#31: Is monogamy unnatural?

Our 31st prompt comes from Passiona. She says:

Committing to one partner for life is unnatural

*

Passiona,

What a lovely discussion to have.  I find myself having it more now that I’m considered to be of marrying age, to which I respond (depending on how tiresome the person trying to pull me into a debate is) that not everyone is interested in the same things, and that is fine. Perhaps one day we will discuss why people are so personally affronted when you don’t want a relationship/marriage/children like they do.

This thesis has been explored by evolutionary biologists, behavioural scientists, anthropologists, archaeologists, sociologists, and a host of other people. It is the premise of Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships, which I recommend highly.

Human beings are more genetically related to bonobos and chimpanzees than they are to any other primate. Initially, we compared ourselves to chimpanzees, but more and more, it appears that we are more genetically related to bonobos. When we found this out, we heaved a collective sigh of relief. Chimpanzees are violent, while bonobos are non-violent. Chimpanzees view sex as an activity to show/expand dominance, while bonobos use sex to bond and reduce stress. Both species are not monogamous, but there is much we can learn from how bonobos approach their sexuality.

Before we became agrarian (read these posts for background: #28: The Book of the Week and #15: Can we really enjoy work?) we lived in a culture that was not as sexually possessive as the one we have now. We did not have lifelong sexual partnerships. Like bonobos, we lived in largely peaceful and egalitarian groups – we shared the responsibility for providing food, for childcare, for shelter, defense and so on. However, once we became agrarian, and began owing land and building settlements, the idea of property seeped into our views on sexuality.

Suddenly, women’s fidelity mattered. Suddenly, it became important that all the children you were taking care of were yours if you were a man. Suddenly, women and children became men’s property, and had to take the man’s name. Suddenly, marriage emerged as a (then) reasonable exchange between men – I give you my daughter (who is until then my property) and in exchange, you give me some of your wealth (dowry). Once this exchange happens, she comes over to your homestead, takes your name, bears your children (who are also your property), and this cycle continues.

Given that we became agrarian recently (around 11,000 years ago) and that Homo sapiens emerged around 200,000 years ago, monogamy can only be said to be adaptive behaviour; it is not natural. Especially lifelong monogamy. Which is why it is so difficult to maintain; which is why people break up, cheat, and get divorced. It is an uphill task – one that requires a lot of effort and commitment – and we are basically set up to fail at it. However, because of how we think of the nuclear family as the basic unit of society, it is going to be hard to change this paradigm.

So, must we throw (lifelong) monogamy out of the window? Not necessarily. We are continually evolving and adapting to our environment (see #25: Nature vs Nurture), and this is not the first/only “unnatural” thing we now do as a result of this. We’ve also learnt to control our bowel movements (we don’t go shitting/peeing everywhere whenever the urge strikes), we’ve learnt how to sleep once a day as opposed to sleeping multiple times a day, we’ve decided to exercise…the list is long. Our adaptive behaviour is as a result of our free will/choice, as well as our intellect.

What I think we need to do is approach this with an open mind. Is there any one arrangement that is right for us (say polyamory, serial monogamy and so on)? Probably not. I don’t think there is a “one size fits all” answer to that question. However, people do have free will, and they do have the intelligence to make the choice that best suits them, and let others do the same (informed consent is paramount). We need to be accepting of the fact that there are different ways to be, each with its own upsides/downsides, and we need to ask ourselves whether we are ready to live with them.

However, there is definitely an argument to be made for an egalitarian society in which people are not treated like property.

*

This post is part of a daily writing experiment that I’m running for a year. I’d love it if you took part! ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *