On sex and anthropology.

It’s really interesting to me. I just learned a lot about evolution and how it affects sex appeal today. I learned it’s actually how women evolved to want to be in a monogamous relationship, or have some sort of stability. When humans first evolved to walking on two legs, there was no place for the baby to rest on their backs, so women had to carry their babies. Because of this, they needed a male who could protect them since women couldn’t do much without their hands. I just find this so interesting¬†because although I agree with you on your opinion on monogamous relationships, there’s still a part of me that wants one. How did you get rid of that? How do you find stability in an open relationship?

First of all, you’re confusing evolutionary biology with theoretical anthropology. Humans always walked on two legs. You’re talking about some other early hominid species not sufficiently advanced enough to figure out how to work a Baby Bjorn.

Your point about mothers needing protection is a fairly standard anecdotal argument that monogamy is a biological imperative, but you’re jumping to a conclusion. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it’s one helluva a leap to attribute your individual monogamous streak to the mating habits of Homo Erectus.

As for open relationships, I don’t accept your underlying premise that they’re any less stable than monogamous relationships. You just don’t have any experience with them.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *