Thursday, March 7, 2013

Mongamy is Sexual Socialism

           It is well known that monogamy goes against the grain; yet also that it’s needed for civilization. From this I deduce that monogamy is a socialistic intervention into the mating market.

           If pure laissez-faire applied in the mating market, then the most likely result would be oligopoly; a few males corner the market and gather large harems, the other males are out of luck. But unattached males without prospects are a danger to themselves and others; this is a political problem; therefore some of the brighter politicians and priests back in the Bronze Age decided to enforce a share-and-share-alike policy. One woman per man, no more nor less; and this rationing is enforced by moral suasion, peer pressure, and failing that, the sword of the Law.

           Such a system is called socialism. As usual with socialism, it works approximately as planned, but there are unintended consequences and known systemic failures. Nonetheless, this form of socialism is, all in all, relatively successful.


  1. Yes, you are 100% right. This is a fascinating topic. Further recommended reading would be "Sexual Utopia in Power" from F. Roger Devlin.

  2. Is it known? There are many civilisations with polygamy. Though I suppose one might argue that in practice they have tended to be monogamous for most, nonetheless.

    It was attributed to Mazdak that he redistributed excess women from the polygamous rich to the monogamous poor, as policy. This may be a libel against him; it has been subject to all kinds of other interpretations. Mazdak, of course, was called a proto-socialist many centuries later.