Is Monogamy Natural?

We must be so careful with language. It is such a powerful tool for describing, categorizing, and making inferences about the natural world. We sometimes forget that synonyms are contextually bound. The more precise our analysis, the more precise our language must be.

That being said, I fear that some of our discussions about human sexuality thus far have confused the term "natural" with the term "normal." Natural can be defined in many ways, but based upon its etymology, having some relationship with nature is a dominant theme. Normal is a statistical term, generally referring to a characteristic or behavior that is possessed or demonstrated by a large percentage of a population. A "large percentage" is often operationally defined as falling within one, two, or three standard deviations from the mean (around 68%, 95%, or 99.7% of the population, respectively).

So, is monogamy normal? Current scientific consensus says no, not really. When it comes to human beings, monogamous pairings have been standard practice in less than 20% of sampled societies. Although monogamy is the norm in contemporary western societies, this is a relatively new convention. Understanding monogamy from an evolutionary perspective can be difficult, since many inferences must be made based on available evidence. In addition, how researchers define monogamy runs the gamut, from descriptions of marital, social, sexual, serial, and even genetic monogamy.

Is monogamy natural? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, and any related discussion requires an understanding of what it means for something to be natural. I'm not sure how possible a consensus on this definition really is. One of the largest barriers to an agreement on how we define natural is an agreement on whether or not humans should be considered natural. Yes, we are biologically natural. We are made of the stuff of stars. We evolved the same way every other extant or extinct species that ever existed evolved--up to a point. Somewhere along the line, we developed cognitive capabilities that have been unsurpassed by any other documented creature. We use significantly more complex tools than any other ape in the wild. We wear clothing and build extravagant shelters to protect ourselves from extreme weather. We have language and art and culture and religion and tradition and ceremony. Are these practices natural? Are we subject to Darwinian natural selection? Or have we decommissioned evolution to some extent, subjecting ourselves to the artificial pressures of choosing mates based upon intellectual factors?

Looking again to our closest animal relatives, amongst primates in general, roughly 80% have been documented as predominantly polygamous. This figure is close to estimates of the existence of the practice amongst human hunter-gatherer societies. Only about 3-5% of known animal species have been documented to exhibit monogamous pair-bonding. And even in species where pairs are known to mate for life (many birds fall into this category), the majority of individuals "cheat." I wonder if this has anything to do with a recent study which posits that socially monogamous animals often settle for mates who are not very sexually attractive.

Regardless of labels, a central theme seems to be emerging in contemporary sexuality research: monogamy is not natural. This is not a moral opinion. This statement does not imply that monogamy is or is not somehow healthy or right for human culture or individual happiness. It also does not imply that monogamy is an unattainable goal for those striving to attain it. It simply means that monogamy does not seem to fit well within the natural landscape, especially that of our evolutionary predecessors.

What does this mean to you? What would you like to talk nerdy about tomorrow?

See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts: www.huffingtonpost.com/news/talk-nerdy-to-me
Like Cara Santa Maria on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Cara-Santa-Maria
Follow Cara Santa Maria on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CaraSantaMaria

Comments

[Chad McVeigh]

04:42 PM on 12/07/2011

Monogamy is an attempt to circumvent biology and overcome nature. Let's face it, Burger King only exists is because nobody wants to eat McDonald's every single night.

[leener]

03:52 PM on 11/17/2011

I think there is a different dimension to evolution that gets ignored in this conversation about monogamy. Rather than constantly looking back to what our predecessors did, why are we not looking forward to a more evolved consciousness that can sustain a mutually monogamous bond between two people? The next surge in our evolutionary development will be one of the mind and soul. Not religion, not faith, but quantum in nature. That is where the foundation for monogamy begins. Trouble is, most of us are not much more than talking monkeys, mired in our physical existence.

[tribalmind]

09:41 PM on 11/16/2011

The acceptance of monogamy in modern relationships is something I'm trying to understand with a new website, http://tribalmind.net/ .

I think I agree with @Maezeppa, that what we call monogamy could more accurately be described as mutually beneficial 'social monogamy' with imposed 'sexual monogamy', which I believe may be a cultural expectation, rather than strict requirement between individuals. That would account for the 80% of "sample societies" that operate under non-monogamous arrangements. Perhaps assumed monogamy is a result of the egotistical personalities of the West, which, paradoxically, may also be more inclined to stray?

Maybe it's just because I'm in the process of researching this topic, but there does seem to be a lot of focus on this question at the moment, and, I believe, a movement towards acceptance of 'monogamish' relationships. I'm in my late thirties, married to a woman I love dearly, and we have two gorgeous young children. However, this doesn't preclude an occasional attraction to others. I've never acted on that, and I'm not sure if I could live with myself if I did.

http://tribalmind.net is my attempt to gauge the consensus of opinion as to how acceptable infidelity, or 'monogamish' relationships are.

The site is live now, and accepting registrations. The service is entirely free and answers are completely anonymous. You can also ask your own questions (also anonymous).

[Maezeppa]

03:38 PM on 11/15/2011

Monogamy is highly uncommon to most complex species. Mostly we observe a trade-off that balances the divergent interests and needs males and females have when it comes to producing and raising offspring. We have a highly encouraged social monogamy and a striving-for but falling-short of sexual monogamy.

[Eclipse33]

05:34 PM on 11/11/2011

What a lousy article. I am now more convinced than ever that the we have passed the tipping point to sustain a culture. The naturalist are taking charge. This is what teaching naturalistic religion in our schools have given us. Animals lack the ability to think (like us) or understand right and wrong. So this somehow makes cheating ok and "natural". In 80% of societies marring children is "normal" also, so it must be "natural".

What does this mean to me? It is proof that America is morally bankrupt.
Up next: 80% percent of the world live in extreme poverty, So normal and natural.

[HudsonSpeaks]

07:54 PM on 11/11/2011

By "naturalistic religion", do you mean science?

[Syllogizer]

09:00 PM on 11/11/2011

My guess is that Eclipse33 deliberately left that vague. My hope is that the motive is: Eclipse33 realizes that it is not science itself that is the problem, but the false ideology that so often follows it in the US, which Eclipse33 chose to style "naturalistic religion".

[ColleenHarper]

12:04 AM on 11/12/2011

I got the exact opposite out of this article that you did.

I never got the impression that cheating was acceptable. I got the impression that the evidence of science shows that there are very few species that are truly faithfully monogamous. Several that are ostensibly monogamous still show some signs of infidelity.

Did Cara ever say that it was therefore ok? No.

She was making the point that we frequently misuse the two words "normal" and "natural."

Is infidelity natural? Apparently so.

Is infidelity normal? If we look at Newt Gingrich or many other politicians (of either party) it appears infidelity is also normal.

Is infidelity preferred, or is fidelity preferred. I would make a strong argument that the BEST strategy, whether normal, abnormal, natural or unnatural, is FIDELITY.

Yes, America is morally bankrupt, but NOT for the reason YOU suspect. Science had nothing to do with it, at least in the way you misconstrued this article.

[Syllogizer]

03:18 PM on 11/12/2011

The Newt as representative of 'normal'? Ouch!

But you are generalizing too recklessly about politicians. Didn't you notice? With all the foul things the Bushes were accused of, nobody ever accused them of infidelity to their wives.

[Eclipse33]

04:52 PM on 11/15/2011

NOTE! She CLEARLY said (2nd sentence) "This is not a moral opinion." and (5th sentence) "It simply means that monogamy does not seem to fit well within the natural landscape.­"”

Clearly, a moral opinion is not possible in a naturalistic religion. which leave us with no moral ground, just adaptive behaviors.

[jericarla]

02:57 PM on 11/11/2011

looking at human history through its literature and other preserved writings it quickly becomes appearant that monogamy may be the ideal but has seldom been practised. is it natural? from the imperical evidence no.

[Syllogizer]

06:25 PM on 11/11/2011

Your look at human history must be skewed and jaundiced to reach that conclusion. Try again. This time, remember that literature deliberately distorts things for dramatic effect.

[jericarla]

07:19 PM on 11/11/2011

ahhh so you support the premis that monogamy is a natural normal state of being for homosapiens sapiens?

[Syllogizer]

09:01 PM on 11/11/2011

Don't you know the difference between "premise" and "conclusion"?

[Cherry0892]

02:11 PM on 11/11/2011

Interesting topic. Natural vs. normal.

On the emotional side, to some this is freeing, to others depressing. Personally, I do believe I'm on the depressed end. But that would be due to my growing up in a western society with western ideologies. I keep an open mind, or at least try to, but my hopes and dreams still revolve around the age-old (or not so old) monogamous relationship, true love and all that stuff. I am a product of my times and of my society.

Looking at the bigger picture this makes a lot of sense, but also makes me wonder why certain religions and societies went against the natural inclination and preached monogamy.

[jf12]

02:42 PM on 11/11/2011

It's what works.

[ColleenHarper]

12:09 AM on 11/12/2011

Christianity actually condoned polygamy. The only statements for monogamy Paul made was that it was his preference that leaders of the churches be husbands of one wife.

And from that, modern Christians believe they can read that marriage is between one man and one woman, when all Paul advised was that the man take only one woman to be his wife.

It was later that the church decided that marriage should be strictly monogamous, but that the woman was still property passed from the father to the husband.

It's only been in the last 100 or so years that women became human in their own right.

[jf12]

09:06 AM on 11/12/2011

Polygamy was never condoned in early Christianity; barely tolerated in converts, multiple marriage never administered. Some Jewish men had two wives at the time because of decimation, but it was very rare in the Roman world in particular and not very common in the adminstered Gentile tribes. All commentaries agree that Pauls admonition about leaders was principally to exclude divorced and remarried men.

Recall that the male is complementary to the female, and their physical union produces a new being of "one flesh". There is no extra flesh left over to form another union properly.

[highhymes]

02:03 PM on 11/11/2011

Couple of things here first monogamy does NOT necessarily equal marriage (Webster's 3rd definition). Second, serial monogamy seems just as natural as sleeping with multiple partners. Successful sexual relationships have a bilaterally satisfying.

[LibrarianBarb]

01:42 PM on 11/11/2011

You state that 'this is not a moral position'. Okay. But marriage, for many people, is a moral contract as well as a mortal one, and monogamy is integral to that morality so the question for them is 'is monogamy possible? Because if you believe that humans have souls and spiritual natures then what they do and choose is not regulated by what is natural for animals.

[ColleenHarper]

12:20 AM on 11/12/2011

You have injected several unaddressed issues and expect us to accept your additions as givens.

Cara didn't mention marriage, far as I can find on a second look at her article. She talked about monogamy. There is a big difference. Therefore if we address her article, we can ignore your injection of marriage.

Then you complicate your injection of an off-topic subject by insinuating a second off-topic subject, morality.

Then you inject souls and spiritual natures, going even farther off-topic.

You couldn't remain on-topic, could you? You have an agenda that you must inject. Fine. I'll tentatively accept these additional requirements.

In Islam, a religion with marriage, morality, souls and spiritual natures, monogamy is unnecessary, because Islam allows a man to have more than one wife, simultaneously.

In other religions, there are similar conditions, recognizing that some think of women only as chattel possessed by the man, so the man has no need to be monogamous, while the woman darned well better, yet these religions also have marriage, morality, soul and spiritual nature.

It seems you insist on forcing us into a Christian/Jewish-only discussion. I don't need Christianity to inform me that it is best for my girlfriend (yes, I'm lesbian, get over it) and me to be monogamous and faithful. I can do that simply based on what I believe is best, natural and normal for the soundest relationship she and I can have.

[LibrarianBarb]

08:17 AM on 11/17/2011

Uh - you are also interjecting unaddressed issues into my answer. I did not mention either Christianity or Judiasm and did not 'force' it into the discussion. I did not mention Christianity, state that i am a Christian or do anything to 'inform' you what is best for you, so there is nothing for me to 'get over'. You sound defensive.
What i said is that monogamy - and most tho not all monogamous people are married - is not usually a question that people discuss in terms of what is normal for the animal kingdom. It is about what is expected and possible for human beings. We all know people in both gay and straight relationships who live in lifelong monogamy and others with a string of break-ups and divorces - obviously monogamy is possible for some and not for others, and those who do believe, as you do, that it is 'best, natural and normal' for human beings. So do I.

[Arion]

01:24 PM on 11/11/2011

among many pair bonding species, the norm seems to be domestic fidelity, but sexual promiscuity. That is, the couple stays committed for purposes of nesting, child-rearing and hunting, but sleep around.

[jf12]

02:41 PM on 11/11/2011

In the vast majority there is little to no child-rearing.

[ColleenHarper]

12:24 AM on 11/12/2011

You're right, Arion, for those that are pair-bonding. Domestic fidelity and sexual infidelity seem to be compatible.

But as jf12 points out, because so few species have extended child-rearing responsibilities, even domestic fidelity is hardly the norm, and sexual fidelity is either choosing the most appealing partner, or the most available partner.

[averagezoe]

12:42 PM on 11/11/2011

I have often thought that monogamy wasn't natural. While I realize that in today's society it is the accepted norm and that marriage between two people is supposed to be based on physical and emotional fidelity, I can't personally subscribe to that theory. I have nothing against the institution of marriage per se, which is why I made 5 attempts at it, but I've found that living with one person in very close proximity is not conducive to physical intimacy. The old adage "familiarity breeds contempt" is never truer than in a marriage setting. I liked all of my husbands and each relationship was fine as far as friendship and companionship were concerned, but I simply could never bring myself to engage in sexual relations with a man who belches, farts and leaves noxious odors in the bathroom. That's why I finally decided that I'm much better off living by myself and selecting an attractive man to have sex with when the mood strikes me - as long as he goes home afterwards.

[highhymes]

02:06 PM on 11/11/2011

The fact you made 5 attempts makes me a bit suspect on your opinions in general. That said, to infer out of the 7 billion people on Earth there is nary a soul you could opt to remain committed to (know that I specifically did not say "married to" as I have my own predilictions regarding that scam) for an indefinite amount of time makes me think you may not necessarily like people in general.

[Syllogizer]

02:43 PM on 11/11/2011

But what has "personally subscribe to that theory" got to do with scientific discussion of the topic? Remember that Cara at least says she is interested in scientific discussion.

[Kevin Dugan]

12:23 PM on 11/11/2011

Whether monogamy is natural or not is a peripheral question to whether monogamy best serves the survival of a critical mass of human being or of the human species itself. Obviously on the question of a critical mass of human beings it has served them well enough that they have prospered and survived.

However, times and circumstances change and so do our mating strategies. For example, polygamy was used as a survival and growth strategy by the early Mormons as a major factor to survival was how fast you could increase membership either by bearing children or through conversion. More women allowed for faster growth - presuming the availability of sufficient resources to support that growth.

Consider a variation on the theme of line marriages where the marriage is one of couples. Allowing for the increased security women look for and for the increased variety that men look for while still tethering the males drive to support the greater family.

Children would benefit from more "parents" and the greater stability of the marriage as compared to a monogamous couples marriage where both parents typically work and the care of the child is passed around to a number of non-family members. The family itself would benefit from both the increased resources of more mature family members but also because of the extended life of the marriage allowing for a longer term planning and resource accrual.

[Syllogizer]

02:51 PM on 11/11/2011

How can it be 'peripheral'? Did you miss everything Cara said in her article about different senses of the word 'natural'? If, as you say, it "best serves the survival" of human beings, then it IS natural for us, in the sense that it helps lead us to our natural goal, our own (not necessarily selfish) good.

