by VorJack
Psychiatrists Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá have a new book out entitled Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. Ryan blogs about its thesis over at Psychology Today:
Biologists distinguish sexual monogamy from social monogamy. As DNA testing has grown cheaper in recent years, we’ve learned that most species formerly classified as “monogamous” (primarily birds) are socially monogamous, but not sexually so. In other words, they form pairs that cooperatively care for that season’s brood of young, but the male may well not be the biological father.
Most of this is not new. My first encounter with these arguments was in 2001′s The Myth of Monogamy, which is a popularization of much of the science involved. Basically, female animals frequently have more control over mate choice than was previously believed, and will frequently exercise that control before going on to choose a mate to raise offspring with.
But Ryan and Jethá take it a step farther:
Applied to humans, we argue that a more flexible approach to sexual fidelity can increase marital stability and thus lead to greater social and family stability.
I’m always worried when we start trying to tie evolution to modern morality. Perhaps, as the authors point out, we’re as sexually rambunctious as the bonobos. But we’ve surrounded ourselves with a very complex culture, and we’re just as much social and cultural beings as we are sexual ones.
I’ll admit, I’m defensive. I’ve just celebrated ten years of monogamy. Of course, the authors don’t do much to help. Consider this analogy for accepting the costs of going against our polygamous nature:
For example, you might happily choose to work the night shift, but the resulting disruption of your circadian clock will increase your risk of cancer, cardio-vascular disease, gastric disorders, and so on no matter how committed you are to your decision. Similarly, we can choose to wear tight corsets, or ill-fitting shoes, or to live on chili-dogs and ice cream, but because all these behaviors run counter to our evolved nature they will cost us over time.
Gosh, thanks.
I believe that the authors are correct that our evolution has given us instincts that leave us more suited for serial monogamy. But I think it would be wrong to conclude that we’re all that beholden to those instincts.
Humans are varied and flexible creatures, and each of us will deal with our instincts in our own way. Some will ignore them, some will go with them, and some will subvert them. While I agree its best to be aware of them, I suspect that we shouldn’t be drawing too many conclusions from our evolutionary past about our current behavior.
As social beings we decided that “monogamy” was the best way to mate, but that decision is only formal. Infidelity is pretty common in our society. I’m pretty convinced that putting least emphasis in it we, as a whole, could be happier.
Imagine that you are sexually attracted to a female, but at the same time you want, rationally, to share your life with another one -or to a male, or maybe you are attracted to a male and want to live with a female, does it matters?.
As we know more about our sexuality, why shouldn’t we accept that our mate can have sexual intercourses with someone else, as far as we know that we both wnat to be together?
“but because all these behaviors run counter to our evolved nature they will cost us over time.”
Naturalistic fallacy? Our “evolved” nature only requires a lifespan of 30 some years.
Celebrating 15 years of monogamy here.
I’ve wrestled with this one for years also. I’m perfectly happy in my relationship because I know it’s not compulsory, it’s a choice I’ve made. I think the best solution would be a society that accepts any kind of -gamy or -amory. Allowing people to have choice, and valuing truth and respect above dogmatic adherence to just one type of relationship.
As long as everyone in a relationship is honest, and respects the others, I think any relationship structure is moral and right. We as a society just need to get past the judging of others part.
I’m with you. As someone who’s had two partners (both a husband and a live-in boyfriend) for the past four years, I find that polyamory works for us. I agree with VorJack too though, that just because something is “natural” or has an evolutionary basis (I mean, what doesn’t?) we shouldn’t be ready to accept it as the most ethical or healthy choice. When it comes to love and sex though, I think the real keys involved are: adulthood, consent, and self-knowledge.
A lot of people want monogamy. Some people want monogamy from their partner but don’t want to be monogamous themselves. Some people are comfortable with a polyamorous partner but feel no desire to be polyamorous themselves. And some want polyamory all around. There’s nothing ethically wrong with those desires, as far as I’m concerned, and people should be honest and forthcoming when committing to partners, since it’s paramount to find someone who wants what you want.
Whether your desires and preferences in relationships come from biological drives, societal conditioning, personal experience, or whatever, the important thing is to find out what fulfills you and make sure you’re well-matched with a partner or partners who are compatible with that. Plain and simple.
For me a partner that wants top be polyamorous but does not let the partner to be polyamorous is a huge red flag saying that this person is not polyanorous at all. He misuses the word Polyamory for personal gain. It is also a setup for disaster.
That seems pretty black-and-white. As long as both people are honest and aware of their desires, why is there anything inherently wrong with a partnership where one person dates (or simply has occasional sex) outside the partnership and another doesn’t? Some people have no personal desire for more than one partner but are fine with (and some even get off on) their partners seeing other people.
Adults in consensual relationships are allowed to set their own rules and choose their own partners. You might not like those rules or choices, but that’s fine – you’re free to make your own in your own relationships.
I’d say the only “huge red flag” is someone who forces a partner into a situation that makes them unhappy or dissatisfied. So long as no one is being forced, and everyone is happy and satisfied, then why do the specifics matter?
I think you misread something.
There is nothing wrong is one is poly and the other is mono in the relationship as long as it is an own choice.
But unless I am misreading you gave an example where the poly partner forces the mono partner to stay mono while he himself wanted to date others. I have seen may people like the example and they all fail.
I am also polyamorous so is my partner.
Currently we do not have a secondary partner, it could happen again but it does not mean that you have to have a secondary partner.
I always was scared to have to tell someone that I cannot love her because I have another one before I realized that I am polyamorous.
This.
VorJack, why does “celebrating ten years of monogamy” (by which I think you mean you are happy with your mutually monogamous relationship) make you defensive? I am also happy in a monogamous relationship because that’s what works for me (lately), but I’m not going to pretend that this arrangement works best for everyone, and it bothers me NOT AT ALL if other people want to make other arrangements.
To me, a societal presumption of monogamy is likely just as ill-fitting as a societal presumption of heterosexuality, and it is probably equally oppressive to some percentage of people. In fact, when it is all shaken out, it may be that my identification as monogamous puts me a minority similar to homosexual-identified or transgendered people. I’d be okay with that, as long as the majority is as tolerant of my difference as I am of anyone else’s. ;-)
I agree with you’re conclusion. I think we are complex enough beings to deal with any instinct in different as well as healthy ways. Polygamy, in marriage anyway, has been shown to do intense psychological damage on the partners being shared by one person, as they are forced to ignore their other instincts (like jealousy, depression, feeling inferior) that pop up when they are aware, and try to be accepting of, their shared partner’s infidelity. I think monogamy in the right circumstances can be very healthy, and I definitely don’t think we should be basing our sexual health guidelines on what our cavemen ancestors did. Killing someone when you’re angry with them is another instinct they indulged that we repress, are we going to be mentally sick from that too?
There’s a difference between polygamy that’s forced or pressured and plural relationships and marriages that are freely chosen between equals. I wrote a piece for Daylight Atheism (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/12/common-myths-about-polyamory.html) about some of the myths that non-religious people can fall prey to regarding plural relationships, and one of the big ones is equating them with the abuse of women.
If someone knows they’re likely to be jealous outside of a monogamous relationship, they should absolutely not be forced to be non-monogamous. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people of all genders and orientations who can’t find happiness in a plural relationship.
Hilary, I have no idea of Polygamy but in polyamory you have also have multiple partners.
Also jealousy, insecurity feeling inferior is in polyamory not suppressed you talk about it because you have to let your partner know how you feel about the situation so he can adjust the balance of the relationship.
It is not easy though if you do not have the polyamorous experience and somehow stuck to the monogamy brainwashing. Once you unlearn the monogamy conditioning then everything gets easy. But it is a very rough roller-coaster ride the first time.
Note: I am not promoting polyamory, I just want people to be aware that it exists. It is already very hard to tell people that you are not monogamous. Some people become hysterical the moment you say it. These people also want to stone you to death if they got a chance.
I understand this, and these are good points. What I meant to accomplish with that was to show that all types of relationships have their pitfalls. As this person quoted in the main post says that monogamy does us damage, so have people said that polygamous relationships (which can mean any kind of relationship not involving just two people) can do us damage.
Quite frankly there is no perfect relationship, and none are without a little effort or struggle.
And Juliet, I was referring to the types of polygamist marriages that are chosen. The feelings I mentioned can spring up at any point in the marriage, even if it was originally a free choice, and though I don’t doubt people can have happy polygamist relationships, it has been shown to cause mental strain, especially for women and people who come to the idea of polygamy after living with the accepted and socially preferred idea of just one other faithful partner.
On the other hand, much of our higher morality runs counter to nature precisely for the reason that nature isn’t very farsighted. We have the ability to see that nature’s way isn’t always the best way.
Am I the only one who is amused by the dichotomy of the orgasmic double rainbow post right under the monogamy post?
“Perhaps, as the authors point out, we’re as sexually rambunctious as the bonobos. But we’ve surrounded ourselves with a very complex culture, and we’re just as much social and cultural beings as we are sexual ones.”
That’s a great way to phrase it. I’ve been trying (without success) to explain pretty much exactly that to some people very close to me.
As a quick note, my husband of 9 years and I did try a little poly experiment this past winter that lasted about 6 m. While intellectually, we were okay with poly — we can’t why there’s necessarily a moral or societal drawback to opting for a poly lifestyle, and we have some very close friends who are poly. So we were both surprised and shocked by the viscerally negative reactions the situation inspired.
I especially felt ashamed — I felt as though I couldn’t be mature and simply ignore any jealousies or insecurities. I felt out of step — and my friends felt rejected and angry when I couldn’t handle a lifestyle similar to theirs, despite my best efforts not to offend (not a normal reaction, I know, but concepts and lifestyles about poly/ monogamy tend to make people a little touchy and defensive about their choice).
Eventually, we dropped the experiment and came to a mutually agreeable solution. But sometimes I still feel a little ashamed that I couldn’t just go with the flow, that it was so incredibly horrific to me on a level I couldn’t alter.
I still think, in a detached sort of was, that polyamory is just as valid and workable as monogamy is. I don’t think either is necessarily better or worse — they both have their benefits and drawbacks. But in the end, all my intellectual acceptance of poly had nothing on my personality + subconscious underpinnings.
Lana I do not understand completely.
You got negative reactions from poly people because you said that you have no need of a second partner?
What I think is that some polyamorous people are a bit like religious people becoming atheists. They are so upset about their religion that they attack any religious people.
Some people are religious because they are hardwired like this. Some people are monogamous because they are hardwired like that. There is nothing wrong by being monogamous. They are just overcompensating.
Polyamory is actually the same as monogamy. The only difference is that you have 2 monogamous relationships at the same moment + the added logistics and calendar issues.
I agree neither monogamy or polyamory is worse or better. Just different variant of relationships. Polyamory does not work in my case nor my girlfriend. But it does not automatically mean that I need to have another partner. I just love flirting a lot. :-)
Finally…a topic I know something about!
My wife and I have been “in the Lifestyle,” i.e., “swinging,” for over thirty years, and the one thing I am sure of about the topic of human sexual behavior is it’s complexity, surprises, and nearly limitless variation. One of the truisms/sayings of swinging is that “it will make a great marriage stronger, and destroy a bad one very quickly.” In our experience, this is largely true.
Apparently the letting-go of sexual jealousy is extremely hard for the average person…if indeed they would think of jealousy as a negative thing at all…our culture (books, movies, tv, , music, you name it) certainly reinforces the idea that jealousy is somehow a sure sign of true love.
Many of us have simply come to the conclusion that love and sex are two different (related often, of course) things…and both are to be enjoyed.
Life is far too important to take seriously.
100 meters.
I am no way a swinger, but I have a question.
Would you feel threatened if you partner starts to fall in love with someone else?
Once you let go this jealousy, have you noted a very deepening experience of your existing relationship?
That’s where the differentiation between love and sex comes in, and trust.
What other animals do is irrelevant. Look around you and the data about humans. About 50% of the people will cheat at least once in their lives. Imagine what would be if there were no peer pressure.
What other animals do is hugely relevant. And the counter-argument, imo, holds more weight: if there IS no pressure, no allure of the ‘taboo,’ then the temptation to sexually deviate is neutralized. The statistic that 50% of people cheat at least once in their lives… is actually working against you, as I see it as more so an indication that despite our best intentions, there is a natural inclination to seek out other sources of sexual or emotional satisfaction. And maybe the real conclusion to be drawn here is that we’re doing something wrong.
Or, maybe there’s nothing we do that’s easy, and we’re subject to potential failure no matter what path we take. The fact that 50% of people cheat (I’ll take your word for that) doesn’t make cheating a commendable thing to do. Nor does our (perhaps) penchant for polygamous relationships argue that polygamous relationships are the best way to go.
Even in polyamory cheating is not accepted. And with cheating I mean having a relationship with others while your current partner(s) have no knowledge of because you hide it from them on purpose.
Some poly relationships have an agreement that the partner does not want to know the details who else you are with. Some even give you carte blanche. But the important part is that you talked about it to all your partner(s) and they all had a chance to shave a say in this.
I gave carte blanche to my girlfriend. She does not have to ask me first if she meets someone new. The only requirement is tell it me and do it safe. She also gave me this freedom, but I will tell her “before” I get all the way.
I have also noted this in myself. Because I am not restricted and have the freedom to have sex with others. I actually have less urge to have sex with someone else. Nit because my sex drive is lower, but because I have all the time to have sex any-time with anyone, what is the urgency to have it right now?
On the other hand, if I am in a very restricted monogamous relationship. Then when I get the chance, I just take it since it is a lifetime event that might never happen again.
Monogamy is a cultural ideal and not, I think, a very good fit for a substantial number of people. To me the issue is less about “is polyamory per se moral?” than “are you living by the mutual agreement that you have made with your partner(s) about your sex life?” If all parties are on the same page, it’s a morally neutral thing to be neither praised nor condemned, and the number of partners you have is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, you are not abiding by the rules that you and your partner(s) have agreed to, then it is definitely a bad thing. Lying and cheating are lying and cheating.
I agree with this. One of my partners I discovered lying, hiding an cheated. I dumped her instantly.
For those interested, look for “Polyamory Weekly” podcast for me the best resource. I do not agree with everything, I do get a lot of interesting things to think about. Just not into the kinky stuff myself.
I didn’t see anything in the authors’ call for more flexibility in sexual fidelity that spoke to evolution at all. We have no way to study the sexual habits of the primates we descended from at all. Even if we found an entire group under a pile of volcanic ash, we wouldn’t know anything about their mating habits. Lying about what we actually know about the behavior of Homo erectus, for example, has become something of a cottage industry.
” Historians believe that Homo erectus began as gatherers but advanced over many generations into hunters. The women likely stayed close to home, where they cared for children, and gathered nuts, fruit, and leaves for eating.
It is believed that the men went in hunting groups in search of meat. At first they only looked for animals that were already dead. ” Historians? What do paleontologists and behavioral scientists think (not ‘believe?’)
There’s plenty of modern cultural and ancient historical evidence which demonstrates that monogamy has been rare among humans. Hypothesizing beyond this fact may be amusing, but I don’t find anything that might affect my behavior in it. Birds ought not to be part of the discussion.
So what arguments would a polygamist use against a monogamist? I see that socially there is no real reason one way or another; I would probably bet that men are quite polygamist compared to women, but this isn’t based on any hard evidence. All I know is, I have only ever seen monogamous relationships and more often than not, it is the male who cheats in some way, be it even in minor ways such as kissing or flirting. I believe this isn’t necessary revealing of the male’s discontent with his current partner per se, but could reveal his desire for an additional partner.
Would the whole “overpopulation” argument apply? I’m not sure if having two husbands for a wife or vice-versa would be better or worse for overpopulation. To be sure, likely only one child at a time would be nurtured since only one women exists in the two husband relationship, and in the two wife relationship, for economic reasons they wouldn’t want to raise additional children at once. But nevertheless you have simply more people involved in the relationship.
I think the only argument a monogamist might have against polygamy is entirely based on the premises they’ve been taught; just as a fundamentalist can only argue what he’s been told from the bible, a monogamist is only repeating what he’s been told. Makes you wonder where the misconception started.. Pure speculation here, but maybe polygamy was more prevalent in a time where fewer women/men were raised to maturity, leaving a surplus of the opposite sex. As conditions improved, the ratio would become more balanced, removing the reproductive need for polygamy.
Not to mention the fact that many would-be polygamists are turned off from the 19th-century-esque appearance of the ‘typical’ polygamist, and the fact that legislation doesn’t support it in the least.
A monogamist might argue that there is extensive social utility to monogamy that isn’t provided by polygamy; namely default continuity of ownership and orderly disposition of property after death, a quick and dirty way to guarantee parentage (not as important today with paternity tests and all, but still less expensive), and an easy way to organize joint legal rights (holding property in common, spousal privilege from testimony, visitation rights and powers of attorney) without having to adjudicate/litigate them extensively.
Of course, none of those reasons really speak to whether humans are biologically/instinctively suited for it.
Well, I would doubt parentage is even guaranteed in a monogamist relationship given that SO many people cheat in one form or another. And in moving property after death, that seems fairly simple to figure out in one’s last will. As for the joint rights argument, yes that does seem a tad problematic. The hope is that anyone entering a polygamist relationship is a responsible individual, as are the other partners, so they can communicate and work out details effectively. Simply by living together, visitation rights and property are no issue, but some polygamists, as it’s been stated, simply don’t want to know of their partner’s partner (in so many words) so living together would be out of the question.
It’s a difficult answer, and yes you’ve stated social things rather than biological things. Our world is probably no longer built to suit polygamy, at least in Western culture. Why they gotta play a brotha like that eh?
Well, I would doubt parentage is even guaranteed in a monogamist relationship given that SO many people cheat in one form or another.
True, it is not even close to a guarantee; more of a quick and dirty way to play probability. One might reasonably assume that a child is on-balance less likely to transpire from an extramarital affair than from a marriage, because there are stronger incentives to use protection/hide the relationship. I wonder what the actual statistics on that would be.
And in moving property after death, that seems fairly simple to figure out in one’s last will.
I was thinking more in the sense of defaults. In the absence of a will, upon death the property is automatically distributed to the spouse. Absent a will in a polygamous arrangement, inheritance would have to be litigated.
The hope is that anyone entering a polygamist relationship is a responsible individual, as are the other partners, so they can communicate and work out details effectively.
I think the social savings derive from the fact that marital rights don’t have to be litigated, whereas polygamous rights of an equivalent nature would have to be (and some cannot be duplicated; for example, spousal privilege from testimony cannot be extended by contract). This litigation adds to the dead-weight cost of utilizing these rights in practice; marriage as an institution probably saves the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year just from the quantity of stuff that never hits the courts that otherwise would.
Our world is probably no longer built to suit polygamy, at least in Western culture.
Yeah, we’ve definitely gone “all-in” on monogamy, for better or worse.
Why they gotta play a brotha like that eh?
LOL!
I don’t know – we’ve made room for some pretty broad families – with various step-parents, half-siblings, etc. so that there are plenty of kids out there with (serially) monogamous parents who have three, four, or more of them.
Oddly enough though, most people seem to be fine with a kid having four or five parents if they live singly or in pairs, and if the kids is shuffled around between them… and it’s somehow not considered okay if four or five adults want to commit to a plural marriage and raise a kid together, under one roof.
I think our system could adapt to something akin to plural marriage if our society could get past its religious hang-ups and prejudices based on ignorance (equating all plural relationships with abuse of women, for example).
I am not very fond of polygamy. Because it means that only the male can have multiple wives but not the way around. Also in case some of the wives could be bisexual, this is probably not accepted that she starts a relationship with the other wive.
I am not a fan of polygamy because it mixes up root-languages. Polyamory, please ;-)
I’m not a fan of polygamy because it means multiple mother-in-laws.
Unless you have 2 sisters.
It could also be the mother and daughter you have both relationships with.
Or worse grandmother mother and daughter.
I am now wondering if this is moral.
Wait wait, if I’m not mistaken there are two kinds (more actually) of polygamy: polygyny (two wives) and polyandry (two husbands). The one clearly overshadows the other, but you can’t actually say only one exists… Conditions may be different based on the community or culture, but as a whole both sides exist.
And morals.. Meh. Those exist only if you acknowledge them ;)
@ ‘Nope: I read a study in which women and their parents were tested for genetic markers of susceptibility to some cancers to see if they were hereditary, and one in four of those women were not genetically matched to their “fathers”.
I think it shows observations and evidence that go against the religion-based and paternity/possession-based notions that we must be monogamous, because we’re all naturally just supposed to be monogamous. Being a member of The Alternatives to Marriage Project, and advocate and reader of always-single and child-free groups and blogs, I didn’t even pick up any hint that we couldn’t choose to be monogamous. That isn’t denied as a choice. But choosing not to be monogamous has been denied as a valid choice.
There is nothing wrong in choosing to be monogamous.
I do know some people that require the simplicity of only having 1 partner.
I just want the ability to walk on the street with my 2 partners and not to pretend that only one is my partner. At this moment it is easier to be gay or lesbian to walk hand in hand on the street than with 3 people hand in hand.
Some people I know are actually rejected from their parents because they have 2 boyfriends. This is really sad.
Other practical problems is finding a bed for 3 people, or getting married with 3 people or bye a house with 3 people.
I like Robert Heinlein’s novels that have group marriages in them. But other than group babysitting (and every broad he invents just wets herself to have babies), he doesn’t go into logistics. Even more, I love the story “The Old Folks at Home” by Michael Bishop.
I always wonder “what if I’d feel close to some of the people and don’t care for others?”
What do you mean with “what if I’d feel close to some of the people and don’t care for others?”
That you will not love everyone equally?
It is impossible to love everyone equally, there is some balance that you will reach. They might come close to equal. They will all be unique.
I just found this youtube link:
An interview with Minx from Polyamory weekly and she has very interesting points to make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIM2g7bRGFc
As he does fairly often, Dan Savage verbally nailed it: