Monogamy is unnatural

[AdamSmith]

I agree.

Face it: Monogamy is unnatural

By Meghan Laslocky, Special to CNN

updated 11:02 AM EDT, Fri June 21, 2013

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Meghan Laslocky: History and biology tell us that monogamy is not for everyone
• Laslocky: In our time, sexual fidelity is seen as sign of a successful marriage
• But if we look to the animal kingdom, true monogamy among mammals is a rarity
• Laslocky: With people living longer now, sexual fidelity seems like a doomed aspiration

Editor's note: Meghan Laslocky is the author of "The Little Book of Heartbreak: Love Gone Wrong Through the Ages" (Plume/Penguin 2013).

(CNN) -- Kristen Stewart, Ryan Phillippe, LeAnn Rimes, Jude Law, Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton. What do they have in common?

Many are quick to label a person who strays from his or her marriage or relationship as a "cheater," but it's really not that simple. It's time for our culture to wake up and smell the sex pheromones: monogamy is not natural for many, or probably even most, humans.

With people living longer than ever before, a greater tolerance toward the human impulse to experience sexual variety is needed. Whether a person succeeds at being sexually monogamous depends as much on biology as environment.

History and biology suggest that strict monogamy, which has social advantages, is not a "one size" fits all proposition.

The rise of the love marriage

Marrying for love is a relatively new concept. Beginning with Enlightenment -- the cultural movement of the 18th and 19th centuries -- when the pursuit of happiness became a legitimate human pursuit, marrying for love slowly but surely became an aspiration in the Western world.

But for most of human history, marriage was primarily a socioeconomic transaction. Spending the rest of your life with someone was more about the protection of property and the sharing of labor than it was about romance.

The side effect of the rise of marriage as a romantic proposition was that sexual jealousy became a more prevalent ingredient in marriage than it had been previously. Over time, sexual fidelity has come to be regarded as the barometer of a successful marriage -- regardless of what science tells us about natural human inclinations.

Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic?

Lovebirds cheat

Biologically, we humans are animals. So it makes sense to look to the animal kingdom for clues as to what we are built for. Let's start with birds. For some time, bird species such as lovebirds and penguins were celebrated among humans for their seemingly monogamous ways. About 90% of birds were thought to be strictly monogamous.

But DNA fingerprinting knocked birds off the monogamy perch. Analysis of avian DNA indicates that many nestlings' fathers are not their biological fathers.

This led experts to distinguish between unions that are sexually exclusive and those that are socially monogamous -- meaning a pair that raises a family together but indulges in what are called "extra pair copulations."

"Faithless pairing" is the norm

The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species on Earth "practice any form of monogamy." In fact, no mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous.

One species, the prairie vole was subjected to scrutiny by biologists because it appeared to be truly monogamous. But it turns out that as a species, it just has a very high rate of sexual monogamy. Not every prairie vole resists straying.

Studies of prairie voles helped scientists understand that from a chemical and biological standpoint, sexual monogamy depends not just on particular hormones that are released in the brain, but on receptors for these hormones.

Among humans, here's the rub: we have the chemicals and the receptors, but it varies from person to person how much we have. Based on brain wiring alone, inclination toward fidelity can vary dramatically from one individual to another.

In other words, "once a cheater, always a cheater," might have as much to do with brain wiring as with a person's moral compass, upbringing or culture.

The bottom line is that flings are far from folly, at least in the animal kingdom. Even swans -- symbols of fidelity -- are not immune.

One partner for 50 years?

It's also important to look at human longevity with respect to cultural expectations of monogamy.

As recent as over 100 years ago, it was far more likely that an individual would lose his or her spouse at a young age. Remarriage by widows and widowers -- also known as serial monogamy -- was one way for humans to fulfill the need for sexual variety.

Today, the median age for first marriages is 28 for men and 26 for women. Disease is far less likely to kill someone in their prime and life expectancy hovers in the late 70s.

Because fidelity is considered the barometer of a successful marriage, this means that a person is theoretically expected to have one sexual partner for about 50 years.

This seems like a lot to expect of any human being -- even the most honorable, ethical and moral.

Those who are able to stay with one partner for a long haul are sometimes looked upon with awe. Certainly, a lasting and happy marriage tends to be far better for the children.

It has long been assumed that men struggle more with monogamy than women. Some experts have started to question this theory. With the development of a drug that promises to boost female libido, one can argue that sexual boredom and the temptation to stray is as big of an issue for women as it is for men, if not more so.

Human monogamy is influenced by many factors. Instead of pointing fingers or acting morally superior toward those who stray from marriages, we should recognize that strict sexual fidelity is a lofty but perhaps fundamentally doomed aspiration.

No two individuals, and no two couples are alike, and we should respect that.

Moreover, one's perspective on monogamy is not necessarily an indicator of one's personal practices. Many people have incorrectly assumed that because I've read, thought, and written about the problems with human monogamy that I am myself promiscuous.

For the record, nothing could be further from the truth. Nor am I, as many commenters on this Yahoo post suggested, a Satanist or a whore.

