Why monogamy is natural

[inocente]

Not so simple. Young women tend to be attracted to those who are best able to protect them, so risk-takers and physically dominant males have a greater chance of mating and passing on their genes at an earlier age, when becoming pregnant is easier for the female. Those who shy from risk and confrontation may avoid danger, but also avoid talking to the female who could be his mate.

Yes, you’re right, it’s not quite that simple because the chances of survival for extreme risk aversion are just as low as for extreme risk taking. The trait which survives best is somewhere in between these extremes, and so will vary between individuals, but this still explains the near universal desire to survive, which would otherwise be a mystery.

*G.K. Chesterton said monogamy is natural because bonding with one other who knows our heart speaks to what makes us happiest, especially when times are rough:

“Through all this ordeal his root horror had been isolation, and there are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be conceded to the mathematicians that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one. That is why, in spite of a hundred disadvantages, the world will always return to monogamy.”*

A nice quote, but it doesn’t distinguish between one partner for life and what many people do currently, which is one partner for some years then divorce and take up another partner. This is what people are doing naturally, so is this more natural than one partner for life? I don’t know, it depends on what we mean by “natural”.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

A nice quote, but it doesn’t distinguish between one partner for life and what many people do currently, which is one partner for some years then divorce and take up another partner. This is what people are doing naturally, so is this more natural than one partner for life? I don’t know, it depends on what we mean by “natural”.

Life interferes with our best-laid plans, so death, the departure of a spouse, a cruel or abusive spouse, etc. may interfere with one’s natural desires for a life-long commitment. That doesn’t mean the desire is any less “natural” for humans. A more useful comparison to monogamy is not serial monogamy, as described above, but hypergamy, the hook-up culture which is increasingly affecting youth…and which, as years go by, becomes increasingly less satisfying to those involved (especially women and children).

Read the following interesting article comparing a hypergamous female blogger’s increasing dissatisfaction with her chosen lifestyle. (Note: contains some graphic language): hookingupsmart.com/2012/10/09/politics-and-feminism/the-abject-failure-of-sex-positive-feminism-a-case-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HookingUpSmart+%28Hooking+Up+Smart%29

I doubt that her increasing desire for an exclusive, monogamous (even romantic) relationship is unique among women (or men), and it’s sad that she had to wait until she was 28 for a man to give her flowers on a date. The modern hypergamous culture is designed largely for the sexual benefit of immature males, and probably a smaller subset of them:

From the website above:

What is Hooking Up?

[1. Bogle, Kathleen A. Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York University Press, 2008.]

Hooking up is a term to describe a sexual encounter between two people. It is a deliberately vague expression, and can mean making out, having intercourse, or anything in between.

Hooking up has replaced traditional dating on college campuses, and has also become prevalent in the general population and culture. The hallmark of hooking up is the clear understanding between both parties that the encounter will be free from any expectations for further contact. It is designed to avoid the possibility of commitment. However, hooking up is still the primary pathway to a potential romantic relationship.

The hookup script reverses the sexual norm; the pair becomes sexual first, before emotional intimacy or a relationship is established.

Some of the interesting stats she quotes:

91% of students report that hooking up is very common or fairly common on their campuses.[2. Glenn, Norval and Marquardt, Elizabeth. “Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right - College Women on Mating and Dating Today.” Institute for American Values. July, 2001.]

87% of college students report having hooked up.[3. Kahn, Fricker, Hoffman, Lambert, Tripp and Childress. “Hooking up: Dangerous new dating methods?” American Psychological Association Symposium: Sex, unwanted, sex, and sexual assault on college campuses. 2000.]

73% of girls wish dating was more common.[4. “The Truth About Hooking Up.” Cosmopolitan. October, 2008: 190-1.]

12% of hookups eventually lead to relationships.[5. Hayes, Allison, McManus, Brian and Paul, Elizabeth. “Hookups: Characteristics and Correlates of College Students’ Spontaneous and Anonymous Sexual Experiences.” The Journal of Sex Research. February, 2000.]

