Monogamy Not 'Natural'

[mundens]

From a recent article in Live Science :

Only 3 percent to 5 percent of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals (including humans) are known to form lifelong, monogamous bonds, with the loyal superstars including beavers, wolves and some bats.

Social monogamy is a term referring to creatures that pair up to mate and raise offspring but still have flings. Sexually monogamous pairs mate with only with one partner. So a 'cheating husband' who detours for a romantic romp yet returns home in time to tuck in the kids at night would be considered socially monogamous.
...
Some scientists view both social and sexual monogamy in humans as a societal structure rather than a natural state.

"I don't think we are a monogamous animal" said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle. "A really monogamous animal is a goose - which never mates again even if it's mate is killed."

Comments

[repton-infinity.livejournal.com]

The percentage of species of mammal that use tools is much lower ... so what? Doesn't seem like a very good argument.

(also, societal structure is the natural state for humans..)

[cha0sslave.livejournal.com]

Ahh yes the animal Kingdon, what a FANTASTIC group of critters to base our lives on. Let's look at some of the awesome highlights and features of some of our hairy friends.

Mammals in the animal kingdom will often, or have been known to...

* Eat their own offspring
* Abandon their own offspring
* Kill their own offspring because they are weak or damaged

* Steal food from their weaker brethren, often leaving them to die of hunger
* Invade and take over the homes of their own kind
* Worship bullies and thugs and accept them as leaders

* Eat, roll in, or happily distribute their own faeces to others nearby
* Occassionally commit mass suicide (Lemmings are mammals!)
* Commit rape and sodomy

* Kill others of their kind for relatively little reason
* Destroy their own natural habitat, and/or foodsource
* Commit Incest

* Excrete directly onto or near their own foodsource
* Lick, or otherwise manipulate their own genetalia in public
*


Oh yes, those mammals have it good, in fact I think I'll join the Mammalian Movement right away. I'll start by eating shit on toast, then have sex with my sister and take over the neighbours house because mines not big enough. If they resist I'll kill them. Then when the child is born I'll bash it to death with a rock because I don't think it'll survive on it's own after 2 weeks of attempted parenting. And after I eat the corpse of that child I'll sit outside in the bus shelter and lick my own balls and growl at passers-by.


Personally I believe we as humans are above and boyond the animal kingdom for many reasons, language, culture, reasoning and all the advanced processes our brains are capable of that other animals cannot manage. Above all our ability to form lasting, stable relationships with others of our kind and raise our offspring in a caring, carefully controlled purposeful fashion.

I see monogomy as the highest declaration of love, appreciation and commitment to another that is humanly possible and we are capable of it no matter what our social standing, cultural background (for the most part) or financial situation. It is the one thing that crosses all divides and cannot be prevented by normal situations. Third world peasants or the elitist of the elite can show their intent and affection the same way, by declaring their commitment to each other and staying faithful.

I will always respect a couple that have remained faithful to each other for 50 years much more than a couple that go out and swing on an occassional basis and consider the commited couple much better people for it.

I do not believe that humans have the emotional capacity to fully and completely handle a lifestyle with multiple partners and anyone who does attemtp such a lifestyle, in my opinion has several minor or major personality and mental deficiencies and is not at all truly happy with themselves or their lives.

[cha0sslave.livejournal.com]

As a P.S. No offence intended to you Franky, you're mostly a nice guy and apparently a very good father, I just don't dig that lifestyle.

[jaadfan.livejournal.com]

I too, like the mate for life-style. It just sucks (as it has in the past for me) when a partner of mine hasn't felt the same way and goes off screwin' around... ... and no, it wouldn't have made any difference if she'd been honest and told me what she wanted to do - it still would've hurt.

So I am very very glad that now I have a loving relationship with someone else who feels exactly the same way (having had the cheatin' and the lyin' happen to her too), excitabubble and I fully intend to grow old and wrinkly together and knock people over with our mobility scooters when the time comes :o)

Polyamory is not something I'd ever consider - I don't feel right about doing it. But if it works for some people, cool. It's just not my gig.

[keptinacan.livejournal.com]

I think that if it were firmly established that monogamy was not a natural state for humans, that would only serve to add value to the gift of loyalty when given.

I also think it comes down to perceptions, if one considers monogamy to be a requirement, it is not appreciated when given.

If it is considered as being symbolic of ones devotion, and appreciated by the recipient, then it is very fitting.

I have known couples who parted because one partner remained monogamous when the opposite was desired by their lover. (Yes, as comical as it sounds, the guy would not sleep with other women and he got kicked to the curb because she did not want the intensity of being the center of his existence)

I would say that what sets us apart from "the animals" is that we can choose, we can conform, we can judge others or accept them... we can follow our own path.