I am just a woman with a healthy respect for science.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/laslocky-monogamy-marriage/?iref=obnetwork

[RA1]

This post suggests that monogamy can derive from one's gene pool. However, unlike homosexuality, monogamy more likely comes from adapting and using standards of human conduct whether based upon morality, religion or even fear.

Don't blame me for my infidelity, blame my genes. Too easy.

As mentioned there are many possible sources for being married from companionship to raising little workers for the farm to avoiding disease to actually being in love. It can be reduced to simple economics or raised to passionate love. But, they are all sociological in nature.

Regardless of how many have strayed, virtually all of the social mechanisms offer some sort of redemption. Good.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

I think being monogamous so romantic. There is something more than sex that keeps a couple together.

[Guest CharliePS]

Well, it's certainly unnatural for me. Two weeks after settling down with the love of my life, I admitted to him that I was still strongly attracted sexually to other men, and he admitted the same. Monogamy would have been a relationship-killer. So we have had more "extra pair copulations" in our 45 years together than I can remember, much less count. Only once for each of us did a sexual affair threaten our own relationship, and in each case trust and good sense got us through it.

[AdamSmith]

There is something more than sex that keeps a couple together.

Yes: the mortgage and the good china.

[lookin]

Aw, baby, she means nothing to me. And the burrow was so dark,

I thought it was you! Honest!! Here, have another cranberry.

[RA1]

Charlie-

Do you claim your genes made you do it?

Best regards,

RA1

[Suckrates]

I think being monogamous so romantic. There is something more than sex that keeps a couple together.

MONEY - yup, that truly is Romantic Ka-Ching ........

[Suckrates]

I think its unnatural for SOME people. Whether gay or Str8, there are people that cant control their urges....Attraction is a natural thing, but actting on it is a "conscious" choice.

At this stage of MY life, I would probably opt for an "open marriage", afoording me the BEST of both worlds.....companionship AND variety !.

[RA1]

There is no doubt that the "animal" side of humans has natural as well as un-natural tendencies. For instance, I do not consider murdering one or both of your parents "natural". But, as they say, looking is not against the law and neither is any arrangement agreed upon in advance between partners.

Charlie PSP- I did not mean to ask a personal question. Please forgive me.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest NCBored]

Interesting article, but I don't think that biology is necessarily a justification for all behaviors. SOME of our natural urges need to be overcome (xenophobia,gluttony,etc.)

But just to be clear, I'm not passing judgment on non-monogamous relationships - if a relationship is preserved by 'extra pair couplings' (or even strengthened) and no trust is violated, then that's a good thing, IMO.

[RA1]

Interesting that you use the word, "justification". I hope it is obvious that I agree about overcoming some natural urges. Equally interesting is how we don slippers and take care to not step on toes or make "noise".

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

Fate or destiny... I think that is very spiritual... Some of you will make the Juliet cry...

MONEY - yup, that truly is Romantic Ka-Ching ........

[Guest CharliePS]

I use the term "natural" in what I take to be its biological sense: what human beings would do without any kind of social constraints. In that way, I assume that monogamy is unnatural (yes, my "genes" make me lust after lots of hot males). "Natural" is not the same as "normal," however. Whether I act on that lust is determined by a combination of cultural values plus opportunity. The values of our society do not accept sexual promiscuity as "normal," even though in actual practice it is a lot closer to the norm than is publicly admitted. So, only when I am among a group of peers who I believe share my beliefs about what is acceptable (e.g., here) am I likely to admit that I am promiscuous rather than monogamous. And only in a situation where there are unlikely to be adverse consequences do I act on my lust for hunky men with whom I am not in a romantic relationship.

My biggest misgiving about the gay marriage movement is that it seems to validate the heterosexual cultural model, that sex is OK as long as as it is limited to an exclusive relationship with someone you love. I would reject that model for gay, straight and bisexual human beings.

[RA1]

As always I respect your posts.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest hitoallusa]

Sex without romance makes me sad.. I don't know why... Sex is sharing something special and willing to give your precious jewel to someone you love and care about. But a former escort I know once told me "You hire escorts and say that?" hmm... I don't know what he meant by it. I don't care for my escorts??

[Suckrates]

Sex without romance makes me sad.. I don't know why... Sex is sharing something special and willing to give your precious jewel to someone you love and care about. But a former escort I know once told me "You hire escorts and say that?" hmm... I don't know what he meant by it. I don't care for my escorts??

hito, sex is a natural human process, and has many benefits for the mind and body. If people waited for Romance to have sex, most might never have sex at all, and thats a travesty... I dont know why some feel that sex as Recreation is bad ? I DONT.... Precious jewel ? PLEASE ! its a dick, pussy or asshole, merely a body part. At if you are talking about Virginity, you only lose it ONCE, and if you hang onto to it for too long, it will dry up and shrivel away. hito, GO HAVE SEX.....

[AdamSmith]

hito, GO HAVE SEX.....

Suckrates doing his best impression of King Canute there.