Recently I read an interesting polemic article in the American newspaper New York Times (25/03/2008). Written by Natalie Angier, the text is based on the research of prominent biologists and psychologists concerning monogamy. The conclusion that they reach is impressive: conjugal infidelity is present throughout the animal kingdom.
And that’s not all: studies have shown that certain species “pay” for sex, while others reward their “lovers” with presents and affection. To complete the picture, jealousy and machismo are also to be found there: females are violently attacked if they copulate with another partner.
Of course we are not animals, but the similarities mentioned above are very revealing. Some of the more interesting parts of the article are worth transcribing.
1] Many species are raised from a very tender age to marry someone chosen by the family. They fly and play together, they sing and dance together. In other words, they are raised to impress the community with proof that they were born for one another.
2] Nevertheless, social monogamy is rarely accompanied by sexual monogamy. DNA tests carried out on monkeys, birds and wild animals, when their descendency is examined in the light of modern science, show that between 10% and 70% of the offspring was fathered by someone other than the resident male.
3] Professor David Barash of the University of Washington in Seattle states that: “in the infantile world, infancy. In the adult world, adultery”. For a long time, swans were believed to be a model of fidelity. Through such DNA tests, it has been concluded that not even swans are immune to temptation.
4] The only completely monogamous species is an amoeba – Diplozoon Paradoxum – which is found in organisms of certain fish. Barash explains: “male and female meet while still young, and their bodies literally merge as one. From then on, they are faithful until death do them part”. In this case, death coincides with that of the fish that shelters them.
5] The “oldest profession in the world”, as prostitution is known, is also present in the animal kingdom. It is common to find males that shower their females with presents: rodents, caterpillars and insects. But when the same male decides to have, shall we say, an extracurricular affair, the lover receives better presents than the companion.
6] The law of competition also applies to the animal world: if supply is great, the price comes down. However, if there is a shortage of females, they become objects of desire that deserve the best and most sophisticated rewards.
Please understand that I have transcribed in this column the result of research conducted by scientists and psychologists specialized in studying animals. All of us can – and should – have our own opinion with respect to monogamy. We can all say that we are a highly evolved species, which is absolutely true. The only thing that we can’t do is to blame science for showing results that often contradict our way of thinking!
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
My thoughts, always in respect of anybody’s choice.
It is not clear to me why it is necessary to find an “affinity” or a link between human being and animals. We have our human dignity, they have their animal dignity. I don’t see, in general, what’s good about “humanizing” animals -they’re perfect just the way they are- and viceversa. We have things in common, we have things that are not the same. We’re not the same, and I don’t see any wrong with that.
If we believe that animal poligamy could be a good comparison for human poligamy because, after all, in nature animals practise it, the rest goes too?
“…pay for sex”
“…females are violently attacked if they copulate with another partner.”
“… raised from a very tender age to marry someone chosen by the family.”
If a person believes in poligamy is should be for his/her own human reasons, and there shouldn’t be the need to explain it through what animal do or don’t do.
Also, I wouldn’t try to validate my opinions through the last scientific discovery: first the swan was a model of fidelity, now is not immune from temptation. It seems that also for science things are not always quite clear and definitive. I would simply live by what’s right or wrong for me.
absolutely true
Paul Lowe on monogamy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCqcF98Af5I
A controversial point of view, but I have to say that I agree.
Hello Savita,
I personally don’t think it’s controversial but to many people it would seem so. I also completely agree, he makes a good point, and it is rather very simple.
When a married person becomes attracted to another, (for Whatever reason), it is a desire, a want or a need which has arisen from within that person. We can go on and on labeling, judging, calling it right or wrong, but that desire Exists, and that is the TRUTH.
If a person goes through with the desire or not, is another story, but the truth is the existence of that desire. For me it becomes a problem when (and it is a Major problem in marriages) the partners decide to lie about it. It is an accepted behavior in our society to lie about it, that seems to be ok, but stating a simple desire which exists is not ok? perplexing…
I believe this stems from having a lack of ‘confrontation’ with the partner, and not wanting to hurt the partner, but which one hurts more, and whom does it hurt more? Partners can always set their own standards and understanding of their marriage, but we are too used to following traditions and accepted norms. My argument or thought, is not in the -right or wrong of it, or -what should and should not be done (although I do think that the right or wrongness of something is relative to the individual) but rather in the TRUTH.
With any action, choice or decision, we face its own consequences, good and/or bad… regardless, I much rather live in the light of truth than under a blanket of lies.
Thank you for the post Savita!
Love,
C.
I learned a long time ago that is what sets apart men from animals.
With animals, mating and having offsprings is the driving force. I like to think that we are better than that.
See this:
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
love -respect?
las mujeres deberian casarse, los hombres no
although discussion on this topic here were in past, the topic itself remains ever present. man is torn between these choices. personally my take would be, polygamy should not be looked down upon, but one should keep one’s mind open, maybe we will arrive at teh conclusion that monogamy is the way, afterall although life originates from sex, sex is not the purpose of life.
came across an interesting forward on a related topic, and i forwarded it to a few friends who are also on the path. thought i will share it here too.
love
aditya
Am I with a right partner? – Nice Article
During a seminar, a woman asked,” How do I know if I am with the right
person?” the author then noticed that there was a large man sitting next
to her so he said, “It depends. Is that your partner?” In all
seriousness, she answered “How do you know?” Let me answer this question
because the chances are good that it’s weighing on your mind replied the
author. Here’s the answer.
Every relationship has a cycle…In the beginning; you fall in love with
your partner. You anticipate their calls, want their touch, and like
their idiosyncrasies. Falling in love wasn’t hard. In fact, it was a
completely natural and spontaneous experience. You didn’t have to DO
anything. That’s why it’s called “falling” in love.
People in love sometimes say, “I was swept of my feet.” Picture the
expression. It implies that you were just standing there; doing nothing,
and then something happened TO YOU. Falling in love is a passive and
spontaneous experience. But after a few months or years of being
together, the euphoria of love fades. It’s a natural cycle of EVERY
relationship. Slowly but surely, phone calls become a bother (if they
come at all), touch is not always welcome (when it happens), and your
spouse’s idiosyncrasies, instead of being cute, drive you nuts. The
symptoms of this stage vary with every relationship; you will notice a
dramatic difference between the initial stage when you were in love and a
much duller or even angry subsequent stage. At this point, you and/or
your partner might start asking, “Am I with the right person?” And as you
reflect on the euphoria of the love you once had, you may begin to desire
that experience with someone else. This is when relationships breakdown.
The key to succeeding in a relationship is not finding the right person;
it’s learning to love the person you found.
People blame their partners for their unhappiness and look outside for
fulfillment. Extramarital fulfillment comes in all shapes and sizes.
Infidelity is the most common. But sometimes people turn to work, a
hobby, a friendship, excessive TV, or abusive substances. But the answer
to this dilemma does NOT lie outside your relationship. It lies within
it. I’m not saying that you couldn’t fall in love with someone else. You
could. And TEMPORARILY you’d feel better. But you’d be in the same
situation a few years later. Because (listen carefully to this): The key
to succeeding in a relationship is not finding the right person; it’s
learning to love the person you found.
SUSTAINING love is not a passive or spontaneous experience. You have to
work on it day in and day out. It takes time, effort, and energy. And
most importantly, it demands WISDOM. You have to know WHAT TO DO to make
it work. Make no mistake about it. Love is NOT a mystery. There are
specific things you can do (with or without your partner). Just as there
are physical laws of the universe (such as gravity), there are also laws
for relationships. If you know and apply these laws, the results are
predictable. Love is therefore a “decision”. Not just a feeling.
Remember this always: God determines who walks into your life. It is up
to you to decide who you let walk away, who you let stay, and who you
refuse to let GO!!
my thoughts on redaing this -
“Love is therefore a “decision”. Not just a feeling.”
it’s a decision – but why should one take such a decision, because love is what we are here to discover, and it is actually found within you only, other is just a media. nature brings one to the place where lust leads one to love, after that it’s upto you whether u hang on to that love and make it your feeling, so deep that even when u sleep u sleep lovingly, forget about walking ro talking.
I was thinking recently did I find the right person? Why am I with him?? What if I’ll find someone who will really loves me and really cares about me? Thanks to you I have realized that the person who can make me happy is just me no one else…. It’s great to have someone to talk to, to spend time with and share thoughts and cuddles and the end of the day of course. Up to us if we want that …… or not ..
I am here on this earth via polygamy. When we are forced into a style of relationship — be it monogamy or polygamy, life is not pleasant. Oh, we try to make ourselves believe it is the right thing; and that our parents have chosen well for us; and that God wants it this way; but in truth, we were sent here on earth to exercise our free agency — to have the right to choose and make mistakes — that is how we grow — that is how we become less animal and more human.
hmm… well, I was always assured to learn that man is set apart from the animal kingdom… and this is what has allowed for great achievements…
a mortal soul has a responsibility i think.
;o)
I am heading back to northern Ghana next week…
where the head of a family [the male] often has many wives. It is an aspect of life there which I personally find difficult to comprehend.
Love is all pervading.. but for me, not universal… in that sense anyhow!!!!!
So I have learnt to take a broad mind to the subject and try to understand the social function, though as a feminist and faithful to monogamy, I can never support or justify a polygamous society. First of all, it does not seem fair to the wives, the children…
however, survival structures make life diverse…
Who knows how such bonds shall relate or even continue/survive in the “modern” world. In fact, most of the next generation claim to only wish for one wife now…
and i think that this is largely to do with the influence of Christian values in the country.
I have to ask … what is the purpose or function …
and it is one of status and value. To have more wives suggests that the man is affluent and endowed with great riches…
Would a woman have the right to also have many husbands in order to build esteem and status? I doubt it…and so, it seems that the rights of women are relegated to one of serving as an object of desire, not equal.
It is a difficult subject… because of the nature of the masculine and feminine… however, perhaps it is time for a transformation in the true nature of lived experiences of sexuality.
Overall, sexuality has to be extracted from materialism as its ultimate purpose/function.
5) if you’re going to call that prostitution- then being nice to someone is also prostitution. where do you draw the line, when is it NOT considered prostitution? in my opinion, people tend to overthink these things. there are expectations, demands, and hopes within a relationship, but what separates it from prostitution is love- you treat someone nicely because you love them, opposed to treating someone nicely so that they may tolerate you for a night. there’s a huge difference, and we truly are a pathetic species if we cant tell the difference.
oh and we are animals indeed. but animals come in all shapes and forms, different instincts and habits. each one is unique, what we have in common is our link with nature and our desire to survive. for some species monogomy works, for others it doesnt. there’s a reason why marriage/relationship between two ppl is so widespread among our own species. that’s simply what proved to work best considering the options. a man having children with 20 different women would simply be a stupid choice- in times when men were expected to provide for their families.
even these days in countries like iran where polygamy is legal, it is only the wealthy that can “afford” having more than one wife, because it is expected from them to be providers. but the typical couple relationship is still the most common of all.
why do ppl cheat then- or why do they get into a monogamous relationship if they cant commit? well, i can ask the same about why do ppl kill, rape, lie, overeat, smoke,and in general ruin their health? is this also part of our nature? no, just because something is widespread it doesnt mean it’s natural.
cheating exists because ppl make wrong choices, they want to be in a relationship, but are given mixed messages. boys are brought up to think it’s cool to have many girlfriends. girls are brought up to think otherwise. there’s so much sexism and inequality in our society, it’s a wonder that MORE ppl dont cheat and do other things which are considered morally wrong. i can only explain that wonder as a work of nature. our true nature struggling against all the unnatural, imposed stereotypes.
if prostitution, cheating, rape, murder etc was natural for human beings, we as a species after thousands of years of violence would find happiness. no? it is safe to say, humanity isnt happy with present situation. it is also clear that we strive towards bettering ourselves. this is nature talking to and through us. constant development and evolution. which is why it’s pretty pointless to compare modern human to a caveman or an ant. we are a new species. every day we are born anew. stop looking back to find excuses for self destructive behaviour. look forward. what makes you truly happy, and isnt self destructive or harmful towards others- is what is natural.
Monika,
don’t break my heart ! shortage of woman, ohhh !! my gaauuud ! what would us men do.
jokes apart, it alarming if what u are saying is true, but looking ate the way girl child have been tretaed specially in third world countries, it is not surprising.
can someone thro some light on historical stats on man woman ratio, specially isntrested in figures just before the world wars. nature has it own ways of restoring balance, somwhere i read that after world wars when millions of people, more men than woman died in wars, the number of boys being born were more than previous years, to restore teh skewed balance. so if what u are saying is true are we heading towards another big war. male to femal ratio, graph for past 100 years please !
love
aditya
Hi Montega,
we have this in common, when we know the intent is right, we neither mean nor take offense, so i don’t mind u being blunt, in fact it is good saves time.
firstly, i also am groping in the dark so as to say on this, discussions like this initiated by paulo gives me an oppertunity to revsisit and compare. that is all, i cannot say that whatever i say is 100 % correct, it appears so to me. now comming to you basic question why do i feel monogamy is indicative of evloutionary advancement.
first of all enforced monogamy, where one remains monogamous not because one wants to but because one is forced to, is not going to help, it will only create tensions within.
let’s look at why sex exists, primarily it exists to ensure entry of new conscious beings into this material world. as a rewrd of helping nature carryon it’s nature, nature has also included a gateway here, for a moment of time, mind stops and one enters that state of no mind which is goal of most spiritual meditations etc, which is supposed to be the door to perceiving existnace in its state not polluted by mind and its prejudices.
sex exists to ensure entry of being into material plane. but there are beings, conscious beings who don’t exist on material plane. those are the ‘higher’ plane of existance, like say god or angels. hence to transcend matrail existnace one will have to transcend sex, does not mean one will have to shun it, only means that sex would not control us, we will control it. in polgamy when we are having sex with new new paretrs, we remain at superficial levels of sex, if one can keep one’s sex life active with one parter only, one is forced to go deeper, explore ‘methods’ and that helps one understand it better, and someday go beyond it.recetly i came across a hollywood actresses encounters with tantric sex in which she says one remains in a state of heightemnd awareness for hours.
man is higher than animals on evolutionary scale, it is expected to be behave better. but having said all this, forcing oneself to remain monogamous is not going to help, even persuading oneself is not going to help, one must actually have a desire to be monogamous, on way to not needing sex at all for one’s pleasures.
well, your reaction would be appreciated.
love
aditya
I respect biologist, sure I do, except I think they sometimes act a little pretentious, as if animals were somehow ‘lower ‘ than humans. Let us not forget that if ants should die out it would have a far greater impact on earth than if humanity were to disappear.
I bet there’s everything in animal life you can find in humanity: lesbian birds, gay fish and if they only could there would probably be transsexual bees too. But above all there is love and hate, pride and shame, getting it right and getting it wrong. And there is jealousy and the ability to share. Animals have a body and a mind, – like us, and they don’t always match quite as perfect as they should, and animals can cross the line! And have to suffer for their actions, just like humans. They suffer exclusion from the group they belong to, disrespect, shame,… And all because of want, horniness and the need to mate. I wonder if animals can be sorry after they have committed adultery.
Anyway,- only last week did I subtly suggest to my lover (a married-to-another-woman-than-me sort of lover) that he could perhaps get some information about northern African polygamy in order to behave a little more cultured in regard to our ongoing affair. Saying that polygamy is a culture with its rituals and structures just like monogamy. The society he and I live in just hasn’t found a neat/honest/respectable way to deal with the possibility that one can love more than one person in pretty much the same way, and is inclined to do so as well. So I am looking for good examples now, couples that made it work out al right, woman that manage to love a man that isn’t their possession and doesn’t behave like that, without shame! And men that are proud of their wife and their lovers and treat them both with the respect they deserve. I am looking for qualitative and quantitative examples. Qualitative because they could give my lover some good ideas, but foremost quantitative because they will be of benefit to others as well: People more or less repeat the common rules all the time; they don’t focus on the exceptional. For example they immediately assume that the wife is jealous and in the dark when they hear that the gorgeous man at my side isn’t quite mine, and they straight away assume that I spend my Christmases alone and in misery. They don’t ask about motives and benefits. They are not curious about anything beside the cliché that has been repeated a thousand times and more. So the ones that life an exceptional life and an exceptional relationship should talk about it loudly, and lots. Because the more the exceptional is known, the more dynamic common rules and clichés become. Do we want that? Sure we do, because we all will get more freedom to find out who we are and what we want.
For a biologist that would mean research on how the sociology of an animal tribe changes over time……
Hi ! Paulo,
Interesting stuff ! about time we all made our stand clear to ourselves on this issue, otehrwise it results in much ‘pain’.
what u have written is of course true, as it is supported by scientific evidence. looking at ancient civilisations in India, men were allowed to have many wives and there is only one instance of a woman being allowed to have 5 husbands, that too not because the woman wnated it that way but because of some word given by another woman.
institution of family seems to be initiated by woman and while i am quite sure men don’t ‘want’ to remain monogamous i am not sure about woman on this.
writings of khahlil gibran can be a good pointer here
“But your god-self does not dwell alone in your being.
Much in you is still man, and much in you is not yet man”
man is at unique crossroads where godself and animal instincts meet. pleasure in sex is nature’s ploy to ensure that animals have sex and the evolutionary creation can contnue. so long as self gratification alone remians the motive, sex is animalistic.
the more we indetify with the godself, lesser is the deire for gratification thru sex and hence lesser is the sedire to be polygamous. one thing seems certain, repressed sexual feeling would not let one escape from them, till one transcends sex, the next step in evolutionary ladder may not be accessible.
the other day we had a discussion about UFOs, surely they are interesting stuff, but there is every likelihood of other kinds of consious being who are not graspned by our five senses, to be very much present togather with us, angles etc etc. an earthworm may not be consious of exitance of humans, but humans do exist. why i brought it up here is that, one will need to go beyond sex if one is to transcend this physical world which is pivoted on sex for its exitance ( all consious beings in this physical world are born out of sex ). but to transcend one cannot repress. so only conclusion i can draw here is
going beyound sex is desirable, for that one will have to be monogamous and penetrate deep inside what is sex, but that desire to be monogamous cannot be forced on oneself, it will come after one has been polygamous and seen that it is the same futility repeated over and over again ! it seems remaining aware is the key to make progress, irrespective of whatver happens / one does .
these are my opinions and nothing is final. a pointer for ation for me has been – if i do it and fear it maybe wrong, or if i don’t do it and fear i maybe unncessarily depriving myself, when there is a dilema between ‘to be or not to be” i have always preferred “to be”, to do it and then know ! ;-)
love
aditya
Life will find a way! That is the truth of the animal Kingdom.
Under this circumstances the scientific name Diplozoon “paradoxon” is really significant.
P.S.
To all men:
Did you already hear the recent news???
There is a shortage of women all over the world!!!
VERY true on the last paragraph.
Fascinating! I once took a university course in biology which was based on the very controversial work by biologist, Mary Batten, summed up in her book, “Sexual Strategies.” What I learned in this course changed forever my view of love, human relationships and the socially held ideal of “monogamy.” After reading that book and exploring its implications, I will never again view myself or love relationships in quite the same way. In fact, I can’t really say that I now believe in monogamy except as some socially constructed ideal – some myth that is far removed from reality.
Mary Batten’s basic proposal and what makes her work so controversial is the suggestion that women are generally monogamous and men are not and this is the basic and natural pattern of our species. Now, first of all, it is important to understand that she speaks in terms of general “tendencies” – these are not laws which prevail and define every individual member of our species.
The way she explains it is this: The female human being is capable of producing a limited number of offspring in her lifetime. A woman produces one egg, once a month, between the ages of approximately 13 and 45. Furthermore, barring the incidence of twins, a woman can produce and raise only one child every year or so. It takes that long for the infant to develop in the womb, be born, and for the woman to produce another egg. So, because the number of offspring that a woman can reproduce is essentially limited, it is in the female human being’s best interest to secure the survival of each and every one of these offspring.
Now, to fully understand this, it is necessary to accurately understand the mechanisms of the process of evolution: I am not saying that a woman consciously thinks or even recognizes this fact. She does not think to herself, “I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure that all of my children survive to adulthood so that they too will have kids and my genetic material will be passed on to future generations.” But, what happens is that, over time, over thousands and thousands of years, the women who had the best instincts to do whatever it took to make sure their their offspring all survived were the ones who were most successful in passing on their genetic material, and thus their tendencies, to future generations.
So, how did female human beings insure the survival of their limited number of offspring? In order to understand this it is also necessary to think in terms of great expanses of time – not just of today’s society but of how human being have lived and survived over thousands and thousands of years, as our genetic tendencies were being developed and shaped through the very slow process of evolution. Let’s think of a cave woman, for example, or even a pre-Columbian inhabitant of the Americas. Think of pre-industrial society. How could a woman insure that her few children survive? To begin with, females of our species are generally smaller and not as physically strong as the males. Women, and their children, need some form of protection from other males who might seek to harm them to encroach upon their resources. Secondly, a woman, when pregnant, is especially vulnerable, not particularly able to defend herself from predators or other threats. This vulnerability continues as long as she is nursing the infant and even beyond – it is very difficult to pick up a child and run with it fast enough to escape a predator. It is also difficult for a female human being, in the last stages of her pregnancy and after the child is born, to single-handedly secure enough food for the survival of herself and her child. In short, she needs help if she’s going to produce offspring and insure that they actually survive to produce offspring of their own. She needs the cooperation and support of a male. So, over time, throughout history, which women were best suited to the task of successful reproduction? Those that had whatever it took to coerce a single man into contributing his time and resources in supporting her and her offspring. These were the women who, by whatever means, managed to secure the interest of a man and hold his interest long enough for the children to reach adulthood. In other words, the women who, for whatever reason, had a tendency to be monogamous, where the ones who were most successful in passing on their genetic material. Of course, when they passed on their complex of genetic material, they also passed on this inherited trait of the tendency to be monogamous.
This is what is meant by the term “sexual strategy” – each species, and each gender of each species has its own “strategy” for survival. Due to the biological make-up of the female human being – the facts surrounding pregnancy and reproduction – it is in her best interest to strive for a monogamous relationship, one in which she can secure the resources and support of a single male over a long period of time.
Now, in contrast, let us look at the male “sexual strategy” which has developed over thousands of years: The human male’s reproductive system is very different. A man can potentially produce thousands and thousands of offspring in a lifetime. This is getting a bit technical here, but a man is capable of ejaculating numerous times every day, virtually from the time he hits puberty until the time he dies. If, for example, a male human being were to go around copulating with every woman he meets – every woman whose interest he can elicit – then he would be capable of producing an almost infinite number of offspring in one lifetime. Now, thinking in terms of genetic survival – the successful passing on of one’s genetic material – it is easy for a male to achieve this. The numbers are in his favor. He doesn’t even have to be concerned about the survival of his offspring because, like a spider or a snake or some such other animal, he can produce so many offspring that, even if he never takes care of any of them, surely some of them will survive.
So, over time, throughout the history of the human species, which males have been most successful at passing on their genetic material? Those that have adopted the “sexual strategy” of sleeping with as many different females as possible, producing as many offspring as possible. Again, it is necessary to realize that a man does not think this consciously: “Oh, let me go out and get as many women pregnant as possible and in this way I will pass on my genetic material to future generations.” But, those males that have had the tendency to act in this way have been the ones who have produced the most number of offspring, and so, the greater number of offspring that have lived to reproduce themselves. Of course, as they successfully pass on their genetic material this tendency toward polygamy is passed on as well.
So, according to Mary Batten’s theory, females of our species (in general, though not necessarily in every individual case) tend toward monogamy – they seek to create and maintain monogamous relationships. They have this tendency simply because, over the history of the human species, it has proven to be the “sexual strategy” that is most effecacious for them as an organism. The males of our species, on the other hand, tend to be polygamous and they tend to resist the females urgings toward monogamous relationships as this actually inhibits their reproductive capabilities. So, the final conclusion is that the institution of monogamous relationships is a social construct devised, over time, by women, in order to secure their reproductive capabilities. No matter what we want them to be, no matter what ideals we may hold, men (in general, as a species) are simply not monogamous. It goes against their genetic tendencies to be with one and only one woman for the whole of their lives.
Now, to throw and a little twist in the thing: Surprise! Surprise! Women are not really monogamous either! The monogamy is only on the surface. As I say, it is only a social construct. Marriage is there because it guarantees support and resources which secure the survival of the offspring. Females of our species, again as a matter of survival, tend to choose mates who have the most resources. The “rich” men, so to speak, or at the very least, those who are industrious and productive. But, these are not necessarily the ones with the best physical qualities – the stronger ones, the healthier ones, etc. Again, as a general tendency, a female human will seek to produce offspring with the mate that appears to be the most physically fit to survive. But, at the same time, she may choose as her “mate” the one that has the most resources. So, as is suggested in the research that Paulo offers, the father is not always the husband!
Before I close, I just want to say this: Please understand that we are talking about broad-based biology here – not individual psychology. Genetic tendencies of a species, not laws set in stone that determine how individuals will act. Although these tendencies (the “sexual strategies”) to exist and do exert a certain influence, individuals within a species are just that – each highly individual. Just because I suggest that, in general, women tend toward monogamy while men resist it, does not imply that all of us act, or would choose to act, in this way. I do, however, believe that these recent findings in the realm of modern biology shed a great deal of light upon the mystery of the human relationships as well as the roles that we, as individuals, play in these relationships.
