Marriage obviously isn't a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior--at least not to those women who choose to not have children, nor those women who cannot have children.KiMare wrote:
Please, take it apart, and show us where you are confused.
At the most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Not sure anyone can help you VV, if that is what you have racked your brain over... Especially considering you are a 'professional' social worker.
Here is a brief but thorough explanation;
This paragraph on long term mating (marriage) explains the
"The nature of human reproduction is such that paternal parental investment is not essential to offspring survival. Consequently, short term mating strategies are more favorable to males; Buss and Schmitt (1993) assert that by inseminating as many females as possible while providing as little parental investment as possible, males increase the odds of forwarding their genes. In contrast, the large amount of parental investment required by females makes long term mating strategies much more favorable for them. By attaining the commitment of their male counterparts, females can capitalize on the consequent non-genetic resources provided by the male (food, protection)."
But in all honesty VV, you understand exactly what I said. You play dumb because you have no counter for it.
So all this playing dumb, now you understand AND AGREE!
Then you pontificate on the 'glories' of ignoring marriage.
And conclude with the personal opinion of an author that ABORTION AND SS COUPLES ARE PROGRESS? A defective failure of mating behavior being equated to mating behavior?
Here is the bottom line;
Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior. Clearly distinct.
Here is an interesting site I came across;
To those people, marriage is (according to your definition) isn't necessary.
Why should the husband of a infertile woman be "constrained" by the laws of marriage if there aren't going to be any offspring who require his ability to provide for them? Same with a woman who chooses not to have children.
In the traditional wedding vows there is no mention of a husband's obligation to his family or his children. There's no mention of it in the application for a marriage license.
That FACT, in and of itself, obliterates your definition.