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.”

then there’s the whole argument by people opposed to same-sex marriage that it disrupts the supposed “important” society function and benefit of traditional marriage. i’m not sure what this function or benefit is exactly as those who claim it never really reveal any proof that traditional marriage does in fact benefit society nor that it’s some sacred union between a man and a woman. in fact, recently it seems that things are quite the opposite if you look at the divorce rate. currently 11% of the adult population is divorced, and 25% of adults have had at least one divorce in their lifetime (source). it’s also interesting that the same source also reports that “Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.” the legal usage of “marriage” is not a “sacred” institution as it’s merely a legal contract providing legal rights and benefits. i would argue the “sacred” part of marriage people argue over is actually the common religious ceremony, which the homosexual community is NOT fighting for. it’s a fight for the legal contract of marriage… for equal rights.

additionally, some argue that the traditional male/female marriage stabilizes families and produces offspring, which will more likely produce citizens with traditional, stabilizing values over those children raised by same-sex parents. um, yeah not sure what era or fictional existence these people are living in, but the fact that over half of marriages nowadays leads to divorce should tell you there is definitely no longer a stabilizing force… look at what divorce does to families and children. is this still better than if that same child were raised by a same-sex couple who remained together? sadly enough some people still think so. what about the offspring argument… that traditional marriage benefits society because it produces offspring? if that were the case, then apparently these people would have no problem adding a law that only permitted marriages with those couples who seriously intended to have children, and disallowing marriages for those who don’t. this, among the others, are obviously flawed arguments. no one has provided proof that gay marriage has had any negative societal impact in those countries who are open to it such as belgium, canada, netherlands, south africa, and spain. the world never ended.

the root of the problem is not the religious part of marriage as we’ve already gotten through that fight. the problem exists with the state and the way in which the term ‘marriage’ has saturated through law (tax codes, health care, immigration law, inheritance, even hospital visitation). why not just remove the government from the marriage business and simply utilize civil unions for everyone, then reflecting this change across those laws influenced by marriage so that united partners have the same rights and benefits no matter what gender or orientation they are. is that so hard to understand? it’s basically a fight for equality.

as a side note, this article from usatoday discusses how those cities with higher concentrations of gays (san francisco, miami, seattle, atlanta, washington, austin, etc) is an indicator of tolerance and diversity in other social realms such as the level of racial and ethnic integration, which leads to flourishing creative, innovative and entrepreneurial activities. “The key to understanding America’s technological and economic vibrancy lies in our openness to new people and ideas. Tolerance of immigrants, gays and other minorities is much more important to sustained economic growth and the high-paying jobs than the tax cut President Bush has in mind.”

last night we started the night off at manray in first hill with some drinks and chatting, where we met up with two more people who went to architecture school with us. i wanted to go to see d:fuse who was playing in town at a club downtown, so we headed over to last supper club for his show just before midnight. d:fuse is from austin whose sound is more progressive trance/house. all the shows of his i went to in austin were really awesome so i didn’t have any doubts that this one would be any worse. of course i was right… his set was awesome and this was probably the first club i’ve been to here that had more of my type of music (finally!). the only thing that sucks about the night scene here is that everything closes at 2am, so we were kicked out quickly at 2 when d:fuse’s set was over. i miss the club scene in nyc where you can go to a dj show all night long… leaving as the sun is rising at 6 or 7 in the morning! though i’m not sure if my current sleeping habits would allow for that anymore.

today my friends are heading east of the cascades to the sasquatch music festival in central washington, though i’m staying in seattle since that’s not really my music scene (although there are some artists i like performing). tonight dj eva, who i saw at a club once last time i was in seattle for a studio research trip a little over a year ago, is playing at seesound in belltown. she’s really good as well… a little more trance than d:fuse’s progressive sounds.

at the beginning of june, above and beyond are playing here at the last supper club, so i’m definitely going to that as well since they are awesome djs as well. hopefully this good dj schedule continues through the summer… if only dj tiesto would make an appearance here. going to these shows and watching them perform live makes me want to really focus on mixing and producing my own stuff, which i have been experimenting with more recently. looks like i’ll just really have to devote a lot more time to it (along with everything else, of course…).

the following quotes are pulled from the discussion and comments following these videos.

“Bush was never elected. Not in 2000, & not in 2004. America stood by while the neocons stole the elections & took over the media. America never questioned the official story about the September 11 attacks. Congress never even read the Patriot Act. America never blinked when Bush substituted Saddam for Osama. America is stupid. After the mandate of the November 2006 elections, Pelosi immediately said impeacment was off the table. Republicans and Democrats are up to their eyeballs in blood and lies. Wake up America! Demand immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney, before Blackwater thugs roll down Main St USA. America can still be saved if the people demand it.”

“72% of Americans disagree with his policies while the other 28% are just as blind to what Bush is doing as they are to the fact that their spouse is cheating on them and their auto mechanic is overcharging.

Americans are not ’stupid’. It has been ingrained into our minds that we should trust our parents, our teachers and professors, our ministers and priests, our congress, Senate and of course, our President. To inappropriately trust is not indicative of stupidity. It may be ignorant and naive, but not stupid. OK. Semantics, I know, but that word has a hurtful connotation to it and it’s just not true, for the most part.

I think Americans are really beginning to see the light. But, sadly, most will never understand the true depths of our own government’s corruption. And, I do also agree, Americans need to DEMAND change, not just stand by and wait for it to happen.

YOU need to become active! EVERYONE does! These are not times for passivity and indifference. Our country is sinking into the shadows of a dark hole. Without serious change, this country can’t survive our own internal curruptions.

That’s why we can’t elect another Bush into office. That’s why we need to care who we put there and put our hearts into this election. And, be ready, because there are things going on behind the curtain that we can’t see. Don’t be surprised if there is more deceitful, criminal behavior during this upcoming election. Don’t be surprised if the same puppeteers are behind the next US President.

The only way to ensure it doesn’t happen is to NOT allow it!”

“We must come to understand the value of Freedom once again as Americans once new all too well. Freedom is something worth fighting for but every living American born citizen was born into freedom and we’ve never really needed to come to understand what it really means. Not the way our forefathers had to.

Only after losing our freedom or having it stripped away from us on some very real level can we come to understand what we are losing.

But, for now, we are only beginning to see the damage our own government is inflicting on us.

I fear that our government is in many ways, our own worst nightmare and I hope we all continue to discuss these things openly and with real intent to do something about it if necessary.”

the unfortunate realization i am beginning to have is that it’s a little too late for action. it seems that any attempt at a revolution or public march against what our government is doing will simply land you in jail or ripped from you home in the middle of the night, which has been happening to many immigrants since 9/11.

so is it just me being overly critical as usual? you may think so, but just sit back and observe while considering that which i have merely begun to discuss here. of course not everyone reflects such opprobrious characteristics, whom i am of course thankful for as we need more realists who refuse to live in a world of plastic truth and fantasied perceptions.

so maybe ignorance really is bliss. if only i could force myself to look the other way like everyone else…