Lane wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2:04 pm, pig...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Blunt and Opaque) wrote:
>> "ElissaAnn" <eli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, in article
<6eu6uiF91bo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, dixit:
>>
>>> I think it comes from knowledge of biology and paternity, and the idea
of
>>> inheritance. Before people understood that men had something to do
with
>>> making babies, did they care who had *** with whom?
>> Yes. I'm going to go with "yes, they did". Monogamy is not a purely
>> social construct. Intimacy is precious, and one really can't be
>> intimate with everyone who wants.
>
> Also, we know from animals, that there are instinctive behaviors
> around paternity that probably existed in humans before any cognitive
> awareness of the benefits those behaviors might confer. In other
> words, fathers probably behaved like fathers instinctively before
> anybody knew that they had a biological role in their offspring.
um. no.
having multiple adults around to raise the babies is pretty universal,
both with humans and non-human animals. having one of those adults
necessarily be the father of the babies is not; see matrifocal family
structure as well as natalocality. (if you can make anthropological
pronouncements, you can google. i'm certain of it.)
betsy,
strangely missing having to write papers that she then couldn't
spellcheck because that was too many words to teach the computer...
--
If you didn't hate me so much for merely emailing you, I'd express
empathy. But now, I hope you hurt a lot. --Orlando Fiol, 29 Apr 2008
betsy at mooseparty dot org
|
