Monogamy in Humans: Natural or Not?

[bain-druie]

Apologies if this has already been discussed - the article is admittedly from July last year. Still, I thought it would be interesting to post here:
Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species - CNN.com

I found this refreshing; but then, I guess that's stereotypical of us pagan scientifically inclined females. :flirt: In seriousness, however, the number of people who still buy into the stereotypes described in this article disturbs me. Most people still seem to hold to the idea that humans are conditioned to monogamy with some [most?] males being prone to polygyny.

I call *********! Some of us do find monogamy natural and fulfilling; but that is not as common or as natural to our species as society prefers to think. We're undoubtedly conditioned sociologically to behave as we're taught is 'proper', but monogamy and/or polygyny for males is of much longer-standing tradition in some cultures than others. And it remains unnatural to many of us, no matter HOW long-standing the cultural mores.

I'm curious as to what you all think. :rainbow1:

 

[Oneatatime]

I don't find the terms natural and unnatural to be particually useful because they imply that there is some fixed standard against which things are to be measured against which simply isn't the case. When it comes to behaviour there are any number of strategies which can be adopted and depending on the circumstances different strategies will be more succesful than others. As circumstances are constantly changing, the strategy which is effective one day may not be effective the next day, so to sort them into natural or unnatural is at best pointless and at worst inviting disaster born out of inflexibility.

If someone where to happen and the number of males was drastically diminshed monogomy would no doubt be swiftly replaced by polygomy because this is the best use of males as a resources, at least until the number of males is restored to previously levels. Another hypothetical situation where this might happen is when a few males wield sufficent authority/force that they can control access to females therefore allowing them to have harems which only they can have sex with but typically such authority only exists for as long as other males as sufficiently intimidated or rewarded to accept it.

Monogomy may be generally the more successful strategy but by not means is it the default strategy.

 

[Flankerl]

To each his own.

 

[no-body]

Rape, pedophilia, murder, etc are all natural to are species too. Not that I'm comparing polyamory to those thing but what's natural dosen't mean much all to our species since we have gotten ahead by doing things that are decidedly unnatural to us. At any rate, if it doesn't hurt anyone else I say go for it. But I don't expect polyamory to be accepted in society for centuries if ever. We'll see homosexuality focused on first if we're lucky then transgender/gender barriers in the long run, this will take all our energies.

 

[bain-druie]

I don't find the terms natural and unnatural to be particually useful because they imply that there is some fixed standard against which things are to be measured against which simply isn't the case.

I take your point that 'natural' may be understood in different ways, and hence may become an unhelpful descriptive unless it is defined from the outset. But assuming I use 'natural' in its literal sense in English [adjective
1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty. -courtesy of Dictionary.com] Given this usage, how is it 'not the case' that there is a standard against which what is natural to a species can be determined? Life-sciences define these standards; unless you mean something different by 'natural' than I do.

When it comes to behaviour there are any number of strategies which can be adopted and depending on the circumstances different strategies will be more succesful than others. As circumstances are constantly changing, the strategy which is effective one day may not be effective the next day, so to sort them into natural or unnatural is at best pointless and at worst inviting disaster born out of inflexibility.

Yes, very true - behavioral sciences confirm you in this opinion; at least, I can follow that reasoning up to your conclusion that defining behaviors as natural or not is a bad thing in any circumstance. There, it seems to me a very wide leap to draw that conclusion from what seem to me to be rather unrelated facts about human sociology.

On the contrary; environmental and life sciences reveal that we really do need to define and understand the nature of ourselves and the rest of the living world, and follow up that understanding with practical application, in order to survive as a species. When we draw boundaries in places that are *ahem* unnatural, we 'invite disaster born out of inflexibility'.

If someone where to happen and the number of males was drastically diminshed monogomy would no doubt be swiftly replaced by polygomy because this is the best use of males as a resources, at least until the number of males is restored to previously levels. Another hypothetical situation where this might happen is when a few males wield sufficent authority/force that they can control access to females therefore allowing them to have harems which only they can have sex with but typically such authority only exists for as long as other males as sufficiently intimidated or rewarded to accept it.

Monogomy may be generally the more successful strategy but by not means is it the default strategy.

