In much of Africa, by contrast, farming was done by handheld hoes used to work small plots of land that were often rather infertile. Women were widely used to do the hoeing and carry in the produce.
Many husbands found that they could use extra wives to wield even more hoes, and so marrying several women made sense economically… the conditions they describe may have had important consequences for the kinds of families that had to endure the travails of slavery in the Western Hemisphere."
This tropical farming system causes African cultures to tend toward polygamy and/or matrilineal-matrilocal family structures. These tendencies can still be seen among African-Americans.
But, in systems of tropical agriculture where land was traditionally cheap and most of the work is weeding, which women can do as well as men—as opposed to manhandling draft animals for plowing—you sometimes see handsome men with 50 or more wives.
Of course, the Big Man can't afford to keep them locked up in harems. So he puts them to work in the fields, where they can produce enough to support themselves and their children.
Now, the 49 local bachelors who are left over are going to try hard to lure the polygamist's wives out of the fields and into the bushes. So many of the children born to the Big Man's wives might not be his genetic offspring. But their mothers can support them—which means that some cuckoo's eggs aren't that big of a loss to him.
Sub-Saharan African husbands are less likely to do what it takes to keep their wives sexually faithful, such as working hard to provide for them. Thus Emily Wax wrote in the Washington Post:
"[W]omen perform 80 percent of daily work, according to studies by African gender groups …"
These men get cuckolded a lot. In turn, they put even less effort into providing for their wives' children, since the odds are lower that they are also their own children.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/tom-sowells-black-redneck-theory-ingenious-but-insufficient
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_archive.html
What does your French correspondent mean by "polygamy"? Does France permit polygamy? Or does it just mean that black men in Africa live with several women at the same time without benefit of marriage under the same roof? Or do they indeed live under the same roof? In some forms of polygamy each woman and her children have separate homes.
Thus, if there is no marriage in France, and the "wives" live with their own respective children in separate dwellings, what we see is the classic ghetto pattern in the USA: black men servicing several women concurrently, traveling from house to house as the spirit moves, and leaving it up to the women to take care of themselves and their children.
And by extension, American ghetto patterns are nothing more than a reversion to the classic peasant African social pattern: marginally employed males traveling from hearth to hearth impregnating females, and leaving it up to the women to take care of themselves and their children, typically by growing food in small plots in the homelands areas [or, in America beginning in the 1960s, by collecting welfare].
...
The farther south you go, the more forward men become. This leads to a "jealousy belt" in the lower temperate latitudes, like Sicily, where shyness is low and men tend to be vain and cocksure, but the economy and culture still require intense paternal investment. There, the men are constantly trying to seduce all the women they meet and trying to keep their womenfolk from meeting and being seduced by other men. Life is full of interest in the jealousy belt!
South of the Sahara, men tend to be extremely outgoing, and talented in the arts of seduction (chatting up girls, dancing, singing, and so forth). But the traditional low paternal investment tropical agricultural economy doesn't require much certainty of paternity, so they invest more effort in chasing new women than in providing for their current women or keeping other men away from their women.
