![\"\"](\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_b7Eh98KJ_qI\/TTp7xARvxSI\/AAAAAAAABPM\/EFydo9P4srQ\/s1600\/monkey+pair.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nThis post is part of a series about covenant marriage<\/a>.<\/em> After reading yesterday\u2019s post about two married people who left their spouses, Hendy of technologeekery<\/a>had a question:<\/p>\n Why are humans inclined toward romantic monogamy? Heck, there might even be genes for monogamy<\/a> and an inclination toward cheating<\/a>! Interesting findings. I by no means think genes = predetermination. My genes would have me hoard fat (especially) and sugar because historically they were more likely to benefit survival\u2026 with gas stations and supermarkets on every block, to \u201cobey\u201d those genes (if you call it that) will actually Darwin-award me out of the population. So\u2026 genes aren\u2019t everything, but it\u2019s still interesting to contemplate. I at least\u00a0think we shouldn\u2019t read stories like this and be immediately repulsed \u2014 changing it up may be more \u201chuman\u201d than we think. Does any of this sound coherent? I realize it might seem like I\u2019m shifting back and forth a lot and making my stance unclear \u2014 I both am a fan\/liver of monogamy but suppose my point is that we may be more predisposed against it<\/em> historically\/biologically than we admit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thinking back to my courses on evolutionary psychology and my recollection of the write-ups of Sex at Dawn<\/a><\/em>, I agree with Hendy\u2019s basic premise: humans don\u2019t appear to be finely tuned for monogamy. \u00a0The jury\u2019s probably out on whether we are naturally resistant<\/em> to monogamy, but that hypothesis definitely has adherents in mainstream research. \u00a0Either way, my views on marriage aren\u2019t likely to be swayed by evolutionary evidence. I\u2019ve written before<\/a> about some of the problems of viewing evolutionarily advantageous behaviors as appropriate or\u00a0insurmountable, and I think the critique applies here as well. \u00a0Behaviors may be tailored for pressures that no longer apply or we may have rejected the ends they developed to satisfy. \u00a0Evolutionary psychology (and, to a certain extent, evolutionary biology) are primarily useful as a way of revealing our weaknesses and blind spots as a species. \u00a0But identifying our habits is a long way from telling us if they ought to be indulged. Consideration of other apes makes it clear that monogamy is not mandated for the survival (and, thus, evolutionary success) of a species. \u00a0If life-long\u00a0relationships\u00a0is desirable and worth promoting, it has to satisfy other, higher needs than mere survival\/genetic\u00a0propagation. \u00a0I\u2019ll start laying out my case on Monday (tomorrow is the Strobel review). Also, to be clear, I\u2019m defending the idea of marriage as life-long,\u00a0difficult\u00a0to cancel commitment to a spouse. \u00a0Although I practice monogamy, I don\u2019t have any strong, philosophical opposition to similarly committed polyamory.<\/em><\/p>\n This post is part of a series about covenant marriage. After reading yesterday\u2019s post about two married people who left their spouses, Hendy of technologeekeryhad a question: Why are humans inclined toward romantic monogamy? Heck, there might even be genes for monogamy and an inclination toward cheating! Interesting findings. I by no means think genes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[196],"tags":[15,82],"class_list":["post-241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-marriage-2","tag-covenant-marriage","tag-evo-psych"],"yoast_head":"\n