Unless i'm completely remembering things wlife", I've always read it's beedesires" 10,000 years since agriculture started which lead to settled societies and of course civilization. Looking at currently existing tribal societies, you can see examples of monogamy not being the standard. There's a tribe in the south america where they believe as many men as possible have to ejaculate in a woman for her to be pregnant. There's one china that don't even have the concept of fatherhood because males are kicked out after a certain age. I also remember seeing a documentary about a tribe in the amazon that's also made of only women. But I wasn't trying to link matriarchal societies with monogamous relationships, I was addressing TS' assertion that hunter gatherer societies are male-dominated which doesn't seem true to me. They seem way more egalitarian than what we have in almost every aspect.
And how can you have the concept of owning land, if your whole society doesn't stay in place for an extended period of time? Many hunter-gatherers are also nomadic, so I don't see how property ownership is possible. Of course you can own yurts and horses like nomadic people's of the steppes, but not land. Marriage and monogamy becomes less of an issue if you have less to pass down to your children.
It seems I have offended you because (I assume) you are married and I am insulting your way of life. I don't mean to disparage people like you who happy with being married. Marriage has a utility in society, and for the individuals engaged in it, but I think for most people in modern society, that utility is glossed over by more abstract notions of "love" because marrying for pure utility sounds cold. Now we have societal mechanisms in place where we don't need marriage so we should all think about exactly why it is that we should get married. Personally I see no utility in it for myself and I think most people who get married don't either but they get married due to the pressure of feeling like they have to, which can't be healthy for the relationship or the kids. A lot of people, if not everybody, I know who argue that I should get married is because "I will get lonely." It's something a lot of people actually think about when it comes to marriage and once again, I don't think it's a good reason to get married. You said it's the purpose of life. I of course disagree since we're more than just animals and I'd like to transcend my primal desires. I'm fine with my genetics not being passed on and with 7 billion people in the world, I don't think more fucking will do our species any good.
"But I wasn't trying to link matriarchal societies with monogamous relationships, I was addressing TS' assertion that hunter gatherer societies are male-dominated which doesn't seem true to me."
Yeah I agree. Patriarchal society is clearly the dominant paradigm though.
"Marriage and monogamy becomes less of an issue if you have less to pass down to your children."
You have your genes and your experience to pass down to your children, these are the most important things, the greatest resources of all, by far. Legal marriage facilitates passing of property but monogamy is the thing that enhances the survival off offspring the greatest!
"It seems I have offended you because (I assume) you are married and I am insulting your way of life"
I came down on you hard, not because of anything you said in particular, it is obviously some defensiveness, but mainly (I would like to think) tiredness at hearing the same shit from young males not in committed, healthy, long term relationships. Broken families, men raised without father figures and the drive in young men to sow their oats if possible are not a cogent argument for the dominant paradigm of our species relationships and child rearing. Those are the causes, I suspect, for the anti marriage sentiment.
The key aspect of marriage is the invitation of both extended families and friends to come together in the affirmation of the couples commitment to union. You're right that people should examine why they go ahead with it, but i think that a thorough examination of the evidence leads to a greater respect for the benefits of monogamy.
"You said it's the purpose of life. I of course disagree since we're more than just animals and I'd like to transcend my primal desires"
Yet I would say your disagreement is just signalling to potential mates, reforming your position as one of strength rather than weakness, that your behaviour is that which maximises your chance at attaining monogamy, or at least by and large is behavioral traits that have been evolved to do so.