Islam's attitude toward women is very much a product of the jealousy belt. Indeed, I suspect that Islamic social customs are driven in part by Arab revulsion toward the seemingly chaotic black African family structures that Arabs came in contact with when slaving in Africa.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-return-of-patriarchy
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/age_sex_looks_a.html
Read Jason Malloy's December 7th Post Concerning Short-Term Mating Strategies And How It Relates To The Show Jersey Shore. I Tel Yan Males, Like Niggas, Are Ostentatious In Body Ornament (Exaggerated Musculature, Trendy Hair Styles, Flamboyant Clothing, Shoes, Etc.) And Engage In More Conspicuous Consumption (The Purchasing Of Flashy Cars, Expensive Jewelry, Fancy Homes, Etc.) Because They Come From More Sexually Promiscuous Cultures In Which Male Investment In Offspring Is Minimal, So Female Mate Preference Is More Biased Toward Physical Appearance And Physical Ability (Both Fitness Indicators). (If A Female Is Going To Get Little Commitment From A Male, And Thus, Little Investment In Their Potential Offspring, She'll Be Wise To Compensate By Seeking Males With Superior Genes As Indicated By Their Bodily And Facial Symmetry And Ornamentation, Hence Males Engaging In Such Short-Term Mating Or Polygamy Will Place Greater Emphasize On Preening And Displaying Their Genetic Quality Through Such Means.)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/the-scientific-fundamentalist-chip-the-best-block
poor sons can expect to be completely excluded from the reproductive game, because no women would marry them
I'VE BEEN SOCIALLY EXCLUDED AND EXCLUDED FROM THE MATING GAME BECAUSE OF THE RACIST, SEXIST, POLITICALLY INCORRECT, SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE, YET ACCURATE THINGS I WRITE. OH, AND BECAUSE I'M A POOR, HOMELESS MEXICAN. BOO HOO
Through our evolutionary history, humans became less dimorphic. Today, women are about 80 percent the size of men, which suggests that even though men and women might not be as different as our 3-million-year-old ancestors, males are still a bit larger than females on average. Our body size then underscores the possibility that we might be naturally less monogamous than we might like to believe. It's possible to speculate that the difference in male and female body size decreased over millions of years to its present 80 percent figure because we have evolved more and more toward a monogamous mating system. Data on the mating status of our present species, however, suggests that our bodies are right in line with our sexuality and mating habits.
...
The natural history of our sexuality can't be separated from the rest of our human biology. We are large bipedal mammals who give birth to highly dependent infants that grow up to be dependent juveniles. Our reproductive success, that is, how we pass on genes, has evolved over millions of years and is focused on these intensely needy packets of genes we call children. The history of the primate order is one of babies becoming more and more altricial and needing caretakers, and although we might not be able to explain why this form of human animal has evolved, it must have been a reasonable strategy to have survived so far. The pieces of the puzzle suggest that our ancestors, perhaps as late as 2 million years ago, lived in small groups of unrelated females and several males who might have been related. These groups moved about the savanna, stepping in and out of patches of forest, gathering vegetable matter as they went. They probably didn't defend any particular area since their large body size required large tracts of land to sustain them. At some point these early hominids, or human, began to exploit meat as a food resource. They probably started as scavengers, lurking behind lions and hyenas, waiting in the noonday sun for everyone else to fall asleep so they could sneak up and drag off a carcass. They were already bipedal so they could easily carry meat to a safe haven. With large brains, they became excellent strategists and used their wits to stay alive and get enough to eat. They may also have used puzzle-solving skills to wipe out others who shared their resources and land. And someday down the line they became organized hunters, artists, and computer programmers. But what of the relationships between group members?
Humans are no different from other social animals. They develop attachments, choose mates, have sex, and produce babies. Although we might like to believe we come from finer stock, our ancestors, just like chimpanzees and gorillas, had sex because their genes pushed them to do so. And our ancient human sexual system was molded by the need to obtain enough food to live and protect oneself from predators. The clues to our sexual biology include a difference in male and female body size which was dramatic 3 million years ago, but decreased over generations. This dimorphism points to a polygynous heritage with males mating with several females and females having access to several males. Although some might think we've moved toward a more monogamous way of life to accommodate dependent babies, it's also possible that we became more pair-bonded as parents but have retained our less than monogamous sexual freedom, even to this day...
What's Love Got to Do with It? Small, p. 12-20, 29-30.