60% of sexually active teenagers will at some point have sex with someone they are not dating.[6. Manning, Giordano, and Longmore. “Hooking up: The relationship contexts of ‘non-relationship’ sex.” Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(5), 2006: 459-483.]

49% of students who have intercourse during a hookup never see the other person again.[7. Bogle, Kathleen A. Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New York University Press, 2008.]

61% of women who say hooking up makes them feel desirable also say it makes them feel awkward.[8. Glenn, Norval and Marquardt, Elizabeth. “Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right - College Women on Mating and Dating Today.” Institute for American Values. July, 2001.]

44% of the time guys have an orgasm during a hookup, while girls have orgasms only 19% of the time.[9. “The Truth About Hooking Up.” Cosmopolitan. October, 2008: 190-1. England, Paula, PhD, Professor of Sociology, Stanford University.]

12% of women say that it is sometimes easier to have sex with a guy they don’t know than to make conversation.[10. Glenn, Norval and Marquardt, Elizabeth. “Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right - College Women on Mating and Dating Today.” Institute for American Values. July, 2001.]

Those are sad facts, and show us where a secular view of the theology of the body has led our society.

I suppose a comparison over time between those who have maintained a relationship over life with one spouse, vs. those who have had multiple partners, would be illuminating.

 

[tonyrey]

Stephen Hawking has made the point that reason endangers the prospects of survival, as illustrated by our own predicament. The amoeba has outlasted many far more advanced beings because it has the merit of simplicity!

“The pressure to evolve complex reasoning faculties” presupposes the capacity to do so. What is the basis and origin of this capacity? Chemical reactions?

Many biologists reject Darwinism because it assumes living organisms are transformed **solely **by their environment and ignores* Developmental plasticity*…

It is believed that spontaneous network activity establishes a scaffold for subsequent learning and information acquisition following the initial establishment of synaptic connections during development.

No one has explained the cause of this phenomenon which is the fundamental cause of all development because it occurs within the individual and not the environment…

It is farfetched to attribute the power of insight to information processing which occurs without any need for such a luxury.

 

[inocente]

Life interferes with our best-laid plans, so death, the departure of a spouse, a cruel or abusive spouse, etc. may interfere with one’s natural desires for a life-long commitment. That doesn’t mean the desire is any less “natural” for humans. A more useful comparison to monogamy is not serial monogamy, as described above, but hypergamy, the hook-up culture which is increasingly affecting youth…and which, as years go by, becomes increasingly less satisfying to those involved (especially women and children).

Read the following interesting article comparing a hypergamous female blogger’s increasing dissatisfaction with her chosen lifestyle. (Note: contains some graphic language): hookingupsmart.com/2012/10/09/politics-and-feminism/the-abject-failure-of-sex-positive-feminism-a-case-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HookingUpSmart+%28Hooking+Up+Smart%29

I doubt that her increasing desire for an exclusive, monogamous (even romantic) relationship is unique among women (or men), and it’s sad that she had to wait until she was 28 for a man to give her flowers on a date. The modern hypergamous culture is designed largely for the sexual benefit of immature males, and probably a smaller subset of them:

…] Those are sad facts, and show us where a secular view of the theology of the body has led our society.

I’m dubious about the stats for various reasons: (a) Things could be getting better or worse, there’s no way of knowing because the surveys were never repeated. (b) They are self-report surveys, which can be unreliable as participants tend to bend the truth to make themselves out to be more than they are. (c) Contemporary culture is probably more open than the past, when spicy behavior was covered up more. (d) By pre-selecting which stats we get to see, a blogger can prove anything and everything.

Which is not to say that things can’t improve, I’m just not so sure that there is any radical change in behavior going on currently.

I suppose a comparison over time between those who have maintained a relationship over life with one spouse, vs. those who have had multiple partners, would be illuminating.

Yes, that would be interesting - there have been TV programs which show the same people every ten years and how their lives change, but probably not on this topic.

 

[Sair]

“The pressure to evolve complex reasoning faculties” presupposes the capacity to do so. What is the basis and origin of this capacity? Chemical reactions?

