• Existence
    • Perception
    • Cosmos
    • Destiny
    • Totality

Beyond Mind

Search

Whoz Online

We have 66 guests and no members online

Print

Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy III (Solution Part)

Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy III (Solution Part)

This article is the sequel of 

Male Needs Polygyny, Man Finds Monogamy I (Problem Part)

It has been seen through researches [(Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. (2000) Biol. Rev. 75, 21–64) and (KATHARINA FOERSTER, KASPAR DELHEY, ARILD JOHNSEN, JAN T. LIFJELD & BART KEMPENAERS http://www.nature.com/nature/links/031016/031016-9.html)] that Polygyny is a default mating system for all primates including humans. Due to cultural development the males and females in human society agreed to abdicate a part of their individual rights. Females wanted a partner who was willing to share the parenting responsibilities. The male on the other hand wanted a dedicated female who was available to him as per wish and who could guarantee the loyalty and the paternity of her offspring.

This agreement was for the convenience of both the males and the females. But it could not change the males Biologically. It could not change them from what they were created by the raw nature. Otherwise also the forced values are never sufficient to curb the basic instincts (see Spirituality is not the Morality).

In the lower form of life or the primitive societies a male had to dance before a female. Subsequently the male started showing body traits like moustache, strong muscles or valiant behaviors.  But in all these traits there was a possibility of serious injuries and fatal incidents. Intellectually developed male replaced all the show of might to a show of wealth. Now in the civilized world the most sophisticated method of attracting female’s attraction is the show of wealth by the males.

A kings or wealthy individual may marry many wives because of his high status in society and his ability to maintain multiple wives and their needs. This system is evident in Arab cultures where men have the right to marry multiple women but only the wealthy ones have many wives. The Chinese also allow multiple marriages among their nobility. These harems are guarded and protected not by the head husband personally but through some castrated men that have been hired for this very purpose. The alpha male cannot take a risk of having his wives impregnated by other men. In any such incidents the penalty inflicted is the most severe for an offender.

The same trend is seen in the rich of all cultures and societies. Various film stars, aristocrats, diplomats, bureaucrats are known for having such multiple mates. This multiple mating is resorted to by those who have a duty to legislate the laws for Monogamy; who have a duty to enforce the laws for Monogamy; who have the obligation to uphold the laws for Monogamy. This all is done, in a system which apparently and on the face of it, cherishes the norms of Monogamy. The mighty one do it openly in defiance of law. Others keep it in promiscuity. The daily news papers are evident to this.

In 1965 a study was conducted in the United States (Cuber et al 1965) on 427 successful American men. 64% of them were found having two separate families which were unknown to each other. A similar study was made in 2007 (Jacqluine 2007) and this ratio was found to have increased to 83%. These are the empirical researches. These are not like those airy movements for various “isms” which usually percolate from the library books and are bereft of ground experiences.

This motivates every intellectual to consider (or even reconsider) the correctness of the political norm which forces a male against its biological evolution. It again provides an opportunity to consider the propriety of such forcing of a political norm on a part of the society. Can this forcing be justified on any ground? If somehow this forced value is given to the males then why he is expected to bear it voluntarily? If that male repudiates it, under biological compulsions then why such a great hue and cry is made?

If you try, here at this point to give an answer on the basis of some celibacy or AIDS or social order or political equality then unfortunately you have not reached even the contours of the problem. This is a problem of hard facts. Most of the social members would avoid answering to this problem in a straightforward manner. People may try to give all – soothing political answers. But now after this much length of discussion these political answers are highly insufficient.

Let the question be posed in a simple language. Why a part of the society i.e. a male is forced to live in an artificial political environment which does not address to the biological evolution of that part of the society? Why such political laws are framed which are against the very nature of the males? What is important here is that the males have not developed this nature voluntarily but it was given to them by thousands of millions of years of their evolution.

This problem can still be more simplified. A person is starving for days together. It is his biological nature to eat food whenever he feels hungry and the food is available. Then he is brought near food and a law is made prescribing – eating food as an offence. The intelligentsia must ask the justification of such a law. There may be those for whom only one bread will suffice. There will also be those for whom even twelve burgers are not sufficient. This is a matter of personal choice and requirement. Why ought a law try to regulate it unless it offends someone?

If a male can have and substantiate more than one females then why others are to object or to preach who do not belong to that group of the male and females. It is a matter of choice and free will. In a democratic set up such choice and free will is always respected. But what is this type of democracy which forces a political law against the biological nature of one section of society and then crushes its sobbing voice in the name of democratizing it.

 A few members of intelligentsia asked the author if such an arrangement would not be jeopardizing the position of females in the society (or you may say women in a political system). Some people, some women, some learned one might have such apprehensions. But these apprehensions are of psychological origin. They merely scare you like a nonexistent ghost.

The right to freewill to a section of a society cannot be against the other sections. It is a right to choose; the right to choose a number of mating partners. It would similarly be available to everyone those who would contend for it.

Now you can say that Monogamy is just a forced principle on males to make them men. Now the time is ripe to invoke the withdrawal of this forced implementation of Monogamy.

Light in Life YouTube Videos

YOU MAY VISIT ALL THE VIDEOS OF PRATAP SHREE HERE

TOP