Should You Be Monogamous?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/12/plow-cultures-v-hoe-cultures.html
Did anyone ever say that the Shoshone of the Great Basin were clever? I never read any such thing, but they were hunter-gatherers surrounded by farmers. And remember that "agriculture" is not really a good variable. In history, or across societies, there is a continuum between (a) gardening on the one hand and (b) labor-intensive agriculture on the other. Along this transition there is a change from bride-price to dowry, from males being cads to males being dads, from males being fierce to males being drab workers, and so on. Gardening societies are at most invariably associated with females doing the work and men being rather worthless [or] else heavily involved in local warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price
An evolutionary psychology explanation for dowry and bride price is that bride price is common in polygynous societies which have a relative scarcity of available women. In monogamous societies where women have little personal wealth dowry is instead common since there is a relative scarcity of wealthy men who can choose from many potential women when marrying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-american-wedding-system-in-direct.html
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012/09/our-brideprice-culture.html
You have to remember that in sub-Saharan Africa, according to decades of anthropological research (e.g., Jack Goody), women do most of the work... One African feminist organization estimated that in sub-Saharan Africa, women put in 80% of the hours worked...Much of the agricultural work in sub-Saharan Africa is weeding with light hoes, at which women are at least as good as men at. There’s very little of heavy plowing behind draft animals, the classic medieval male peasant’s job...So, sub-Saharan African women are often valued on the marriage market for being sturdy workers, while men tend to be valued for things like being large land owners, good dancers, singers, athletes, fighters, conversationalists, and lovers...Because wives do most of the work to feed themselves, their children, and their husband, sub-Saharan Africa is where you most often see mass scale polygamy: some handsome devil with several dozen wives...How can the husband afford all those wives and children? Well, he’s not paying much for them...How can he keep all those wives satisfied and faithful? He’s probably not. He’s not keeping his wives home in a harem, he’s sending them out into the fields to work, where lonely local bachelors try to lure them into the bushes. But if his nominal children include a number of cuckoos’ eggs, it’s no big deal. He’s not paying much to keep them fed.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/08/serial-monogamy-and-women.html
Perhaps the worst social problem of African-Americans: the culture that African-Americans brought with them from Africa is one of low paternal investment. Traditionally, an African husband was not much expected to bring home the bacon for the wife and kids. Today, this is reflected in the very high American black illegitimacy rate—currently about two out of three children are born out of wedlock.
Anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy of UC Davis wrote in Mother Nature:
"Many fathers are only sporadically in residence with the mothers of their children; and fathers, when they are on the scene, may be unpredictable regarding which children they invest in, and how much. A substantial number of women conceive at a young age, often prior to marriage or formation of any stable relationship… relatively few fathers provide a great deal of care."
While this may sound like inner city black neighborhoods in the U.S., she's actually describing "large areas of sub-Saharan Africa."
The anthropologists Jack Goody and Ester Boserup first explored how continental differences in raising food affected family structure. Boserup noted in 1970:
"Africa is the region of female farming par excellence. In many African tribes, nearly all the tasks connected with food production continue to be left to women."
James Q. Wilson summarized their findings:
"In Europe, where animal-drawn plows were used to farm rich land, intensive agriculture made monogamy important… In these places, men did much of the agricultural work …
In much of Africa, by contrast, farming was done by handheld hoes used to work small plots of land that were often rather infertile. Women were widely used to do the hoeing and carry in the produce.
Many husbands found that they could use extra wives to wield even more hoes, and so marrying several women made sense economically… the conditions they describe may have had important consequences for the kinds of families that had to endure the travails of slavery in the Western Hemisphere."
This tropical farming system causes African cultures to tend toward polygamy and/or matrilineal-matrilocal family structures. These tendencies can still be seen among African-Americans.
But, in systems of tropical agriculture where land was traditionally cheap and most of the work is weeding, which women can do as well as men—as opposed to manhandling draft animals for plowing—you sometimes see handsome men with 50 or more wives.
Of course, the Big Man can't afford to keep them locked up in harems. So he puts them to work in the fields, where they can produce enough to support themselves and their children.
Now, the 49 local bachelors who are left over are going to try hard to lure the polygamist's wives out of the fields and into the bushes. So many of the children born to the Big Man's wives might not be his genetic offspring. But their mothers can support them—which means that some cuckoo's eggs aren't that big of a loss to him.
