Is Monogamy "Natural"?

Christopher Ryan, psychologist and co-author of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, argues that human beings have evolved to seek sexual novelty, thereby rendering institutions which promote monogamy (e.g., marriage) to be fundamentally at odds with our innate proclivities as a species. Traditionally, evolutionary psychologists have advanced a similar hypothesis, only females were excluded from possessing this promiscuous characteristic—due to the fact that they are endowed with a finite amount of eggs and a relatively narrow range of fertility, whereas males basically have an infinite supply of sperm and are capable of impregnating women at any point in their life. Ryan, however, attempts to prove that women are just as sexually depraved as men by marshalling "evidence" from primate studies and small scale psychological experiments (in addition to an ample amount of speculation, as is necessary when formulating theories of "human nature").

Though I have neither the time nor desire to assemble empirical evidence and theoretical considerations which challenge his hypothesis, I will nevertheless explain why I find this theory questionable from anecdotal experience alone. If, as Ryan suggests, we have been socialized into accepting certain sexual mores which are in contradiction with our nature, why is it that females indulge in promiscuous behavior at rates far lower than males, and for different reasons? Why is the pornography marketed to women different from that marketed to males? Why have we noticed a marked hypersexualization of society over the last few decades, which past societies would consider completely alien? (Comprehensive records of infidelity are obviously nonexistent, so we can only guess what the rates have been between historical epochs, but I would venture to say that it has probably increased exponentially in recent years—as a result of the aforementioned rise of hypersexualized raunch culture.) Most importantly, why does the mere thought of one's partner being unfaithful cause such emotional distress to people? My answer to these questions would be that capitalism and the legacy of sexism has profoundly distorted our sexuality, but that we are likely a relatively monogamous species nonetheless. Sexism has probably caused men to develop a subconscious sense of entitlement to sexual variety and fidelity from their girlfriends or wives, but they definitely value fidelity as much as females do (thus indicating a fairly strong desire for sexual exclusivity). So, when Ryan said "sex really isn't that important, it's not that big a deal" (2:29-2:32), I couldn't help but laugh. Numerous people are murdered every year because of infidelity, countless others are physically assaulted, so claiming that sex is "trivial" is asinine; it's one of the few things we are truly passionate about.

Moreover, Ryan's endorsement of 'open marriages' can be opposed simply by invoking the naturalistic fallacy. Perhaps we aren't an innately monogamous species, but that doesn't imply that we shouldn't strive to be. The potential consequences of altering our commitment to fidelity may be so socially disruptive that they far outweigh whatever psychological benefits promiscuity may produce.



I'd be interested in reading whatever thoughts the forum has on this matter.

The Big Think, well there's your problem. They used to put out quality material but then they started to generate nothing but garbage. You're right though, this particular bit is nothing more than speculation.

Red Aegis wrote:The Big Think, well there's your problem. They used to put out quality material but then they started to generate nothing but garbage.

I've noticed that as well. They're providing far too much space for proponents of biological determinism lately, which is unfortunate. I suspect it's because such speculative theories generate views, due to the fact there are no shortage of simpletons—who don't want to be bothered with investigating these topics for themselves—that enjoy easy answers that confirm their biases. ('Scientists have proved that X is part of our human nature. I told you so!')

I can't contribute to your post in either content or elegance, but I can tell you I agree entirely.

Is Monogamy natural? Im not sure. I guess it depends on what part of the globe your on. Some nations accept polygamy ( and other arrangements) so the issue isnt that clear cut IMO.

Now may I ask what do you mean by " Sexism has probably caused men to develop a subconscious sense of entitlement to sexual variety and fidelity from their wives and girlfriends" ? I mean honestly is expecting your girlfriend or wife to remain faithful and to do more than one thing in the bedroom sexist? When they expect the same thing? I thought that when two people get into a relationship then its already agreed upon that they'll remain faithful to each other and so on. Of course that doesnt always work out but I dont see what that has to do with sexism ( a word thats thrown around too much these days).

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Is Monogamy natural? Im not sure. I guess it depends on what part of the globe your on. Some nations accept polygamy ( and other arrangements) so the issue isnt that clear cut IMO.

Culture is undoubtedly a factor, though frequently even polygamous and polyandrous families remain sexually exclusive amongst each other.

I mean honestly is expecting your girlfriend or wife to remain faithful and to do more than one thing in the bedroom sexist? When they expect the same thing? I thought that when two people get into a relationship then its already agreed upon that they'll remain faithful to each other and so on. Of course that doesnt always work out but I dont see what that has to do with sexism ( a word thats thrown around too much these days).

You miscomprehended my post. I was arguing that sexism has endowed many males with a sense of entitlement to sexual variety and fidelity from their spouses simultaneously. In other words, they're hypocritical because, on the one hand, they believe that promiscuity should be socially acceptable for them, but on the other, expect their spouse to remain completely faithful to them in the process. They don't literally say this, of course, but it's clear enough from their behavior and attitude toward the issue. Recall that male infidelity rates are much higher than female, and yet men cannot stand the notion of their wives or girlfriends being unfaithful to them.

