Yes and no. No, because everything is just theories. There is no scientific borderline final conclusion as far as human/pre-human sexual behavior.
I don't need proof. I need founded theories. Not just wild conjecture.
Yes, because some of the most popular and widely spread theory suggests (by the likes of Chris Ryan, author at Sex at Dawn, a really awesome book) as well as sexologists like Dan Savage, that the dawn of agriculture started monogamy.
Christopher Ryan, the Ph.D. from an "online learning program"? And Dan Savage, the BA in Theater? I had to look them up, because what you wrote sounds like incoherent conjecture, so I had to check who these people were. As sources, I was hoping someone that's founded their theories on some sort of foundation, and not just "here's what I think".
Like all other animal species we started by being in groups and everyone fucked everyone.
Yeah, there's a particular monkey species that greet, say "goodbye", and "sorry", and "how are you?" by having sex. But besides that, I don't think I've ever come across an animal group where everyone fucks everyone.
The idea is that, when agriculture rolls around, a surplus of food is found. Surplus of food gives way to food storage, which gives away to the first huts/houses.
We always had huts. Yes, agriculture may have lead to a more permanent residency, but even that is disputed, as there are many tribes living in various remote locations that don't deal with agriculture, but still have a base that they go to hunt from.
Because of this surplus of food becoming so valuable, humans started wanting to live closer to the food. less starvation, more comfort
What?
When humans then died, there started being disputes of ownership. Everyone was the father of all the children of the group, and it was such that everyone was raised collectively. Romanticized by many, this was supposedly have been the bomb, because instead of jealousy and greed you had natural feelings of unity because everyone literally was family.
There might have been places that treated things like this, but this wasn't "how it was" before agriculture.
Anyway. ownership of houses and starting to sense that offspring were a mix of a father and a mother, paved way for monogamy. A male who had build the house had needed to pass it on to a son. They couldn't figure out who was the legitimate son, so having dips on the females became a way to keep the successor to the household in line.
That's.. just... bad form. This is unfounded and incoherent. If everyone was everyone's offspring, why would it be important to pass it on to someone specific, and not just pass it down to the entire group? It makes much more sense, if everyone's just "fucking everyone", anyway.
So monogamy is born out of a practical need that predates the earliest religions.
You're saying that monogamy was born from a need to have a proper lineage because you had a house? In a society where no one cared who was whose father? Why would that follow?
It sounds plausible, to me. But there are no facts here. This is just the speculations and theories of many anthropologists and archaeologists who have looked at evidence through hunter-gatherer excavations as well as looking at the nature of sexuality and group dynamics in monkeys.
I am very interested in this topic, and I enjoy evolutionary psychology. I have never come across any such theories, which is why I asked for credible sources, and not just these popular books with baseless conjecture.
When I mean letting yourself go, I don't just refer to the physical shape thing. I am also thinking about becoming less interesting because people "sacrifice" for their relationship. they go less out, do less interesting things
That's called laziness. Not "sacrificing" for the relationship. That's not a normal relationship. It's a bad relationship. It's a stale relationship.
are less inclined to do certain things because of fear of romantic jealousy.
That's also just from horrible insecurities in a significant others, and also a poor reaction to such a restriction placed on the other by the insecure one. This also the sign of a bad relationship, and not a sign of why monogamy is bad.
All of these things leave a hole
Yes, if you're insecure, you'll lean too much on your relationship.
and I think many people lose a part of themselves when they are out of their relationships. Because the other person have become such a fundamental part of their lives and they have given up so many things in the process.
This is in part true, but it is also what makes relationships worthwhile, because you grow fond and attached to this other person - to the degree you yourself want - and share a lot of things, and build a happy life together. To go out of that and not be affected is essentially not being in a relationship in the first place.
The physical factor is a confidence thing. And calling people lazy is not fair. When people are completely relaxed they tend to care a bit less about their relationships.
Did you mean their appearances? Sure, they can not stress about look perfect all the time, but we're talking about not gaining 100 pounds, then saying it's because "you let yourself go". If you stop getting as frequent haircuts and don't shave your chest anymore, that's something completely rectifiable. Being unhealthy is always laziness, and never related to a relationship.
Strictly speaking many people get in shape to lure in a new mate because they wanna look their best.
Strictly speaking, they should keep healthy even afterwards.
That is why men have a much harder time recouping from broken relationships. Men are worse at using their networks and/or talk to friends to recover. traditionally speaking women are much better at reaching out to their friends and family to get back on the horse.
Why is this a sign of monogamy being bad?
You said it yourself. it feels worse than death to them. and someone acts on that impulse and kills.
That doesn't follow. Then they should kill themselves, not others. Also, this is still a response that comes far after such an emotional response that triggers such a violent action as killing someone. You don't sit there a month later, feeling like shit, then deciding to kill the guy that your SO cheated on. This is something that happens right away, and if we were able to think this far ahead in such a situation, surely we'd also be able to keep from killing someone.
It would be stupid for me to say that there is something wrong with monogamy. I can't possible call dips on knowing that. But neither can you.
I think you've presented your case in a very little credible way. As such, I feel my view that monogamy is a partially default state in humans to still stand. That's also all I said about it. I don't think any alternative is better, but I haven't discussed that monogamy is perfect.
I think it's too bad you spend so much time going about how everyone is lazy, bitter and all sorts of shit, declaring that monogamy is fail free.
I am not declaring that monogamy is fail-free, I am saying that what you're presenting as flaws in monogamy, seem to be flaws in the persons you're depicting. If you get fat and dress poorly in a relationship, that's laziness, and just bad form. Taking care of yourself and staying healthy and happy is someone people need to strive to, no matter what kind of relationship they're in.
At least have the decency to see human beings as emotional creatures, and that emotional creatures are not rational. In many ways we are driven by biology.
Yes, and that's why we're monogamous. You really think we could be, if it wasn't in our biology? My entire point is founded around the fact that this not a societal construct.
And if you look at many species of animals - Even those that are famous for having male and female staying together for life like the Swan - Guess what. They still get fucked by other animals when they go about their day.
There's a suiting video from Louis CK on exactly this. But you're still drawing lines where there are none.
Who knows. I won't dismiss monogamy. But I admit - I wonder if we would all be happier if we didn't have it. If it was a universal thing, that if it would remove the jealousy, the desperation, the fixation on sex, if it all became less of a big deal, and less of owning another persons body exclusively.
We're not owning anyone. We're giving ourselves to another person. We're not being taken. We enjoy it, we seek it. We are happy because we're vulnerable. It is a part of what makes it fantastic. The jealousy might be a left-over part from evolutionary times where we needed to be sure that we were taking care of our own off-spring.
I've never cheated on anyone myself and I don't want to. But I am not sure why my girlfriend wouldn't. If she goes out, she can get sex from a long list of guys that will basically offer themselves to her, no strings attached.
Because it would violate the trust?
EDIT: in evolutionary psychological terms, it would mean that she would lose you, because you wouldn't be interested in raising a child you aren't sure is your own. As such, she'd lose the protected she and her child needs, and that's not desirable. This is in part how we're wired to be monogamous. Because we need this type of protection, and we've figured that being at least partly monogamous leads to better survival rates.
