Human as a monogamous species...

[sole_05]

1. Humans are actually considered to be a monogamous species and yet we all know of examples where the single pair concept is not rigorously maintained. In this case are we different from other species?

2. In a case where species have mating systems with multiple partners, polygyny (one male mating with many females) is more common than polyandry (one female mating with many males). I just wondering and want to understand on the sort of conditions that would lead to polyandry.

What do u think?

sole

[MrMistery]

1. First of all you have to understand that humans do not have sex for reproduction like almost every other organism on this planet, they do it for fun. So, the laws of ecology do not apply here. My ecology professor said "They say human reproduction is asortative, but nowadays it's heading more and more to pancmictical"
2. Think about social insects: the queen mates with a lot of males. if you need an example more "closely related" to us, i suggest Heterocefalus glaber. It is a small mammal that has a style of organisation that resembles that of social insects(workers, soldiers etc). Kind of a "social mammal"
Nice question, makes me think about the good old days when i was preparing for IBO..
Regards,
Andrew

[Poison]

1. First of all you have to understand that humans do not have sex for reproduction like almost every other organism on this planet, they do it for fun.

I know some stupid (in fact 'stupid' is an innocent word in this situation) people who are having sex just for having babies. I think those people's influence on others are one of the reasons of vaginismus. (can be spelled wrong.)
Maybe we can classify those 'stupid' people in a different subspecies...

[MrMistery]

You mean they are not having a relanshionship? i do not understand the situation very well

[Poison]

some people have relation just for having children. no real pleasure or something like that. when some of the girls know about this situation, they think that 'sex is bad'. this idea scares them and the problem vaginismus comes out.

[MrMistery]

Good to know.. I think

[sole_05]

Oh well done guys, thanks a lot for sharing! But just wondering, if human do it for fun as some of you said rather than producing babies or vice versa, don't you do it for fun first than expect babies later? As some of you said (refer to your message), if human species is doing it for fun, just wondering if other species of mammals or other organisms are doing this on the same note! Do they? In this case we should not classify as different from those species with regard to this situation. Or are we still different from those species? (refer back to my question 1)

sole

[mith]

Well, we have contraceptives so we can do it for non-procreational purposes. For any other specie, once they have sex, a baby will likely be produced. Also note sexual behavior is different for k and r species.

[MrMistery]

I saw a documentary on dolphins once. It said that the only animals that have sex for fun are humans and dolphins. But, mithril pointed out very well those contraceptives: we do it only for fun and only a few times in our lives to procreate

[makedonec07]

For any other specie, once they have sex, a baby will likely be produced.

Humans can have sex many times without protection and still not produce a baby, because the time isn't right and the fact that 75% of embryos terminate 'naturally' anyway. Could the same hold for other species, such as primates? Therefore enabling them to have sex for fun and still not produce a baby? And of course, they could have homosexual relations for fun and not produce a baby.

[mith]

But they would never know when a baby might be produced, and once it is they would be burdened with supporting it....

[Poison]

you can know (roughly) when a baby may be produced. And if you are not protected, that's why curettage exists.