Who needs the myth that men - beings polygamous? A semiliterate excuse and its exposure of
it is necessary to meet such expression From time to time - the man supposedly a being polygamous. It is told or with such winking (if the man speaks: yes, we such, the nature - with!) or with rolling of eyes and with a mine of patience and forgiveness (if it is the woman ready to suffer and vseproshchat).
Most often it or reasonings poorly educated and hammered - truly say that taught less worse uneducated, - or reasonings of the deceived wives who want well so there is a wish that not only they were deceived. It is more pleasant if deceive all? Not so offensively... Well and the third, most numerous and harmful nest of this theory - primitive sanctimonious mailings about “weather in the house“ with the most stupid councils about lace lingerie with candles. Mailings with appeals to suffer, forgive and please, all this valyaevshchina given for the deepest female wisdom - most often it are written by the men cowed by wives - losers, embodying in them the concealed dreams about silently - an obedient harem.
These reasonings happen different levels of scientific character - from simple and rough “all men goats“, before leading under it scientific base. For example: the woman can not always indulge in sex. Monthly, pregnancy, feeding, the head hurts. Well, happens. And at it burns. But unless this justification to campaigns on the left? Here just there is a wish to ask: and if the man for any reason cannot - is sick, not in an arrangement, etc. - that he as, will quietly allow the wife to run on the left? For some reason in response to this question such indignant roar and such expressions which the gentleman does not call a cat is distributed, having stepped on her in the dark! Why?
In the ancient time on it there was at least partly a distinct answer: the man wants to know well that children from him. All right, we will allow. But now, in the presence of funds of protection and the analysis for paternity, this problem is ridiculous, there is no such problem. However the thought of symmetric behavior of the wife in case of a man`s indisposition all the same causes an indignation hurricane. How so? She has to suffer, think of spiritual, restrain passions and wait, so far it will be able! It appears, passions - that can be subdued also humility . Who could think?
Another “as - - scientific“ justification of such behavior of men are wars and a loss of men that, alas, happened more than once in recent times. It is sad, but in the last 50 years all is has to lose relevance in those regions where there live alleged readers of this useful resource. And if in some countries in peace and rather safe time strong shortage of men is observed, then it is necessary to let to run and inseminate not remained men, producing fatherlessness, and to understand - where these countries put men of age of consent?
Like to tell also parables and fables, like one teapot and several cups, or about a key with the lock, a pier the woman - the lock, the man from her a key (Freud, hi), and supposedly one to another and all here, any options. But to one lock, as a rule, keys happen a little, and they are replaced, lost - descended to the mechanic, and here if the key to many locks approaches, then with it it looks crooked! It is not a key, but a thieves` master key!
But most often such generalized meets: such at them the nature ... It and in the nature so... The nature supposedly so put: the female nests and hatches out, and the male runs and tries to inseminate more females.
Here we will understand it in more detail and we will see that this the most frequent argument - it and the most incorrect .
In the nature there is no such rigid installation at all. So, the monogamy is present at the majority of birds, and swans, storks, eagles, crows unite in couples for several years, in some cases - for the rest of life. The science prompts to us that the monogamy prevails approximately in 150 families of birds and is absent or is expressed in weak degree only at representatives of 20 families. At mammals the situation is worse. The majority of mammals does not form stable couples at all, but not all - for example, wolves find couple for the rest of life, among monkeys there are such too - gibbons.
Notice that in monogamous couples the male takes part in cultivation of posterity, shows care. And at polygamous types - picked a flower of pleasure at all and ran further, grow as you want. Thus it is clear distribution of a monogamy at birds: it is much more difficult to nest and hatch out baby birds if nobody helps to eat. At mammals the become pregnant female often in general drives away a male that did not gobble up children. But at what here people? People - that with what to a perepug have to refer to it? Whom it “arranges insemination on the run“?
Even in pack (gorillas, walruses, anyone) where the model “it is a lot of females on one male“ - it is all the same final number of females, a family such is accepted. All of them together live, and the friend about the friend know. But not freedom of a male to run and inseminate anyone.
Though such model is in the nature too - but there both the male and a female are FREE in the choice. And by the way, in so favourite “nature“ at those types at whom couples connect only for fertilization, males fight, look after, tokut, dance before females, and females CHOOSE. Then they copulate, and - everything, so far - so far.
A here little men want and to get on a fir-tree, and not to peel a hand: it has a polygamy and freedom, and it has a monogamy and fidelity - fidelity. Well settled.
Supporters of “biological justification of man`s libertinism“ somehow at all do not consider that in the nature which is so loved by them is NOT PRESENT AND there CAN not be a look where males of a poligamna, and females - are monogamous. It is full nonsense. Also there are no types which have a part of animals of a poligamn, and the part is monogamous. does not happen! The marriage behavior of a look is a specific sign, and for this look it is obligatory for all! And the most different options occur at people in different public formations... the monogamy, a poliginiya (it is a lot of wives), a poliandriya (it is a lot of husbands - it is rare, but happens), a group family (not in Sweden, and in some tribes) etc.
And in general - why in this question everything so like to refer to the nature?
In the nature animals do not remember the parents. Absolutely. Also pairing of children with parents is quite admissible.
And old animals from pack expel. In the nature no look feeds ailing old men. Let`s imitate?
In the nature the goat urinates to himself on a beard, and it is pleasant to females, and the dog eats a shit of puppies.
At spiders and mantises the female in general eats a male. .
In the nature a lion (a bear very many people) can eat the cubs that the female became available again.
I? We will refer to it? To do “as in the nature“? Why suddenly in a question of male incorrectness all so passionately love argument “so in the nature“?
We for a long time not the nature.
We not animals, we are people. Not hens with a rooster, not seals with the grunting herd of sea kitties. We all - homo sapiens also live in the 21st century of our era.
Let`s treat to each other as people and not to reduce the behavior to animal instincts!
And all these fairy tales - a clumsy and semiliterate justification for the dismissed men and for undemanding women who want that not only it the lascivious goat got.