Sub-Saharan African husbands are less likely to do what it takes to keep their wives sexually faithful, such as working hard to provide for them. Thus Emily Wax wrote in the Washington Post:
"[W]omen perform 80 percent of daily work, according to studies by African gender groups …"
These men get cuckolded a lot. In turn, they put even less effort into providing for their wives' children, since the odds are lower that they are also their own children.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/tom-sowells-black-redneck-theory-ingenious-but-insufficient
What does your French correspondent mean by "polygamy"? Does France permit polygamy? Or does it just mean that black men in Africa live with several women at the same time without benefit of marriage under the same roof? Or do they indeed live under the same roof? In some forms of polygamy each woman and her children have separate homes.
Thus, if there is no marriage in France, and the "wives" live with their own respective children in separate dwellings, what we see is the classic ghetto pattern in the USA: black men servicing several women concurrently, traveling from house to house as the spirit moves, and leaving it up to the women to take care of themselves and their children.
And by extension, American ghetto patterns are nothing more than a reversion to the classic peasant African social pattern: marginally employed males traveling from hearth to hearth impregnating females, and leaving it up to the women to take care of themselves and their children, typically by growing food in small plots in the homelands areas [or, in America beginning in the 1960s, by collecting welfare].
...
The farther south you go, the more forward men become. This leads to a "jealousy belt" in the lower temperate latitudes, like Sicily, where shyness is low and men tend to be vain and cocksure, but the economy and culture still require intense paternal investment. There, the men are constantly trying to seduce all the women they meet and trying to keep their womenfolk from meeting and being seduced by other men. Life is full of interest in the jealousy belt!
South of the Sahara, men tend to be extremely outgoing, and talented in the arts of seduction (chatting up girls, dancing, singing, and so forth). But the traditional low paternal investment tropical agricultural economy doesn't require much certainty of paternity, so they invest more effort in chasing new women than in providing for their current women or keeping other men away from their women.
Islam's attitude toward women is very much a product of the jealousy belt. Indeed, I suspect that Islamic social customs are driven in part by Arab revulsion toward the seemingly chaotic black African family structures that Arabs came in contact with when slaving in Africa.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-return-of-patriarchy
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/age_sex_looks_a.html
Read Jason Malloy's December 7th Post Concerning Short-Term Mating Strategies And How It Relates To The Show Jersey Shore. I Tel Yan Males, Like Niggas, Are Ostentatious In Body Ornament (Exaggerated Musculature, Trendy Hair Styles, Flamboyant Clothing, Shoes, Etc.) And Engage In More Conspicuous Consumption (The Purchasing Of Flashy Cars, Expensive Jewelry, Fancy Homes, Etc.) Because They Come From More Sexually Promiscuous Cultures In Which Male Investment In Offspring Is Minimal, So Female Mate Preference Is More Biased Toward Physical Appearance And Physical Ability (Both Fitness Indicators). (If A Female Is Going To Get Little Commitment From A Male, And Thus, Little Investment In Their Potential Offspring, She'll Be Wise To Compensate By Seeking Males With Superior Genes As Indicated By Their Bodily And Facial Symmetry And Ornamentation, Hence Males Engaging In Such Short-Term Mating Or Polygamy Will Place Greater Emphasize On Preening And Displaying Their Genetic Quality Through Such Means.)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200909/the-scientific-fundamentalist-chip-the-best-block
poor sons can expect to be completely excluded from the reproductive game, because no women would marry them
I'VE BEEN SOCIALLY EXCLUDED AND EXCLUDED FROM THE MATING GAME BECAUSE OF THE RACIST, SEXIST, POLITICALLY INCORRECT, SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE, YET ACCURATE THINGS I WRITE. OH, AND BECAUSE I'M A POOR, HOMELESS MEXICAN. BOO HOO
No comments:
Post a Comment