Monogamy: Natural or Not?

[Goman Fox]

Found an interesting article earlier with StumbleUpon, figured it would make a good discussion topic.  I'm going to wait to give my input on it until others have posted.

Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?
March 19, 2008    

News of politicians' extramarital affairs seems to be in no short supply lately, but if humans were cut from exactly the same cloth as other mammals, a faithful spouse would be an unusual phenomenon.

Only 3 percent to 5 percent of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals (including humans) are known to form lifelong, monogamous bonds, with the loyal superstars including beavers, wolves and some bats.

Social monogamy is a term referring to creatures that pair up to mate and raise offspring but still have flings. Sexually monogamous pairs mate with only with one partner. So a cheating husband who detours for a romantic romp yet returns home in time to tuck in the kids at night would be considered socially monogamous.

Beyond that, scientists' definitions for monogamy vary.

Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that men are more likely to have extramarital sex, partially due to the male urge to "spread genes" by broadcasting sperm. Both males and females, these scientists say, try to up their evolutionary progress by seeking out high-quality mates, albeit in different ways.

The committed partnership between a man and a woman evolved, some say, for the well-being of children.

"The human species has evolved to make commitments between males and females in regards to raising their offspring, so this is a bond," said Jane Lancaster, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of New Mexico. "However that bond can fit into all kinds of marriage patterns – polygyny, single parenthood, monogamy."

The human species is somewhat unique amongst mammals in that fathers do invest in raising children.

"We do know that in humans we do have this pretty strong pair bond, and there's more paternal investment than in most other primates," said Daniel Kruger, a social and evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan's School of Public Health. "We're special in this regard, but at the same time like most mammals, we are a polygynous species." Kruger said humans are considered "mildly polygynous," in which a male mates with more than one female.

Whether or not the married or otherwise committed individuals stray for sex depends on the costs and benefits.

"There is plenty of evidence that males have less to lose than females by having extramarital sex," Lancaster said. "Having less to lose, it's easier for them to do it."

Women, however, could lose "dad's" resources when it comes to raising their kids. "For women, the well-being of their children is not improved by promiscuity," Lancaster told LiveScience.

Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"

http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/080319-llm-monogamy.html

[Rachael]

It's one of those things, you know?  Nature isn't always politically correct.  Rape, cannibalism, incest, and other taboos also occur in many species.  That doesn't mean we should do it.

But when it comes to my personal opinion, I actually have problem with polygamy as long as there's mutual agreement; it's just not for me.  I expect my husband not to be just socially monogamous, but sexually monogamous as well.

The only thing I hate about polyamory and polygamy is that it makes me feel like I'm sort of jealous, narrow-minded prude. :p

[Kritter]

Found an interesting article earlier with StumbleUpon, figured it would make a good discussion topic.  I'm going to wait to give my input on it until others have posted.

Are Humans Meant to be Monogamous?
March 19, 2008    

News of politicians' extramarital affairs seems to be in no short supply lately, but if humans were cut from exactly the same cloth as other mammals, a faithful spouse would be an unusual phenomenon.

Only 3 percent to 5 percent of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals (including humans) are known to form lifelong, monogamous bonds, with the loyal superstars including beavers, wolves and some bats.

Social monogamy is a term referring to creatures that pair up to mate and raise offspring but still have flings. Sexually monogamous pairs mate with only with one partner. So a cheating husband who detours for a romantic romp yet returns home in time to tuck in the kids at night would be considered socially monogamous.

Beyond that, scientists' definitions for monogamy vary.

Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that men are more likely to have extramarital sex, partially due to the male urge to "spread genes" by broadcasting sperm. Both males and females, these scientists say, try to up their evolutionary progress by seeking out high-quality mates, albeit in different ways.

The committed partnership between a man and a woman evolved, some say, for the well-being of children.

"The human species has evolved to make commitments between males and females in regards to raising their offspring, so this is a bond," said Jane Lancaster, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of New Mexico. "However that bond can fit into all kinds of marriage patterns – polygyny, single parenthood, monogamy."

The human species is somewhat unique amongst mammals in that fathers do invest in raising children.

"We do know that in humans we do have this pretty strong pair bond, and there's more paternal investment than in most other primates," said Daniel Kruger, a social and evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan's School of Public Health. "We're special in this regard, but at the same time like most mammals, we are a polygynous species." Kruger said humans are considered "mildly polygynous," in which a male mates with more than one female.

Whether or not the married or otherwise committed individuals stray for sex depends on the costs and benefits.

"There is plenty of evidence that males have less to lose than females by having extramarital sex," Lancaster said. "Having less to lose, it's easier for them to do it."

Women, however, could lose "dad's" resources when it comes to raising their kids. "For women, the well-being of their children is not improved by promiscuity," Lancaster told LiveScience.

Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal," said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose – which never mates again even if its mate is killed."

She added, "Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural.'"

http://www.livescience.com/mysteries/080319-llm-monogamy.html

Hmmm, that was quite an interesting read there Foxie.

For me, I say the human species as a whole is definitely sexually polygynous. I mean the vast majority does have had sex with more than one person. The remaining FEW people (remember, I'm mentioning this as the whole human race) will only have sex with one other person and that's it.

Personally I think a key factor as to why people should be in monogamous relationships is because of religion. That's as far as I would when it comes to that topic.

Thanks again Foxie! 

[lazydullard]

monogamy isn't natural for me! even before I ever heard the word polygamy, i realized my ideal romantic/partnership relationships were very polygamy-ful. But I was raised that that sort of thing is wrong, so I just shelved it into the back of my fantasies.

I don't think humans are naturally mono-minded. Males try to sow their seeds as much as possible, and women pick the most able, healthy men to produce offspring... If a better mate shows up, then they switch.

Plus, with all the rampant cheating that occurs in most relationships, it's obvious what human's natural inclinations are for.

I think, at the heart, monogamy is a concept created by greedy males. They don't want anyone else touching their woman, and they don't want their woman leaving them. So a code of 'honor' was forced upon everyone else. They even incorporated this concept into religions.

And/or, people didn't like constant competition to keep their mates, so society agreed that everyone 'should have one' and that you should leave other people's people alone.

but if you're just talking genetic disposition, monogamy definitely isn't natural. My ideas in this post could be better developed, but I think I'm communicating the gist of what I want to.

besides, i like bumping old topics.

[Ekim]

All I have to say about this is I want my own harem.

[Im1ru1]

I think Polygamy made good sense in other times, but today when the planet is facing global overpopulation...nope

[Oni]

Ya know I would love a Harem...but every time I start to build one Fox destorys it.

[Im1ru1]

awwwh, poor cat---you know the SPCA is doing a free Spay/neuter clinic for cats, Fox...

[Oni]

Ohhh I so should delete that post there Im1

[Im1ru1]

but then it'd lower the number of posts I have---and TMAK would be closer to me in posts...did you notice that I've posted more than he has??

[Crimson]

All I have to say about this is I want my own harem.

i just thought you should know you proved lazy dullards greed theory right there...

[Taylor-MadeAK]

I think, at the heart, monogamy is a concept created by greedy males. They don't want anyone else touching their woman, and they don't want their woman leaving them. So a code of 'honor' was forced upon everyone else. They even incorporated this concept into religions.

You've got it ass-backward.  Think back to mankind's nomad days back on the steppes, oh about 2500 or so years ago.  The male instinct is to spread his seed as far and wide as possible.  Women, when they are pregnant or caring for an infant, are extremely vulnerable; so the feminine instinct is to keep a strong man around to protect her and her baby for as long as possible.  Women, therefore, evolved features and methods for that purpose: to cause the man of their choice to feel protective of said woman and her child.  So, you see, monogamy was born of feminine wiles.

[Goman Fox]

I couldn't say if it was a male or female idea that spawned monogamy in the world, but TM, if it is women, could you explain how it's done at all?  I imagine you'd know way more about it than I do considering you have a wife and daughter and all.   I just always figured it was more of a male invention since a lot of societies were dominated by men, so I don't see how women could have the ability to enforce monogamous behaviors.  Actually, I always figured it was religion that kinda enforced the whole monogamy idea, possibly as a way for the church to control its subjects and such.

I'm no expert on religion but it seems like a lot of the major religions never really had that positive of a view of women.  I know at the very least in China, with Confucianism (and later their adoption of Buddhism and the refreshing of Confucianism), women weren't really seen positively.  I'd guess most religions with some sort of moral guidelines had less-than-positive views of women.  From what my old East Asian history professor said, in Japan, women were actually given much higher roles in society before the introduction of Chinese Buddhism and somewhat with Confucianism, since I guess the native beliefs (Shintoism) never really had a guide for how people were "supposed" to live or act.