[Kevin Dugan]

04:49 PM on 11/11/2011

No, I did not miss everything Cara said in her article about different senses of the word 'natural'.

In fact, because of the different senses of the word, asking whether monogamy is 'natural' is an ambiguous question. With multiple potentially correct answers.

It may be useful to ask and explore the various possible answers but I assert that it is more important to ask whether a particular reproductive strategy results in the continuation of a critical mass of human beings sufficient to continue that line of human beings rather than whether a particular strategy is 'natural'.

And beyond that I assert that it is more important to ask whether a particular strategy would be better for continuing the human species as a whole.

After all, the essence of a reproductive strategy (such as monogamy) is the perpetuation of the species and whether the strategy is 'natural' or not is secondary, peripheral to whether it is successful.

[ColleenHarper]

12:32 AM on 11/12/2011

Actually, most of history was probably a record more of polygamy rather than monogamy. And even where monogamy was practiced, the only fidelity required was of the woman. Men didn't want to raise other men's children, but were happy to have other men raise their sports.

Male-dominance of women would basically enforce women's monogamy and fidelity while men could do as they pleased -- unless they got caught playing with another man's property, i.e. his wife.

[Kevin Dugan]

01:03 AM on 11/12/2011

It might be true that polygamy has historically been more widely practiced than monogamy in name but I suspect that it in practice it was limited to men of power.

Agreed regarding the disparity between fidelity being expected of women but not men.

Agreed regarding men not wanting to raise other men's children but generally being happy to have other men raise theirs.

Certainly men have attempted to dominate women and enforce their monogamy/fidelity. That doesn't mean they were actually successful at it.

In more recent times a study was done in England where the the blood types of children and their putative father's were compared based on hospital records. Amazingly, 25% of the children could not have been fathered by the male listed as being the father because the child's and the father's blood types were incompatible. The actual percentage would be higher as the study would not catch instances where the biological father's blood type was the same as either the listed father's or the biological mother's.

Obviously the study's results aren't broadly applicable but it does give you something to think about.

[jstrate]

12:19 PM on 11/11/2011

It may be misleading to say that for humans monogamy is not natural when even in H-G societies most marriages (for ecological reasons, since most men cannot afford to take more than one wife and some none at all) are monogamous. So monogamy is the norm, even in H-G societies, even though a few men are able to take more than one wife. Culturally imposed monogamy has a lengthy history and seems to exist for the benefit of men of lower wealth and status. It may be a necessary condition for democracy: one man, one wife; one person, one vote as Gowaty put it. The norms supporting culturally imposed monogamy seem to be fraying in the U.S. due to increasing inequality and the self-serving narratives of powerful men who engage in serial monogamy, take on mistresses, philander, and think that they can engage in sexual harassment without penalty. The rules only apply to the little people.

[ColleenHarper]

12:48 AM on 11/12/2011

So basically your argument is that monogamy is, or at least should be, the norm, but you haven't addressed the issue of fidelity at all.

For men in most societies, fidelity seems to have little or no social coercion. And the stronger the male, the less social coercion can require fidelity, until there is NO social coercion to require fidelity.

Women in most societies at least at one time had fairly strong social coercion to remain faithful, but that coercion is weakening. As men become more completely detached from fidelity, any social coercion for women to remain faithful collapses. After all, where are unfaithful men going to find women with whom to practice infidelity.

[Kevin Dugan]

11:12 AM on 11/12/2011

"As men become more completely detached from fidelity, any social coercion for women to remain faithful collapses."

And yet we have cultures where men are blatantly promiscuous and the social coercion for women to remain faithful has not collapsed. FLDS for instance, or Islamic cultures where polygamy is allowed along with fixed duration contract marriages where the contract may last say, an hour.

The strongest basis for a woman's fidelity to a man is the preservation of a secure environment for her to conceive and raise a child.

As long as his in-fidelity does not threaten that, as long as he remains an otherwise suitable person to father and be a father to her children and as long as she has no other options then she still has an interest for maintaining fidelity.

Whether in-fidelity is perceived as a threat by women may be culturally specific. Consider France.

Social support for women (financial, day-care...) may offer women the ability to raise their children without even being attached to a man. Consider negative birth rate countries.

"After all, where are unfaithful men going to find women with whom to practice infidelity­."

With unattached women on birth control.

I'd suggest that there are a lot more variables as to whether a woman remains faithful to a man than his fidelity. And that the social coercion for her to remain faithful may or may not be related to the social acceptance of his infidelity.

[Thomas Buckley]

11:19 AM on 01/06/2012

If by H-G Societies you mean Hunter Gatherer societies, I think that scientific studies of those societies show the opposite of what you claim. Almost without exception those societies are NOT monogamous. Please refer to the book Dawn of Sex which provides hundreds of source citations for this fact.

[vandalhooch]

11:54 AM on 11/11/2011

Finally, some science articles on HuffPo that aren't ridiculously infused with New Agism nonsense. However, I really disagree with the implication that humans may not be subject to evolution anymore due to our culture and technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just run down through your Hardy-Weinberg assumptions. Humans as a species or global population violate all five of them.

What has changed is the nature and strength of selective pressures on our population. Which phenotypes and alleles that are positively selected for have simply shifted. Genetic research has shown that the rate of genomic change in humans has actually accelerated in the last 10,000 years not declined or stopped.

[Cara Santa Maria]

04:00 PM on 11/11/2011

Vandalhooch, I'm glad you raised this point! Please don't misunderstand. I do not think that humans are no longer evolving. I think that our selection pressures have shifted from natural ones to artificial ones, much like domestic plants and animals. I think we are on the same page with this point :)

[vandalhooch]

12:43 AM on 11/12/2011

Not sure I completely agree. You seem to be implying that there are no natural selective pressures. I would argue that while many of them are significantly reduced none have been "eliminated" completely.

This is all beside the point of trying to define "artificial" selection. How is anything that an animal like Homo sapiens does be construed as "not natural"? The typical examples of artificial selection (crops, livestock, and pets) include an element of intent on the part of breeders. Is that really what is occurring to the global human population today?

[ColleenHarper]

12:52 AM on 11/12/2011

While I had to look up Hardy-Wein­berg principle, you are absolutely correct.

But then, I too have always maintained that humans are continuing to evolve, and I have maintained that we are evolving exponentially faster than in the past, just as you state.

[dkrypt]

11:32 AM on 11/11/2011

After homosexuality is firmly in the marriage law books, polygamy is the next obvious marriage redefinition fight. Then they'll work on lowering marriage ages down to the age of being capable of reproduction.

It's all natural.

[Syllogizer]

02:55 PM on 11/11/2011

Why stop there? Once all sense of restraint is tossed aside, why would they stop with the age of fertility?

But not to worry: the war, famine and pestilence caused by global warming will tear human civilization to shreds before that happens.

[ColleenHarper]

01:01 AM on 11/12/2011

Haven't you heard? Marriage has historically been polygamous as well as monogamous, depending on your social traditions. After all, don't you think Muslims marry? Even first-century Christians were polygamous. Why else would Paul say that it was his wish that church leaders (i.e. deacons, etc) be husbands of ONE wife?

And it appears the only (rational) reason the Latter Day Saints ended polygamy was to join the United States. Many members STILL practice polygamy.

So don't blame polygamy on homosexuality. We had NOTHING to do with it. We're merely demanding what is clearly a CIVIL right, since ALL marriages in every state in the Union is a Civil marriage.

Oh, and homosexuality IS natural (i.e. many species have homosexual-practicing pair bonds) but it is NOT normal (i.e. very few pair bonds are homosexual.)

And your comment is off-topic.

[dkrypt]

07:45 AM on 11/12/2011

I'm in favor of total sexual freedom without government interference.

[Syllogizer]

04:06 PM on 11/12/2011

There is absolutely no evidence that there were any "polygamous first century Christians". You need to use more reliable sources, since whatever source you relied on for that has let you down badly.