Drowning Our Sorrows?

Comments

Or, given more booze, the tendency to mutter "fuck it, you'll do" increases (along with other inertiae).

Crown Hill Repeater on January 3, 2011 at 11:52 AM

It's kinda funny, but still, it's just a correlation of what could easily be two completely unrelated variables.

The world is full of bizarre correlations like that (e.g., ice cream sales and homicides... the more ice cream is sold, the more homicides go up. This really does happen).

Urgutha Forka on January 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM

If I were monogamous I'd need to drink, oh, an awful lot.

gloomy gus on January 3, 2011 at 11:55 AM

If they drank, the men (or women if multiple male mates for one woman) who don't have mates or mate prospects would beat up the ones who do.

Social strictures don't work so well with alcohol involved.

Will in Seattle on January 3, 2011 at 12:02 PM

How does this factoid explain the large number of men in polygynous communities who *never* marry? Surely they would need booze more than anyone else.

The causation seems to be more along the lines of polygynous communities being extremely puritanical on just about every level, above all in restricting and controlling sexuality.

keshmeshi on January 3, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Urgutha beat me to it. One has nothing to do with the other.

Fifty-Two-Eighty on January 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Just seeing the word "monogamy" in combination with "posted by Dan Savage" is enough to drive me to the bottle.

Actionsquid on January 3, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Also strongly correlated: creepy homemade dresses that cover the ankles.

doceb on January 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM

What Urgutha said, plus: What are you using as an example of a poly group in the modern world? Because other than outlaw mormons, I can't think of any, in the developed world, anyway. It would make sense that as societies become more organized, it's easier to produce lots of goods, including booze. So I would think you could also say that in societies where people live in heated structures, there is more alcohol consumption, simply because that would mean you're more likely to live in a society where anyone can go out and buy booze, rather than having to make it yourself. I'm not disagreeing that the thought of remaining monogamous for decades on end *wouldn't* be enough to drive someone to drink, I just think it's a pretty big leap to assume one causes the other.

Canuck on January 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Dan, stop being a twat. I love my wife, and I love my booze. Your susceptibility to confirmation bias is showing.

pheedthemonkey on January 3, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Yeah, or people who live in polygynous societies are more likely to be affilitated with religions that, in addition to advocating polygyny, also tend to outlaw drinking. Cue the chorus of first-year university students: correlation does not equal causation!

KayElle on January 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM

That's what the Costco mega-liquor store is for, gus, FYI, in case you ever travel down that road for any length of time... :)

Canuck on January 3, 2011 at 12:14 PM

The correlation is not causation, I'd guess. The rise of alcohol consumption is predicated upon agriculture--which then causes the social arrangements that include monogamy (as Dan's favorite book points out!). Some paleomixologists theorize that beer caused agriculture. Speaking of which, off to Hopleaf!

Chicago Fan on January 3, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Might depend on who you're being monogamous with. For us, drinking time cuts into fucking time -- and we certainly can't have that.

j in ca on January 3, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I think Chicago Fan is on to something, but that's just not as much fun as saying that monogamy causes you drink ;)

Jamie in Pittsburgh on January 3, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Polygyny also correlates highly with sexual abuse and murder of women. The common factor between polygyny and alcohol prohibition is authoritarian control of individual behavior. If you're not a man high on the control hierarchy you are little better than property.

Why do some poly advocates make comparisons between polygynous societies and American non-monogamous lifestyles? When 90% of the population has no sexual freedom it's not a free-loving, natural poly utopia.

K3 on January 3, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Fun game. Urgutha: ice cream sales > higher heat > higher heat in areas where it may normally not be as hot > tempers > violence. K3 nails it on the relationships and alcohol.

Joe Szilagyi on January 3, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Christ on a cracker people, do you really think Dan is trying to say that monogamy drives people to drink? It's just a funny little tidbit, for goodness sakes...or possibly trolling...but I dont think it's to be serious.

yourmom.com on January 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Canuck, I would have to go work at Costco for the employee volume booze discount, in that case, and hope their insurance would cover inpatient rehab at least a couple times a year.

gloomy gus on January 3, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Can't I just be monogamous and sober? Trying to maintain or seek out additional partners WOULD make me need a tranquilizer and/or a drink.

Putting up with one person (in addition to my own insecurities/flaws/phobias) is already too much.

Some of us just aren't hot enough to need (or get) more fucking.

patrick66 on January 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Barring working at Costco, gus, the least you could do is recount your tales of debauchery here on Slog...it would allow me to cut down on my Kindle smut budget, and it's frankly unsporting of you not to share now and then... :(

Canuck on January 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM

@19 -- Yes, I do think he's saying that monogamy drives people to drink. But I also think he's saying it tongue in cheek and doesn't actually mean it seriously.