Although from what I understand, there were polygamous practices between the wealthy people of Japan even after the introduction of religions through China, involving both men and women taking multiple lovers.

[Taylor-MadeAK]

I couldn't say if it was a male or female idea that spawned monogamy in the world, but TM, if it is women, could you explain how it's done at all?

Even if you are gay, can you honestly tell me you don't feel protective toward women?  What if someone threatened to harm Kritter, the woman you live with?  Would you step in to defend her?  Why?

Women are usually physically weaker than men.  Before the feminists jump me, what I mean is weaker in a lifting-weights kind of way.  Because of this, it's difficult for women to defend themselves against men.  Look at the incidences of rape if you want to see what I mean: how often do you hear of a woman raping a man?  Because of this relative frailty, women evolved features and methods for inducing men to do the defending for them: large eyes, narrow waists, large breasts, high voices; these are all features that will attract the attentions of a man.  Once they have a man's attention, they have ways to manipulate him into doing pretty much whatever they want (ever been on a guilt trip?), within reason.  One of the ways women evolved for keeping a man's attention was the change from an estrous cycle to a menstrual cycle.  This change allows for the ability and desire to be sexually active at any time.

This is the origin of the practice of monogamy.  A woman wants protection for herself and her child, and she'll use all of her feminine wiles to make it happen.  This pre-dates modern religion and is, in fact, largely responsible for mankind's transition from wandering nomad to civilized city-builder (the other large factor was most likely beer).  Over time men adjusted to this new way of doing things with instincts to be possessive and protective of women, though the more primal urge to spread one's seed around as widely as possible is still very much present.

Actually, I always figured it was religion that kinda enforced the whole monogamy idea, possibly as a way for the church to control its subjects and such.

The Old Testament is full of polygamy (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David...), though hardcore Christians will try to convince you otherwise because it contradicts the New Testament.  The Christian mandate for monogamy actually was taken from Ancient Roman practices, which in turn came from those same nomadic origins I pointed out before.  Does this not illustrate how powerful women really are and historically have been?  Women shaped a large portion of our culture.  Were it left entirely to men, we'd probably still be carefree hunter-gatherers wearing animal skins, drinking kumis, and wandering across the steppes of Eurasia.

I'm no expert on religion but it seems like a lot of the major religions never really had that positive of a view of women.  I know at the very least in China, with Confucianism (and later their adoption of Buddhism and the refreshing of Confucianism), women weren't really seen positively.  I'd guess most religions with some sort of moral guidelines had less-than-positive views of women.

Boy, how do I explain this one clearly?  It's all about male pride.  Like history being written by the winners, the "rules" are written by the leaders.  Leaders of men have, by definition, strong personalities.  Because of their strong personalities, their pride does not allow them to admit to a "weakness" like being obedient to a woman.  Religious and social rules reflect this pride.  Get it?  It punctures a man's pride to admit to wanting to be with only one woman because said woman wants it that way, but it's acceptable to admit to being with only one woman because a law passed by a male leader says it must be that way.

Although from what I understand, there were polygamous practices between the wealthy people of Japan even after the introduction of religions through China, involving both men and women taking multiple lovers.

More social evolution with the pendulum making its return swing.  Money is power, so a woman who has money has the power to protect herself (by building walls and hiring guards), therefore she doesn't need to convince one man to stand between her and the dangers of the outside world.

Wow this post took a long time to write....

[Crimson]

I couldn't say if it was a male or female idea that spawned monogamy in the world, but TM, if it is women, could you explain how it's done at all?

Women are usually physically weaker than men.  Before the feminists jump me, what I mean is weaker in a lifting-weights kind of way.  Because of this, it's difficult for women to defend themselves against men.  Look at the incidences of rape if you want to see what I mean: how often do you hear of a woman raping a man? 

the amount of weight you can lift doesn't necessarily make you stronger in this way. if i broke your kneecap and when you fell broke your nose and sack tapped you i think i'd win that fight no matter how much you could bench press. the women that can't defend themselves 9 times out of 10 can but chose not to, chose to be ignorant and defenseless. can't and won't are different things.
besides there are cases of women raping men but how often is a man going to admit to that publicly? especially an egotistical  macho bravado straight man. think on it.