Originally Posted by SvartSvensk
I would consider the hypothesis that Humans have had a variety of relationship types in different settings for millions of years, to include monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, and group marriage, which could explain why different people need different things. How to test this? Now THERE'S yer problem...
I agree. I think that instead of being 'biologically hard-wired for (serial) monogamy', humans posses enough monogamous tendencies to give rise to the phenomenon of (serial, double- and single standard) monogamy. I've always found the need to explain how could evolution allow for homosexual behavior to arise be somewhat curious obsession. I feel instead of assuming heterosexuality is the one true evolutionary way, it's much more probable than in the infinite variety of human (and animal) sexual expression, those who posses strong heterosexual tendencies (i.e. manage to have enough of PIV sex) tend to reproduce faster and in greater numbers than those for whom heterosexual behavior is more incidental. Heterosexuality is not natural, just popular, because some of it's expressions tend to lead into conception and thus passing on of those tendencies to offspring.
The trouble for me in socio-biology that attempts to answer questions like 'How did monogamy/male dominance/homosexuality originate?' is that they take granted that we live in the best possible world from an evolutionary viewpoint. Evolution is blind; it would not care if humans never evolved. It does not strive for the best/most organized/most functional lifeforms, but rather by accident favors those individuals whose traits, again quite accidentally, match the environmental changes occurring. Recent evidence indicates that Neanderthals did not go extinct because they were less smart or evolved than Homo Sapiens; they were simply highly adjusted to very cold climes, and when the climate started to warm up, they lost the habitat they were most comfortable in.
Sorry, a ramble, but I do so like trashing evolutionary psychology.