Kevin_BGFH on January 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I agree; K3 nails it. Dan, snarking at enforced monogamy is fine, but please, please do not confuse modern polyamory in which all partners' consent and pleasure are important with your old one-man-many-wives arrangement. Most of us would not have been happy back there. Enforced monogamy may have its downsides, but generally constitues an *improvement* on the previous model.

on January 3, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Polygyny and polygamy are not equivalent. Not sure anyone today thinkgs polygyny, as it has been practiced, is a good thing.

bigyaz on January 3, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Those two are unrelated. No correlation and cause :) You could probably find an correlation in history between monogamy and flying in airplanes or using computers or showering daily. Moving into a 'civilised world' traditionally brings people a number of customs. Just because people who use computers often also shower daily doesn't mean that they do it because computers stink.

Moonmaid on January 3, 2011 at 2:17 PM

If you corrected for religions with charismatic prophets who kept many wives for themselves but forbade consumption of alcohol among their followers, I predict the connection would go away.

Proteus on January 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM

@20 -- Gus, I work for Costco, and we don't get any additional discounts. Just free membership. Although the health benefits are pretty nice...

sanguisuga on January 3, 2011 at 2:37 PM

@ everyone posting that polygyny is associated with rigid, puritanical, sexually repressive, authoritarian, etc. societies. Sorry, but you are flat out wrong and a quick review of any Anthropology 101 text book will dispel your notions right quick.

A key phrase in the quote is "in the preindustrial world."

Historically, the largest concentrations of polygynous societies were found in agricultural sub-Saharan Africa (also known as the matrilineal band/belt), in the Pacific/Oceania region, and in a few areas of Asia and the Americas. All areas were characterized by pre-industrial (primarily agricultural) modes of production, no formal religion and no state. So, in fact, exactly the opposite of what you are assuming.

The very few areas that practiced polyandry (see Tibet, the Marquesas) were characterized by an extreme scarcity of natural resources. Again, no puritanical religion or authoritarian state or repressive sexuality.

It is, in fact, the growth of monogamy that is most closely associated with the rise of interest in controlling sexuality, with rigid religion, and a formal state.

gnossos on January 3, 2011 at 2:41 PM

@29 I'm not sure that was in any ANT100 textbook in my university... Also, pre-colonial Africa was not without states, their sovereignty was simply different - not a nation-state, but not necessarily less authoritarian. It's apples and oranges. Also, it seems like you're conflating religion with Christianity here.

Also, there's been polyandry in other places, such as India. So I'm not sure I find your account very authoritative...

oskomena on January 3, 2011 at 2:57 PM

It suddenly occurs to me that promoting polygamy/andry/mory in a world that desperately needs to produce less babies is likely a bad idea.

heatherly on January 3, 2011 at 3:13 PM

What Chicago Fan said at #13.

Also, what the hell kind of drivel are you showing us? A "working paper" from the American Association of Wine Economics? I'll eat my fucking hat if that's peer-reviewed.

And, once again, here is a link to the ACTUAL PUBLICATION, which I looked up for you.
http://wine-economics.org/workingpapers/…

I am a broken record on the internet. LINK TO THE PUBLICATION LINK TO THE PUBLICATION LINK TO THE PUBLICATION LINK TO THE...

anarchy burger on January 3, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Isn't there something about brain endorphins and pleasure involved in both. My guess is that as a species we spent a considerable amount of time fucking before mordern society tried everything to make us work instead.

Vince on January 3, 2011 at 3:42 PM

@30: yes polyandry in India...I was merely citing the two best known examples. Polyandry is/was far and away the least common family type and, as I said, typically found in regions of scarcity where limiting population growth was critically important (conversely, polygyny tends to be most common where there is limited resource pressure).

Sure pre-colonial Africa had states, some of which were authoritarian. They were also pre-industrial. And the majority of African societies (if not overall populations) were outside of state structures. Don't have my old textbooks in front of me, but can pull them out later. But in agriculturally based societies for most of human history some form of polygamous union was the most common family type.

gnossos on January 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM

And from the paper itself: "We conclude that there is no direct causality in either way, but that other factors cause specific changes in both alcohol use and marriage arrangements" (p 5).

gnossos on January 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Did anyone read the "paper?" It's population-level data, not individual-level. And the "data" is 40 years old, about "pre-industrial societies." And they merge it from two different sources. And as far as I can tell, they don't control for anything. They just report raw correlation coefficients.

