I would say both. I am referring to casual sex and romantic love.
Ok because polygamy is one man with many wives, it's not just about sex (at least it isnt SUPPOSED to be)
How do they determine who are our closest ancestors? I thought that apes and humans share 90% of the same genes. I do not see how apes are like humans in any compacity.
The more genetically related you are, the more recent a species is in it's ancestry. IE: We share much of the same genetic information with some primates. We do also share some genetic information with rats, however it's much less yet we know that apes, rats, and ourselves all stem from a common ancestor. The rat simply branched off of our line much earlier than the apes did.
Nevertheless, there are some articles that discuss female promiscuity in females including primates:
Observations of a Nerd: There's always a biological excuse...
Spotlighting News - Male Chimps Are Both Promiscuous and Mature-Oriented
Promiscuous primates play a seminal role in sex | The Japan Times Online
Although these articles do not compare the average amount of parnters both genders select, it does show that polyandry does have biological advantages for females.
That does make sense, it encourages genetic diversity which is a bonus if you're working with the system of sexual reproduction.
How do you separate social reasons from instinctual makeup? It could easily be argued that these social reasons are also driven by instinct.
The funny thing is that our society IS driven by instinct. however it's not quite that simple. Take something that we consider socially acceptable and desirable such as wearing a tie. There's no survival reason to wear a tie, in fact it's actually a hinderance and a waste of resources so if we are concerned about our resources, ties are a bad idea. However human beings are social creatures and as such, we have psychological mechanisms in place to make us want to be a part of a group and act the way the group does. Being a part of a group is valuable because it means we have protection, companionship, mates, and help if we need it.
At the base of every single societal quirk that we have, there is an instinctual drive. For people who want to avoid promiscuity, they want to do so because the group tells them that it's bad for whatever reason and even if the group wont cast you out for it, they'll think less of you and thats where your sense of shame kicks in. Shame is a sort of built in device to make sure you follow the rules of a group and stay with that group because your chances of survival go up as a member of a group.
From my understanding, the sex ratio of male to female is virtually equal. In the world, women outnumber men by 1 percent. Therefore, if we use your theory, 99% of men should desire to be monogamous. How can it make any sense for most men to want to sleep with thousands of women when the disparity between the sexes is very small? Thus, there should be only 1% of the male population who is polygamous.
Because, again, males have an instinctual drive to have as many of the best partners as possible in order to perpetuate the species. Monogamy is simply not what males are wired for and even if there is no need for competition in terms of numbers, there is a need to prove one's worthiness to potential mates. The stronger you show yourself to be, the more mates you get because women are looking for that. Thus men create artificial competitions such as sports to show that they are strong and attract mates.
It sounds rather simplistic but a lot of what men do is to attract a mate
Yes. Conflict and competition are hardwired into the male brain, if not for resources then for social status and the attention of females.
However, conflict and competition is usually practiced when there are scarce resources. Many countries do not have limited resources. Therefore, conflict and completion is not needed in these countries. Case in point, peaceful tribal societies have indefinite resources while violent tribal societies often have limited resources. Secondly, if competition is so hardwired in the male brain, why do women participate in high school and college sports? From my perception, these women are as competitive as men.
Note: When I use the word competition in the bold sentence, I am referring to men engaging in the sport of killing other men. The resources I am referring to are the basics: food, shelter and water.
Couple things. First, there is no such thing as a peaceful tribal society. ALL tribal societies that we have evidence of today practiced SOME form of warfare. Now there are varying degrees of this, some actively seek out opponents and try to conquer while others usually fight more defensively, but they ALL fight.
Conflict may not strictly be NECESSARY as a device for weeding out the less capable, but it IS necessary from a psychological standpoint because we feel it to be necessary for the aforementioned purpose of selecting out the biggest and strongest. Humans are, by nature, highly competitive because we want to select out the best.
Women competing in sports serves a societal function, it's recreation, it's exercise. There is a small selection factor to it, but it's not NEARLY to the degree that men carry it to. Note that the overwhelming majority of competitive sports in the world are male-centric.
I think that there is also an instinctual drive to be monogamous.
The problem is monogamy is a massive stone around your neck from an evolutionary standpoint. It simply doesnt bring you the kind of flexibility and versatility that a polygamous way of life does and you'll have a lower population that is less able to bounce back from disaster.
Thus, the creation of a theocratic system is only the reinforcement of this instinctual drive. This does not mean there is not also an instinctual drive to have multiple partners. What it means is that there is a greater instinctual drive to be monogamous which is reinforced by lawmaking. In these theocratic states, men were not forced by women to create monogamous laws. They decided to create these laws based upon their society’s vision of sexuality. This includes men and women. The more severe the orthodox Islamic punishment towards non-monogamy for most men and all women is, the less numbers of people are tempted to have instincts toward non-monogamy. Think about it. In our country you receive a speeding ticket if you speed over 20 miles over the speed limit. Do you think congress would create a law that imprisoned individuals for speeding over 20 miles beyond the limit? Of course not, because there is a greater temptation and frequency rate for people to have speeding violations. It would be seen as too harsh because people are more tempted and prone to commit such violations. On the other hand, in Iran where men and women are executed for adultery, I would say virtually 99% of men are not tempted to have extramarital affairs. The severity of the punishment represents how revolting they find adultery.
It could be argued that these laws were created by many individuals who desired monogamy and had a society that predominantly supported monogamy. I guess I question the assumption that laws are created only by people who are fighting the instinctual drive to break those laws. It ignores people who create laws such as monogamous marriages who have no instinct for multiple partners.
When you bring religion into it, you change the game somewhat.
Religion provides a stabilizing influence in new societies because it provides something that humans want: an absolute. It gives us definite answers to questions without having to spend time to think about it and it acts as an automated punishment system to keep people on the straight and narrow. It's also a back-handed way of enforcing societal rules. One reason the major religions push monogamy is because in a society that is more structured and more ordered, having literal bastards running around all over the place is incredibly chaotic and confusing. That's fine for a tribal society where it doesnt matter as much but when you get into a system where there are questions of inheritance, bloodlines, power, and wealth then you need a more orderly system and that is helped by a monogamous society. Monogamy also helps maintain power among those who have it because now they dont have to worry about the common folk out-breeding them and just sweeping them aside with pure numbers.
Talking about Islam, Islam permits polygamy (technically polygyny) among it's members and it sees marriage as an outlet for sexual desires. It places a strong emphasis on sexual fidelity, but that doesnt mean you can simply erase one's evolutionary hard-wiring.
I think a society’s severe punishment towards non-monogamy is reflective of that society’s instinct. It is very hard for someone who is not monogamous to understand that others find multiple partners absolutely gross. This what Jean Piaget defines as being egocentric. I have met many men who find the idea of multiple partners disgusting. I am not one of those men and have the same wiring as you. However, I cannot ignore the possibility of many men who create these harsh sexual laws are wired to be monogamous.
Except that evolutionarily speaking, monogamy makes no sense. Monogamy is not practiced by any member of the ape family, to which we are closely related, and is exceptionally rare in our history until fairly recently. I have no doubts that there are people who have been able to sort of short circuit this programming through societal means, but I find extremely difficult to believe that we are no hard-wired to be polygamous.
This goes, of course, with the understanding that there are certain people (such as people who are transgender or asexual in our modern society) who are born hardwired to be monogamous, but this is not the norm by any measure.