Jealousy might not be a pre-wired anatomical circuitry like other
known instincts are. Once humans left the nomadic hunter gatherer
lifestyle and entered the prison house of civilization or the human
zoo, many weird behaviors were mapped over what were harmonious
circuits adapted that earlier lifestyle. Jealousy may be a pathology
something which didn't occur much in he right kind of hunter gather
society. But if we compare early civilizations with later
civilizations and say one is natural and primitive we have confused
civilizations with natural societies.
Buss and other evolutionary psychologists who argue that some degree
of jealousy is part of human nature may have a point, but they’re
overplaying their hand when they universalize their findings to
everyone, everywhere, always. Human nature is made of highly
reflective material. It is a mirror - admittedly marked by unalterable
genetic scratches and cracks - but a mirror nonetheless. For most
human beings, reality is pretty much what we’re told it is. Like
practically everything else, jealousy reflects social modification
and can clearly be reduced to little more than a minor irritant if
consensus deems it so.
Among the Siriono of Bolivia, jealousy tends to arise not because
one’s spouse has lovers, but because he or she is devoting too much
time and energy to those lovers. According to anthropologist Allan
Holmberg, “Romantic love is a concept foreign to the Siriono. Sex,
like hunger, is a drive to be satisfied.” The expression secubi (“I
like”) is used in reference to everything the Siriono enjoy, whether
food, jewelry, or a sexual partner. While “there are, of course,
certain ideals of erotic bliss,” Holmberg found that “under conditions
of desire these readily break down, and the Siriono are content to
conform to the principle of ‘any port in a storm.’
Christopher Ryan - Vancouver, BC, Oct 28 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apbtGlg0Rck
"Lewis Henry Morgan ... [is] the only American scholar to have been
cited by each of the other three intellectual giants of his century,
Darwin, Freud, and Marx, [and] many consider Morgan the most
influential social scientist of his era and the father of American
anthropology.
... Morgan was especially interested in the evolution of family struc
ture and overall social organization. Contradicting Darwinian theory,
he hypothesized a far more promiscuous sexuality as having been
typical of prehistoric times. 'The husbands lived in polygyny [i.e.,
more than one wife], and the wives in polyandry [i.e., more than one
husband], which are seen to be as ancient as human society. Such a
family was neither unnatural nor remarkable,' he wrote. 'It would be
difficult to show any other possible beginning of the family in the
primitive period.' A few pages later Morgan concludes that 'there
seems to be no escape' from the conclusion that a 'state of
promiscuous intercourse' was typical of prehistoric times, 'although
questioned by so eminent a writer as Mr. Darwin.'
"Morgan's argument that prehistoric societies practiced group mar
riage (also known as the primal horde or omnigamy -- the latter term
apparently coined by French author Charles Fourier) so influenced
Darwin's thinking that he admitted, 'It seems certain that the habit
of marriage has been gradually developed, and that almost promiscuous
intercourse was once extremely common throughout the world.' With his
characteristic courteous humility, Darwin agreed that there were
'present day tribes' where 'all the men and women in the tribe are hus
bands and wives to each other.' In deference to Morgan's scholarship,
Darwin continued, 'Those who have most closely studied the subject,
and whose judgment is worth much more than mine, believe that com
munal marriage was the original and universal form throughout the
world. . . . The indirect evidence in favour of this belief is
extremely strong... .'
"Indeed it is. And the evidence -- both direct and indirect -- has
grown much stronger than Darwin, or even Morgan, could have imagined.
But first, a word about a word. Promiscuous means different things to
different people, so let's define our terms. The Latin root is
miscere, 'to mix,' and that's how we mean it. We don't imply any
randomness in mating, as choices and preferences still exert their
influence. We looked for another term to use in this book, one without
the derogatory sneer, but the synonyms are even worse: sluttish,
wanton, whorish, fallen.
"Please remember that when we describe the sexual practices in vari
ous societies around the world, we're describing behavior that is
normal to the people in question. In the common usage, promiscuity
suggests immoral or amoral behavior, uncaring and unfeeling. But most
of the people we'll be describing are acting well within the bounds of
what their society considers acceptable behavior. They're not rebels,
transgressors, or Utopian idealists. Given that groups of foragers
(either those still existing today or in prehistoric times) rarely
number much over 100 to 150 people, each is likely to know every one
of his or her partners deeply and intimately -- probably to a much
greater degree than a modern man or woman knows his or her casual
lovers.
"Morgan made this point in Ancient Society, writing, 'This picture of
savage life need not revolt the mind, because to them it was a form of
the marriage relation, and therefore devoid of impropriety.'
"Biologist Alan F. Dixson, author of the most comprehensive survey of
primate sexuality (called, unsurprisingly, Primate Sexuality), makes a
similar point concerning what he prefers to call 'multimale-
multifemale mating systems' typical of our closest primate relations:
chimps and bonobos. He writes, 'Mating is rarely indiscriminate in
multimale-multifemale primate groups. A variety of factors, including
kinship ties, social rank, sexual attractiveness and individual sexual
preferences might influence mate choice in both sexes. It is,
therefore, incorrect to label such mating systems as promiscuous.'
"So, if promiscuity suggests a number of ongoing, nonexclusive sexual
relationships, then yes, our ancestors were far more promiscuous than
all but the randiest among us. On the other hand, if we understand
promiscuity to refer to a lack of discrimination in choosing partners
or having sex with random strangers, then our ancestors were likely
far less promiscuous than many modern humans. For this book,
promiscuity refers only to having a number of ongoing sexual
relationships at the same time. Given the contours of prehistoric life
in small bands, it's unlikely that many of these partners would have
been strangers."
http://www.delanceyplace.com/view_sresults.php?2062