Here you've demonstrated one of the stereotypes I object to; 'monogamy' and 'polygamy' only mean single versus multiple mates at one time. There's no gender attached, but in using polygamy above you assume it immediately to pertain to males. I could just as easily point out that when and if the number of women catastrophically diminished, it would be practical for the women to practice polygamy, or more specifically, polyandry. But that's not really the point, because it requires an extremity of situation.

As for your second example of male predominance in a society, that has been the case more often than not in recent human history (and the author of the article has a few interesting things to say about that). In matriarchal society, it was understood that women had the natural right to select their mate(s), as we're the ones who bear the children. In such cases, more often than not a woman would choose to bear children to different men; with sound biological results, in that she thereby mixed up the genepool and prevented stagnation. :yes:

At this stage of human development, however, the need to reproduce has diminished (and in fact, we're overpopulating). The hormonal urges remain, because they are *ahem* 'natural' biochemical processes. However, a healthy view of our sexuality - to include our sexual biochemistry - is long overdue; in development, yes, but late.

 

[Levite]

I don't think that monogamy is biologically natural to human nature at all.

I do think that there is a slight bias toward monogamous relationships in the human psyche, though. Human beings are awfully prone to jealousy and desire for the kind of intimacy that generally only occurs in pairing.

That said, I think that slight bias is both capable of being nurtured by society into a strong cultural norm, and equally capable of being quashed by society into near-elimination. It depends most on how the structure of a given society chooses to deal with romantic and sexual relationships.

For example, obviously, in Western society, monogamy has been nurtured into a deeply strong norm; but in many pre-Colonial Polynesian and Indonesian societies, for example, very fluid and polymorphous norms concerning sexual relations seem to have flourished, and monogamy was often unknown in those places, without any apparent social detriment-- perhaps even generating social benefits, since many of those societies were quite peaceful and prosperous.

 

[bain-druie]

Rape, pedophilia, murder, etc are all natural to are species too. Not that I'm comparing polyamory to those thing but what's natural dosen't mean much all to our species since we have gotten ahead by doing things that are decidedly unnatural to us. At any rate, if it doesn't hurt anyone else I say go for it. But I don't expect polyamory to be accepted in society for centuries if ever. We'll see homosexuality focused on first if we're lucky then transgender/gender barriers in the long run, this will take all our energies.

Actually, as I understand it, antisocial behavior within the family/tribe/clan has always been atypical, and is *not* natural. Herd instinct and self-preservation are natural, and led in the past to ostracizing and punishing violent, destructive members of a society - at least when they acted against their own.

Generally when we advance through appropriate technology (which has thankfully become much more of a priority, although it may be equivalent to closing the barn door after the horse runs off) we get ahead in the long run; in the long run we lose when we actually go *against* nature to advance technologically. Looking back on, for instance, the Industrial Revolution, it's fairly obvious that even in the short term the advances were quite ambiguous by most standards of good vs. bad.

As for homosexuality, that is also natural; this is a biological fact that was long suppressed by the moral climate of the recent past. It does not produce young, at least for our species or for other primates; but that's never been the only reason we engage in sexual activity. What takes all our energy is something that's given to each of us to determine; for good or ill.

 

[Father Heathen]

Rape, pedophilia, murder, etc are all natural to are species too.

You don't think that they're indicative of psychological issues?

 

[no-body]

Actually, as I understand it, antisocial behavior within the family/tribe/clan has always been atypical, and is *not* natural. Herd instinct and self-preservation are natural, and led in the past to ostracizing and punishing violent, destructive members of a society - at least when they acted against their own.

"antisocial behavior" is in the eye of the beholder. It could be seen as antisocial to do nothing but create works of art and provide nothing of "value" to society.l

You don't think that they're indicative psychological issues?

Perhaps, but do we question why animals rape and murder each other? Should we make it permissible to rape if it leads to reproduction? if murder (cannibalism) leads to sustenance? I just take exempt at the phrase "natural" I'm not advocating these things.

 

[Penumbra]

Apologies if this has already been discussed - the article is admittedly from July last year. Still, I thought it would be interesting to post here:
Monogamy unnatural for our sexy species - CNN.com

I found this refreshing; but then, I guess that's stereotypical of us pagan scientifically inclined females. :flirt: In seriousness, however, the number of people who still buy into the stereotypes described in this article disturbs me. Most people still seem to hold to the idea that humans are conditioned to monogamy with some [most?] males being prone to polygyny.

