yesterday i was having a conversation with myra during which she brought up the idea of faithfulness and monogamy in our society, asking me whether or not i felt that being faithful to our significant other is human nature…or simply a social construct we developed. this goes right along with my questioning the validity and significance of marriage in modern society. why? is it really necessary? have humans always had this desire to find their life partner and remain faithful to that one person for their entire lives? the article suggests that throughout the entire animal kingdom that it’s the male to be the one to stray, accused of polygamy… but does the female population stray as much?
ironically the nytimes featured an article today discussing the same exact topic we conversed about yesterday. the article argues that “Sexual promiscuity is rampant throughout nature, and true faithfulness a fond fantasy,” and then asks “Do you think humans are inclined toward monogamy?”
true, we humans are probably the most intelligent living species on this planet, and we have choices and the ability to reason. however, in order to look at the question in all fairness, i argue that you have to remove the complexities of reason, emotion and choice from the equation–strip our existence down to the bare and raw aspects of human nature. now, ask yourself that question again. additionally, the average person’s moral and/or religious baggage only gets in the way in evaluating this question which is problematic to one’s argument if you cannot remove yourself from your personal moral system.
it’s apparent throughout our history (greek, romans, etc) that monogamous relationships have actually been the minority as there are many societies and religions where polygamy is still quite the norm. i would also argue that monogamy came about with the rise and spread of Judeo-Christian morals, merely an invention of religion in order to enforce certain morals and standards onto the population. isn’t it essentially possible to have a loving and respectful consensual sexual relationship with more than one person? many commenters to that article suggested that humans are monogamous in order to procreate and raise their children. but what about couples without children, or more interestingly, homosexual couples where procreation is stripped from the equation? they fail to realize that monogamy and infidelity/faithfulness are two different things–you can be faithful to your family (wife and children) for the sake of raising your offspring while having additional sexual relationships (remember, eliminate your personal morals baggage here). here are a few quotes worthy of consideration from those who commented on the nytimes article:
“We can answer this question without resort to the mating patterns of other members of the animal kingdom. According the World Ethnographic Sample completed by the anthropologist George Murdock in 1949, the vast majority (about 80%) of human societies practice polygyny, the marriage of more than two individuals, or a mixture of polygyny and monogamy. The most common marriage pattern in the United States is serial monogamy, or repeated monogamous relationships. This should be proof enough for even the most ethnocentric among us that humans (even patriotic, God-fearing Americans) are not naturally inclined to accept permanent pair bonds.”
“I think Humans are inclined towards lying. Monogamy is not the problem, lying is. It doesn’t really matter whether you choose to be monogamous or not as long as you tell the truth about it to yourself. If you don’t want to be monogamous, don’t get married and promise to be faithful forever. If your in a marriage and your unfulfilled, bored, done…get out, tell the truth.”
“Jealousy, selfishness, ownership are all natural feelings that arise, and like the desire to stray, can be overcome by the strong and more enlightened among us… but those people are in the great minority. It’s an interesting statistic to note that in parts of the US where social conservatives are predominant the divorce rates are many times higher than parts of the country that are predominantly liberal. Maybe it’s not so surprising that those who have more infidelity are more against it, or maybe it’s that those who are more tolerant and understanding are less likely to divorce over it. In either case, I agree that monogamy and fidelity are not necessarily the same thing. Argue what you will about it’s virtus, but seems obvious to me (and anyone not in denial) that monogamy does not come naturally to our species.”
“I think monogamy is required by culture and society — and not just for “morality” (that’s merely the justification), but for the social stability and family ties that come from long-term commitments. Socially, we are inclined towards monogamy. But biologically, it is a strain. Our sexual appetite for novel partners has to be suppressed for monogamy to function. The difference between the sexes, and the conflict between biological urges and social necessity, make monogamy very hard indeed for everyone. I suspect this is a basic condition of being human, and not something that will ever really be resolved by evolving cultural practices and changing mores.”
“Pair bonding occurs in all cultures. It often is limited to 36-42 months. This apparently corresponds to the time necessary to wean a child. The period is often but not always accompanied by limitations on sex with other partners. As with most issues of what is ‘natural’ behavior versus what goes against the grain, you can tell rather easily: If there are rules about it, it is not entirely natural.”
“Monogamy among humans is a later day human societal invention and as such clashes with the evolutionary imperative to pass on genes whenever possible. In the very early days of the human race, survival meant [as it is with many in rest of the animal kingdom] having as many offspring as possible. Humans, having a long gestation period, needed several partners to accomplish that goal since the human female rarely has multiple births at a time. On the other hand, with birth control available, the need for the biological “need to have birthsâ€? have changed to “need to have sexâ€? without procreation. The ‘need’ to have sex with as many partners as possible remains – the biology has not changed, and hence the folly of monogamy… Finally, monogamy does have value when it increases the survival of the offspring but when that is accomplished, its value decreases exponentially.”
“Faithfulness has everything to do with our cultural and religious upbringing. It has nothing to do with Mother Nature. Unfaithfulness is nature’s way of making humankind evolve, never reaching self-inflicted extinction. Male seeks a more attractive female, a different female. Female seeks a better male specimen to mate with. It’s not difficult to see where this leads. We can try to tame the ‘built-in software’ that controls our sexual urges. By staying faithful we simply answer the voice of reason or wisdom. Nature’s call (forgive the pun) is much much louder. Besides, we are not that different from other Earth creatures, just more advanced.”
essentially, it seems that our attitudes towards morals are very old-fashioned (late 19th/early 20th centuries), especially since we hold politicians and those in leadership position to a level of super-human infallibility. why? and doesn’t it seem reasonable, especially if you enter into a relationship at a relatively young age (those who immediately get married in their late teens and early twenties) that as you evolve and mature into your thirties and beyond, your ideas of what a relationship and suitable “match” are evolve as well? however, those people sometimes lie to themselves and remain in their dreaded situations simply because of the flawed logic of the forced social rules behind monogamy.
don’t get me wrong though as often times articles like this who reduce the human existence to the level of the rest of the animal kingdom does have its flaws as we are far more complex. but, it’s necessary in this case in order to strip away our society forces, such as morals, reason and religion. i’m not throwing out fidelity and monogamy altogether, but rather questioning the logic and reason behind it…why we feel the need for be monogamous. especially when you look at social institutions such as marriage that were essentially created by man in order to enforce certain morals and rules, such as monogamy, then the argument cycles back around to my ongoing doubts surrounding marriage.
just something to consider. to end with, a humorous comment to the article:
“When the modern concept of monogamous marriage was developed, the average life span of a human was 25-30 years tops. It’s reasonable to believe that monogamy is feasible if your commitment to a spouse is only 10-15 years, but now we’re facing 50-60 years with one partner and that’s a long time. I have yet to meet anyone with whom the thought of spending a life sentence with appeals to me…and I doubt anyone could stand me for that long, either.”