I think the subject is still so taboo that people are hesitant to say what they really think…
I watched a movie, Kinsey, starring Liam Neesan a few years ago, which said essentially the same thing, that monogamy is not natural–yet, in the movie there were dire consequences when in fact the couple practiced complete sexual freedom. No matter how open-minded they started out being, they still felt jealousy, and in one case, the woman fell in love with another man.
There are many complications that can arise form sexual promiscuity though in theory it’s interesting.
I read in 2007 an article in The Times (link below) that stated that men could soon be an endangered species …..
Homo Erectus Extinctus?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article3040118.ece
Science or speculation, it is interesting….
That was fun to read! Thank you for sharing!
I have always been criticized for my opinion on monogamy especially by women.
I always wanted my partner to truly enjoy other (bodies and souls) Don’t believe in marriages and papers, but balance in everything.
Am not disrespecting those who are married. I am sorry if it appears so. It is not my intention.
/Love
Hmmm. The point 1 pretty incredible.Well, I dont see around me animals to whom paretns choose the partner. I think is an idividual choice, monogamy. And males are more tempted to the opposite. ha ha
@Monika, Ahhhhhhh it is too late for our generation to recieve gifts :)
@Alexandra, we had a hot discussion about Mr Coelho’s post today and I can confirm your last sentence :)
@aditya,
why do you think it is higher on the evolutionary ladder to be monogamous. Is it not a sociological issue and more part of our culture than it has to do with evolution? i have started my grown up life living 12 years in monogamy. i regard it as a personal advancement or evolution to have understood that it is a farce wanting to hold on to another being by rules that are the same for all of us, despite us being so very different and changing too from stage to stage in our lives.
You claim that man like polygamy and woman prefer monogamy. That is a vision one finds in all low culture communication material of our society as in dr. Phil and woman’s weekly’s. i find it hard to trust those media. i know polygamy hurts at times, but so does monogamy, i get to love a very interresting and excisting men, not all of the time but quite a lot. And i never ever would want to him to change into someone who keeps his eyes down, who doesn’t feel and sense and live with all his heart. Because i find that is what monogamy does to men, it closes them down. i am anticipating your reaction and hope i have not offended you by being a little blunt.
@Savita Vega,
i’ve read you’re dissertion with growing amazement: can it be true that a scientist claims monogamy to be a genetic feature and then also call it a social stategy? No- it can’t, thats just as weird as claiming that woman choose either a hunk or a rich guy to guard their offspring. Arguments against this ludicrous hypothese just pour out ouf all corners of my brain(thank you for making me think!)but i’ll just leave them there for this Mary Batten work is probably not just circumstatially controversial. Did you ever try Germaine Greer? she also has these fanatstic ideas but more on the sociological side.
@aditya
i agree with you, Aditya, little good will come from anything forced upon one another in relationships, may it be monogamy or aspects like washing up duties, sexual practices, dominance over the remote control, or woman depending financially on their partner…..
People look differently on the relationships with their friends than on those with their beloved partner. They tend to make demands on him and put him in front of dilemmas that they would never dream of confronting their friends with. In my opinion lust and sex are mainly chemical reactions, really delightful but rather uncontrollable, something overcomes you and you can either say, yes i act on this or no thank you, but it is difficult to direct and directing it always brings something unnatural and forceful along. Friendship on the other side one can make an honest effort for, you invest in it, it teaches you, it is giving and taking and mutual respect.
Just think of how little time we actually spent on procreation. If you have one child like me, it is about 16 years that a big part of you is a parent besides being a woman, a worker, a partner and a friend. Only during about 4 of 5 years is it necessary to live as a couple with the child’s father, to share the sleepless nights, so to speak. Then one can easily fall back on duck behavior, let aunties and grandmothers do their part and be there mainly for the quality time. That means that if you have more than one child you are approximately ten years of your life heavily involved in parenting, approximately another 15 parttiming on it.
Why would it be a sign of a high civilization to be in a monogamous relationship with the other parent for another 50 years or so. Would it not be wiser to acknowledge the love you feel for one another and work on the development of a deep mutual understanding? On friendship and comradery instead of something as static as the concept of monogamy. After all we’re only human and we all like to touch and be close, feel and get into it with numerous partners, simply because our hormones or whatever it is get us going. Some of them we actually get involved in when there is enough of whatever is needed to get together. That would be adultery then if one of the two is married. Sometimes this can also evolve into a real love affair, with a deep mutual understanding, wanting to care for one another and delighting in each others company. This new relationship would add more love to the world. Or would you say that by loving more than one person the other gets less automatically? In my experience that just isn’t the case, we all have hearts like a Egyptian taxicabs, there is always room for one more.
I am sorry but I don’t believe in angels and gods. I used to agree with the idea of celibacy though for the same reasons you mention. You focus energies and that helps you to go deeper on a different level. Sadly I only recently listened to a lecture by Antoine Bodar, a priest who used to be my teacher once, and I realized that he had not come any closer to the light he once so longed to reach, he intellectualized and turned to knowledge instead and became invulnerable and not the loving giving person I always hoped he would turn out to be. I actually believe that the way to reach a higher level is to allow yourself to be human, to give allow yourself to be who you are without judging, to just be. But then I met the Dalai Lama last week (along with another 10.000 peoples mind you) and I suppose I am still impressed with his lightness of being.
What I would like to know from you now is how you yourself regard monogamy, for yourself, your own life? How would you cope with lust and the regret, jealousy and friendship, insecurity and knowing that nothing ever remains the same anyway?
Hi Montega,
a heartfelt ‘postion’ on the issue, and let me add i am really happy at reading what u wrote, u r right !
how i regard monogamy : its a goal towards which we must move, i have been moving ;-), as u have said when we are in college it’s all about conquest and numbers, as we get married and raise a family, we enjoy the sweet pain of bondage brought about by attachment to bringing up children. i cannot say i have been monogamous, but with respect to polygamy, i have seen it bring pain all around, going against conventions of society is not easy. howver mature a relationship maybe at some points lust and jealousy takes over. but falling is part of human expereince, nothing wrong in it. i would personally prefer to fall and then raise than not walking at all.
having said this, and as said above, just accepting that certain things exist does not justify it’s existance. i think where you maybe needing to llok deepr is where u feel that directing your energies is unnatural ! as human being we are requierd to direct our energies.
monogamy is desirable but polygamy is no sin, is how i will see it. let’s keep in mind that angle also where we are actually evolving conscious beings, at some point our dependence on physical world for existnace will go away, prior to that our dependence on everything physical ( including physical aspect of sex ) will go away, that is the geral direction in which we ‘progress’.
on this let me add something i found very difficult to ‘digest’ when i read it, but now i can see whhat it was aiming at. i have a habit of just skimming through ancient hindu religious texts. most of them are in sanskrit and my knowlegde of it is too rudimentary, so i prefer books hich have original text with translation, simple. There is something called ‘devi bhagwatam’ which is about 1400 pages and i have been redaing it like say 4-5 pages a day for past….. not very religiously though. anyway that is besides the point the incidnece which startles me and which i want to share with you is an episode between brihaspathi the ‘guru’ ( master ) of gods, chandrama ( one of gods and disciple of brihaspathi and brihaspathi’s wife. after a qurallel with her husbad, wife leaves brihaspathi and seeks shelter with chandrama. he not onlt shlters her but gives her all the love ( which starts being missing as soon as one become man & wife , for months brihapathi waits and then goes to his disciples house to ask him to return his wife. chandrama refuses saying the lady is staying with him ( and having sexual relations with him, of course ) at her own sweet will, he will not force her. after much time matter gets resolved and brihaspathi tyakes his wife back home, happily.
my take on the whole debate would be – have courage to be polygampous, but remain aware, conscious, slowly one will start verring towards monogamy and finally will transcend sex where lust is not more a driver.
sorry if it was a bit loner than usual. but sincerety with which u have apprached this discussion here, necessitated a sincere reply.
love
aditya
I disagree. – It’s never too late!
I receive gifts and rewards.
what implies ‘better than that?’ animal passion is a powerful force that drives our lives, and when we ignore these passions our lives become futile and boring? why should the same apply to sexual artners, the beauty of learning about another person’s life, body, emotional needs? i believe that in being close to another, the same as it would be if the communal cluster were much closer and we learnt not just from two parents, but from a wealth of different familial sources, what a human being can achieve and develop into, our untapped human potential. we can only learn this when we have a wealth of sources from which to choose, no? the same applies to promiscuity.
los hombres deberian casarse, las mujeres no
:)