I call *********! Some of us do find monogamy natural and fulfilling; but that is not as common or as natural to our species as society prefers to think. We're undoubtedly conditioned sociologically to behave as we're taught is 'proper', but monogamy and/or polygyny for males is of much longer-standing tradition in some cultures than others. And it remains unnatural to many of us, no matter HOW long-standing the cultural mores.

I'm curious as to what you all think. :rainbow1:

I agree that there are probably a lot of polygamist aspects in human history, and that a significant percentage of current humans do naturally incline towards polygamy or polyamory.

Not everyone is like this though. Some people are inclined to monogamy, and some are not.

I don't consider this any sort of valid excuse for cheating, though. By all means, have multiple partners if one wants, but being naturally inclined towards having multiple-partners is not the same thing as agreeing to be with one person and then cheating on them anyway.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems rather likely to me that sexual preferences are profoundly influenced by genetics. So, if someone tends towards promiscuity, my hunch is there is likely to be a large genetic component of their behavior. Same if someone tends towards monogamy.

As for the species as a whole, I see no reason to think humans have only one pattern of mating behavior.

 

[Father Heathen]

Perhaps, but do we question why animals rape and murder each other?

Animals act upon instinct and impulse and lack the level of reason and compassion that should be innate in normal, healthy humans. We're also social animals by nature, so behavior contrary to that I think suggests mental/emotional issues.

 

[elmarna]

while scientificly it may be considered. we are social creatures. the "if it feels good attitude" is not without one left with nothing concrete in the end. when you really give a good look can you say you saw a elderly woman or man as a kncl out? the primal basis of what you are looking at is in what it is about. PROCREATION! we are living longer some out living our children. to think that we have not grown wiser is a sense of sadness. lonliness is a world no 1 can endure for decades. I say it was created by man in the truths that are just as strong as the urges that are in us!

 

[blackout]

It seems rather likely to me that sexual preferences are profoundly influenced by genetics. So, if someone tends towards promiscuity, my hunch is there is likely to be a large genetic component of their behavior. Same if someone tends towards monogamy.

As for the species as a whole, I see no reason to think humans have only one pattern of mating behavior.

I just feel a need to make a distinction here,
(though I cannot speak for Phil, regarding his own choice of words/wording)

Polyamory (in all of it's arrangements) and Promiscuity are not the same thing at all,
and cannot be used interchangably.

Neither is Promiscuity the 'opposite' of Monogamy.

Polyamory points to love, commitment... family, and responsibility/accountability to partners.
Promiscuity points to casual sex (which can be responsible), but is NOT committed,
and is often undiscriminating.

Promiscuity is no more Polyamory
than it is Serial Monogamy,
(ie, changed partners/divorce )

As for the rest,
I'm sure it's a combination of genetics,
social norms and allowances,
upbringing/exposure/expectations
and personality (which may be part of genetics)

 

[blackout]

Just a note,
(to those who may not know)

I like the term polyamory,
because it encompasses
any possible multiple partner
committed arrangements,
making no extra allowances
for males over females,
or heterosexuals over homosexuals.

Equal opportunity love.


Open relationships and swinging couples and such,
CAN qualify as permiscuous certainly,
when they engage in frequent casual sex.
But as I said above,
this is not polyamory.

I'm just making distinctions here.
Hopefully it adds something of worth to the discussion.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I watched a male redbird pick up a sunflower seed from my deck and pass it to a female redbird, they seemed a mated pair they had chilluns and came back the next season

 

[Songbird]

I watched a male redbird pick up a sunflower seed from my deck and pass it to a female redbird, they seemed a mated pair they had chilluns and came back the next season

Wasn't trying to stalk you, you just have a very nice deck.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Wasn't trying to stalk you, you just have a very nice deck.

I like to feed them and I wish I had a camera at certain times but never seem to at crucial moments

 

[idav]

What is natural is for people to like having sex. Choosing to be with one person or having open relationships are just choices that share the common need. As far as love is concerned I'm sure we are able to love more than one person but we would get spread thin involving a bunch of lovers. IMO love and devotion is easier done in a monogamous relationship.

 

[Songbird]

I like to feed them and I wish I had a camera at certain times but never seem to at crucial moments

Well, I'm camera-shy, so I tend to fly off when I see a Nikon. Thanks for the food!