Dunno why, was thinking about monogamy. Again. Feels like I've blogged about this b4.
Thought #1
Started thinking about it a few mths ago, when SP told me that the guy she was kinda seeing confessed to being Married. Wah. Apparently he often goes out with other girls, and says that it's not really his fault, the girls were throwing themselves at him. !! Hm. Although. He IS a pretty good looking chap, and it was SP who first asked him out.. but still. I was there when she asked him out, and she wasn't exactly launching herself into his arms.. And on their 'date' they apparently talked about relationships and he mentioned having an ex-girlfriend but said nothing about being married. I guess he conveniently left out the fact that his "ex-gf" is now his current-WIFE.
Thought #2
Kenny C at Hopkins talks enviously about Mormons n how they condone polygamy; Suicide bombers look forward to their 42 virgins when they reach heaven; but Lisa rejects the idea of 42 virgins being heavenly because how can you make each one feel special and loved??.. [i guess it's heaven for the jihadists, but not for the virgins?]
Thought #3
Reading "Dr Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation": polygamy is the norm in the animal kingdom. Makes sense for males because they want to spread their seed. Makes sense for the females because the fittest sperm probably leads to the fittest offspring, + y put all ur eggs into one basket? Makes sense for the species as a whole because more matings lead to more diverse offspring, lead to increased chance of survival in times of crisis.
Back in the day, Kings would keep harems of mistresses. Under Islamic law, it's still legal to have more than 1 wife. [Although I think this is more because of the male-dominance of the society than enlightened views of evolution, since females can't have more than 1 husband.]
But now in 'modern', westernised society, it's not only immoral to be polygamous, it's illegal to have more than one spouse at any one time. Since there is a clear genetic argument to be made for sexual promiscuity, IS OUR MORALITY HOLDING BACK OUR EVOLUTION?
[An interesting thought that just came to me: suppose the Church is so anti-evolution because this would undermine all their moral teachings as well?]
Thought #4
Ah hah! Now I remember why this topic seems familiar-- I wrote something about the movie 'Kinsey', where this guy, his wife, and his students started engaging in all sorts of sex in all sort of combinations. In the movie the whole thing breaks down because of jealousies and the question of love.
Recently saw the movie 'The Barbarian Invasions'. It's excellent. so I watched the 'making-of' clip in the DVD. One of the actresses was reminiscing about the 60s/70s, the whole peace, love, flower-power era. So apparently, back then it was all about You shd love n sleep with whoever and however many you want. Her bf then really embraced this philosophy, but she never felt comfortable with it. But she also felt that it was morally wrong to object to his infidelities because of peace, love etc. So then she also slept with someone else, and once she did that, she found that she didn't love her bf anymore. Mebbe she's just not the alpha male/female type?
Conclusion:
Seems like polygamy makes biological sense, but it doesn't really work in human society, even when it's universally accepted [eg. during the peace, love, flower-power era]? Like all logical, utopian ideals (eg. Communism), human nature/society tends to throw curveballs?
Random, off topic thought:
MM Lee said that if the opposition wants to become a real challenge to the PAP, it should challenge them on concrete issues, like housing, the economy, health care, education etc, instead of just whining about how the PAP treats them unfairly and doesn't provide a level playing field. Hm. I guess that makes sense. but I think challenging the PAP's stand on 'free speech' is pretty relevant to society as a whole. [Probably the reason y no one talks about housing and health care is becos the PAP is doing a good job in those areas. How to challenge 90% home ownership?] But they are really trying to revamp the education system, say what 'teach less to learn more'. So Rubbish. I think the best part of the education system is that they teach more. Coming to the US, we really have an edge over the Americans. How else to get 3.8GPA and do triple majors in 3 yrs? The lack of creativity is not because of our overwhelming education system. It's because we can't even debate race and politics without fear of getting sued left, right and center. MM Lee says he doesn't believe that S'poreans are scared to talk to the ST about politics. Hm. Are we talking about the same S'pore? S'pore in 2000? He's still thinking about the 1950s, mebbe.
Ok. so mebbe it's an irrational fear. I'm pretty sure that if I insinuate bad things about the PAP here, I'll still be ok, and if I have children in future they will be able to get into Primary sch, and I won't get knocks on my door at night frm people about to take me away for questioning... But I'm still scared.
3 comments:
Maybe because human babies take so much time and energy to raise, it's important to have two dedicated parents to raise them? From what I know of polygamous primates, the father does not take much of an interest in the children b/c he's not sure if they're his children or not. Interesting account in A Primate's Memoir by Robert Sapolsky.
I like the part about Teach Less Learn More. It's more like Sleep Less Do More, but learn nothing. =\
Actually Nancy, that's an interesting thought. And now with all these single-parent households this question seems about ripe for an aspiring sociology PhD to answer. (of course, there's the question of what is considered the successful raising of children-- in purely biology terms, would that be simply reproductive success?)
Post a Comment