2009/3/11 ss <[email protected]> > On Wednesday 11 Mar 2009 4:34:15 pm Ingrid wrote: > > monogamy and the control of women's sexuality in general, are only > > necessary when patrilineal private property is the norm. all communal > forms > > are, therefore, viable alternatives. > > Could you expand on this a little bit more please > > shiv > > maternity is usually a provable fact. paternity, without DNA testing, a claim. this is not a significant issue when resources and responsibilities are jointly owned or shared by a tribe/clan/commune/kibbutz/joint family. it is also not an issue once private property is institutionalised when property is handed down the maternal line. it only becomes an issue when a) there is private property to be inherited/bequeathed and b) this is done down the paternal line since the risk of a 'cuckoo in the nest' kicks in. from a female perspective the upside to monogamy is not being left alone to raise the offspring in which she has invested greater genetic, time and effort resources than the sperm donor has. communal living and resource sharing arrangements address this more or less adequately. all the hunter-gatherer/pastoral communities i'm aware of fit this pattern i.e. they are polygamous/polyandrous and do not have severe proscriptions against what monogamous cultures term promiscuity. hence my conclusion.
- Ingrid