Basically, it has nothing to do with anything. It's just a goofy sociology paper that I don't think was ever attempting to achieve rigorous statistical analysis competence. But that doesn't really come up in blog reposts, I guess...

hereiswheremynamegoes on January 3, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Maybe we drink more than our pre-industrial forbears because WE CAN AFFORD TO DRINK ALCOHOL rather than spending all our money on burlap, chamberpots, and dried beans.

Seriously?

nullbull on January 3, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Dan, you're pulling a Mudede on me...

Cory on January 3, 2011 at 4:48 PM

But in agriculturally based societies for most of human history some form of polygamous union was the most common family type.

You are completely and utterly full of shit. How does a society survive with a majority of its men shit out of luck in the sex and marriage department? Polygyny has only ever been the domain of men wealthy enough to support several wives and dozens of children. How many men could manage that in the pre-industrial age?

Sorry, but you are flat out wrong and a quick review of any Anthropology 101 text book will dispel your notions right quick.

Really? And, how exactly do you prove that? Are anthropologists time travelers?

Women, by and large, don't choose to be one of several wives if they have other options. Women not having options is strongly correlated with being treated like shit by the men in their lives. You do the math.

keshmeshi on January 3, 2011 at 5:05 PM

keshmeshi, you really don't know what you're talking about here. For a quick starter just look at the referenced article and then follow-up with looking at Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas.

For over a century anthros and other social scientists have noted that there are strong correlations between mode of production and family type. One part of that correlation are certain types of agriculture and polygyny. And, hint, the men aren't supporting the wives and kids, it's the wives and kids who are supporting them.

Just cause something violates what you want to be true does not mean it ain't so.

gnossos on January 3, 2011 at 5:37 PM

I'll join those who have already said "correlation does not imply causation". Remember the story about it being safer to cross the road barefoot? 100% of all people who were run over by cars when crossing the road had shoes on...

ankylosaur on January 3, 2011 at 5:58 PM

keshmesh, I'm afraid gnossos is by and large right (I'm an anthropological linguist, I know what he is talking about). When you say that "women, by and large, don't choose to be one of several wives if they have other options", you're ignoring the effects of culture and modes of production.

All I'll say is that explanations for the correlations that gnossos mentions can be controversial. Unfortunately societies, even primitive ones, aren't so simple, and there are many factors at play here, and no theory that really takes all of them into account.

ankylosaur on January 3, 2011 at 6:02 PM

@keshmeshi. If you've got something to back up your feelings show it. Meanwhile:

From:
On the Economics of Polygyny by Theodore C. Bergstrom:

Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850.

From:
Determinants of African Polygyny by R. Clignet

(G)eneral polygyny tends to prevail in societies where subsistence is based upon the cultivation of roots and tubers and upon arboriculture. This type of economic organization encourages the maintenance of large-sized households...(/blockquote>

gnossos on January 3, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Geez, you guys really need to either have a drink or get laid.

Indy on January 3, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Crime increases along with temperature, Ugurtha, that's why the ice cream/homicide correlation. Polygamous societies tend to be religious- and perhaps against alcohol consumption for religious reasons.

AlliMike on January 3, 2011 at 9:32 PM

I think there's a bit of X factor to this study. It must be nice though, one lady giving you a hard time, you can tell her to get back with the kids while you choose between several other wives to have unprotected finish in her sex with. While the regular asshole might drown his sorrows and try to forget how much of a prude the lady he just married is, the poly group just finds someone else to take that aggression on physically with. Heck, if I had an on-call sex partner like that, I'd never drink myself, and if they were tied to me for life? I wouldn't want to escape from reality, because the reality of fucking lots of women until the day I die, and not having them get as jealous as say, if your wife caught you with a hooker, sounds like something I don't need to escape from. It sounds more like, something I'd want to escape to, if I didn't know that it came with unbelievably sexist bullshit.

watchout5 on January 4, 2011 at 1:49 AM

If one wife will drive you to drink (did me), then it figures multiple wives would drive you to six-packs.

on January 4, 2011 at 5:22 AM

There is a factor that has not been accounted for-- religion. Societies in the Middle East and elsewhere approve of polygyny for cultural, religious, and practical reasons. They also abstain for alcohol. So, this study is flawed, they're indirectly comparing things assumption that the one constant is true.

on January 4, 2011 at 6:39 AM

Drowning Our Sorrows?

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Seattle Sticker Patrol: Columbia City Has Eyes 👁️

The Most Unusual Art Gift Ever

HoneyHole or HoneyHell?

How to Defeat a Pit Bull with Your Bare Hands

The County Canceled the SODO Shelter Expansion and No One Is Happy

How to Win an Election Without a Newspaper Endorsement

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!