I fully agree that fidelity it a reasonable expectation when individuals enter into a relationship with one another.

The very fact that somebody can seriously propose that we have been "socialized" into anything which stands in contradiction to our alleged "human nature" (as evolutionary psychologists do) immediately calls into question their position. To assert as much is to blatantly assume that a rigid human "essence" exists that is somehow independent of social context, which is patently ridiculous and flies in the face of everything we know from anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, neuroscience, and even biology.

Before we delve into any specific critiques of a particular theoretical construct, it is best to simply challenge its foundation outright, including the subtle axioms underlying all theories. This is a chief component of critical thinking.

I beg to differ on a very important point. Infidelity today in the western point is probably very close to 50 50. I don't know about the USA, but in western Europe this is certainly the case, and with more and more females being unfaithful the younger they are.

Sex is easy for women, and modern culture encourages women to do whatever is considered manly, in order to make women feel "empowered". Never before had women so much power in terms of social relations.

Granted, most women flock to a small number of "alpha" men, but this doesn't mean they won't have fun with the next one, and these days more often than not they do.

Celtiberian wrote:You miscomprehended my post. I was arguing that sexism has endowed many males with a sense of entitlement to sexual variety and fidelity from their spouses simultaneously. In other words, they're hypocritical because, on the one hand, they believe that promiscuity should be socially acceptable for them, but on the other, expect their spouse to remain completely faithful to them in the process. They don't literally say this, of course, but it's clear enough from their behavior and attitude toward the issue. Recall that male infidelity rates are much higher than female, and yet men cannot stand the notion of their wives or girlfriends being unfaithful to them.

I fully agree that fidelity it a reasonable expectation when individuals enter into a relationship with one another.

Yeah your probably right that guys cheat more. I just think it has to do more with being a dick than a sexist. That being said I dont plan on getting into a big debate about sexism ( least on this thread) but honestly I dont put much stock into it being a huge problem.

I suppose this utter tripe belongs here. According to the obnoxious fellow in the video, monogamy is "ridiculous" because, you guessed it, it contradicts human nature. As always, comrades, human nature is the culprit. The unbearable strain imposed upon ordinary working class families by the capitalist system over the past several decades conjoined with the mindless explosion of the sex industry could not possibly account for the deplorable condition of marriage and commitment in the United States and Western Europe. Nay, we are merely reverting to behavior dictated by our evolutionarily hardwired brains. The edginess of the subject matter and his profanity undoubtedly appeal to the simple-minded audience of Big Think (the irony is not lost on me either), but Dan Savage is little more than a glorified and poorly informed sex columnist. He is unqualified to treat this topic, and I find Big Think's reliance upon such vulgar biological determinists tiresome.

Rev Scare wrote:I suppose this utter tripe belongs here. According to the obnoxious fellow in the video, monogamy is "ridiculous" because, you guessed it, it contradicts human nature. As always, comrades, human nature is the culprit. The unbearable strain imposed upon ordinary working class families by the capitalist system over the past several decades conjoined with the mindless explosion of the sex industry could not possibly account for the deplorable condition of marriage and commitment in the United States and Western Europe. Nay, we are merely reverting to behavior dictated by our evolutionarily hardwired brains. The edginess of the subject matter and his profanity undoubtedly appeal to the simple-minded audience of Big Think (the irony is not lost on me either), but Dan Savage is little more than a glorified and poorly informed sex columnist. He is unqualified to treat this topic, and I find Big Think's reliance upon such vulgar biological determinists tiresome.

Of course, any decision that is reflective of the superego must be 'ridiculous' or 'unnatural'; unless, of course, it reflects a social value that falls within the realm of their subjective preferences. Based on comparable reasoning, one could argue that Mr. Savage's homosexuality naturally makes him more hostile to the very concept of monogamy. After all, homosexuals are naturally more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Admin wrote:Of course, any decision that is reflective of the superego must be 'ridiculous' or 'unnatural'; unless, of course, it reflects a social value that falls within the realm of their subjective preferences. Based on comparable reasoning, one could argue that Mr. Savage's homosexuality naturally makes him more hostile to the very concept of monogamy. After all, homosexuals are naturally more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Indeed. I found it wryly amusing that a member of a demographic with indiscriminate sexual mores (gay males) would censure monogamous relationships.

I find the "naturalist" angle to be flawed. There are many things that mankind (and other primates) do that occur naturally for them, but that doesn't mean that they should be embraced (rape and murder, for example).

Crimson Fasces wrote:I find the "naturalist" angle to be flawed. There are many things that mankind (and other primates) do that occur naturally for them, but that doesn't mean that they should be embraced (rape and murder, for example).

Of course. Appeals to nature are logically fallacious, although I would be hesitant to classify rape and murder as natural human proclivities.