How does any mechanism or biological development presuppose anything in the absence of conscious intent?

Many biologists reject Darwinism because it assumes living organisms are transformed **solely **by their environment and ignores* Developmental plasticity*…

No one has explained the cause of this phenomenon which is the fundamental cause of all development because it occurs within the individual and not the environment…

The driving forces behind evolution, as it is understood by many, many more biologists than reject Darwinism is the differential survival of organisms within their environment, dependent upon how well said organisms are able to cope with the pressures of that environment - those pressures include the presence of other organisms in a community. This doesn’t require prior planning!

It is farfetched to attribute the power of insight to information processing which occurs without any need for such a luxury.

No serious biologist attributes the power of insight to evolution by natural selection.

 

[Bradski]

Many biologists reject Darwinism because it assumes living organisms are transformed **solely **by their environment…

‘Darwinism’ (and I’ve put it in quotes because the term is only used in forums such as this) was the first step in developing the Theory-That-Can’t-Be-Named. Maybe what you mean is that biologists don’t reject Darwinism per se, but reject that the ideas that Mr Darwin proposed in his book are the only ways that the TTCBN works. There’s a not so subtle difference.

And what happened to your answer to my question in post 23? Are you going to say that I have to answer one of yours first? I’ll bet you do…

 

[SonCatcher]

No serious biologist attributes the power of insight to evolution by natural selection.

Yet, the power of insight is intrinsic to human beings. Is it merely a curiosity?

 

[pwl]

It is natural - for females - but not for males.

 

[Sair]

What does seem indisputable is that a strong marriage cannot exist without trust and loyalty, anymore than a strong friendship can. Whether trust and loyalty can exist in a marriage that does not have monogamy, is an interesting question.

I can vouch for the fact that they can and do.

 

[Sair]

A nice quote, but it doesn’t distinguish between one partner for life and what many people do currently, which is one partner for some years then divorce and take up another partner. This is what people are doing naturally, so is this more natural than one partner for life? I don’t know, it depends on what we mean by “natural”.

That’s the key thing, really, isn’t it? What do we mean by ‘natural’?

For me, it’s easy - ‘natural’ is anything that manifests in nature - which, according to my philosophy, is anything to which we may have experiential access. ‘Supernatural’, whether it exists or otherwise, is beyond our ken, and superfluous.

What I suspect many other people who cite ‘it’s natural’ as actually being a justification for certain behaviours really mean is ‘normal’ - that is, more common than otherwise.

Monogamy is an interesting case here - as you say, it appears to be very ‘normal’ for people to exercise what is called ‘serial monogamy’ - staying with one partner for a certain length of time, then moving on to another partner. In some ways, this seems to suggest to me that the ideal of lifetime monogamous partnership is something we culturally hold dear, but it’s not something the majority of people can or want to do; so they go through the motions, until the motions become untenable - perhaps because they undergo the kinds of changes in personality, habits, inclinations and goals that are an expected part of human growth and development in a lifetime - then they give in to their ‘natural’ inclination and move on. But because of the pressure of the persistent cultural expectation of monogamy - the idea that one is only allowed to have one sexual partner at a time - moving on entails the destruction of any relationship that currently exists. This, in my estimation, is where the culture of monogamy fails genuine human inclination.

 

[Sair]

Yet, the power of insight is intrinsic to human beings. Is it merely a curiosity?

What I meant by my comment about biologists attributing the power of insight to natural selection was actually that the process itself is undirected - there is no conscious intent behind it.

And I would dispute that the power of insight is intrinsic to the human species - the potential for insight, perhaps, but some humans are woefully lacking in the exercise of same.

And what, for that matter, do you mean by ‘insight’? Does the ability of a matriarch elephant, for example, to read the signs in her environment and act accordingly - better than most humans could - count as ‘insight’, or just ‘experience’? And if the latter, how would we know which human responses to put down to ‘insight’ and which to ‘experience’?

 

[SonCatcher]

This thread is pretty stale. The only reason I’m still watching it is because I opened it. Would you like to continue the discussion in a new thread?