Monogamy under siege?

[thir]

It is said that monogamy is under siege from many sides.

Here is one, although you may think that genes tend to get taken as the reason for just about everything.

"Is Sexual Infidelity Genetic?"

"Serial cheaters and randy bachelors often seem deeply unable to stay monogamous; could there be scientific proof to their claims that they “just can’t help it”? According to a new study out from Binghamton University, the propensity for infidelity might possibly be blamed on DNA."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/is-sexual-infidelity-genetic.html#ixzz1C9FFSmmU

Another is an article by David P Barash called "Deflating the Myth of Monogamy"
(which was followed by a book with the same title).

In it, he reports that research in animal behaviour the last decade show that very few animals are monogamours, even among species thought to be.

"By the 1980's, studies employing blood typing as well as analyses of proteins were leading researchers to question whether social monogamy and sexual monogamy were necessarily synonymous."

His conclusion: "there is no question about monogamy's being natural. It isn't.

http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/fys/barash%20on%20monogamy.htm

Helen Croydon: "Monogamy is not our natural state"
(Helen Croydon is a print and broadcast journalist, specialising in investigations and features on relationships, sex and the sex industry.)

"Choosing our family members, wasn't, you would have thought, a matter for the high courts, not in a democratised world anyway. But it seems judicial teams in the most unlikely of places are taking on these new roles, attempting to define our marital nirvana. Last week, a Californian judge ruled that the state's ban on gay marriages was unconstitutional, leaving thousands of people free at last to choose who they marry.

In the same week, Canada resumed its stab at modernising family values. The supreme court in British Columbia – a province unlike California in every possible way – has been asked to review its centuries-old law which forbids polygamy. It has called on the research of sociologists and evolutionists in an attempt to rule whether the monogamous family unit really is the route to Utopia.

"Canada isn't the only country questioning whether monogamy is an outdated ideal. France's first lady, Carla Bruni, famously declared she is "easily bored by monogamy". Last month, Cameron Diaz proclaimed relationships can last "two, five or 20 years" but she doesn't believe in sharing her bed with the same person her whole life."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/helen-croydon-monogamy-is-not-our-natural-state-2047116.html

So what do you think?

Is monogamy biological or cultural?

Is social monogamy and sexual monogamy synonymous?

Is it still the best way, and if so, why? If not, why?

[rocco]

this i think is avery interesting question! i would actually say myself that monogamy is biological, my reasons for this are not religious as such but more to the point of natural respect! a swan for example will stay with its partner for eternity, so like many other species in the animal kingdom. i dont think i can agree with Helen Croydon though, she must have a heart of steel! in many cultures you can under the "religious authority" have more than one wife, but in saying that after speaking to some friends who come from countries where this is allowed, they told me it causes more grief than tranquility!! anyone who is anyone thats had experiences of being "twotimed" will agree the heartbreak and distruction the said affair can cause, along with the misery of mistrust. again having more than one partner can in itself bring harm due to sexually transmitted illnesses. i wouldnt say i was old fashioned, but realistic. my view here is that if you and your partner are open to discuss problems and steer the relationship in a "mutual" capacity, working as to what you both like and want. there would be no reason to find another to fill the gap that causes polygamy. life seems more serene when two work together than having many, after that it gets complicated and heartbreaking!
thanks for posing question.

[thir]

this i think is avery interesting question! i would actually say myself that monogamy is biological, my reasons for this are not religious as such but more to the point of natural respect! a swan for example will stay with its partner for eternity, so like many other species in the animal kingdom.


That is what I found food for thought - that so few species really are monogamous. Not even swans, according to this. This was news to me.




i dont think i can agree with Helen Croydon though, she must have a heart of steel! in many cultures you can under the "religious authority" have more than one wife, but in saying that after speaking to some friends who come from countries where this is allowed, they told me it causes more grief than tranquility!! anyone who is anyone thats had experiences of being "twotimed" will agree the heartbreak and distruction the said affair can cause, along with the misery of mistrust. again having more than one partner can in itself bring harm due to sexually transmitted illnesses. i wouldnt say i was old fashioned, but realistic. my view here is that if you and your partner are open to discuss problems and steer the relationship in a "mutual" capacity, working as to what you both like and want. there would be no reason to find another to fill the gap that causes polygamy. life seems more serene when two work together than having many, after that it gets complicated and heartbreaking!


I do know what you mean, I have been there like so many others. Yet I am poly, which is non-mono with respect.



thanks for posing question.

Glad you like it :-)

[denuseri]

I enjoyed the reaserch data on sexual identity being as many other reaserchers are finding out in other fields conserning human behaviors etc a hardware thing as much as a software thing.

Structure = function is after all the mantra of more than just anatomy and phisiology.

Are we actually evolving into some sort of mass global culture in which monogamy will one day become obsolete?

Perhaps....but not anytime soon is my guess, not without making radical changes to our genetic makeup to speed it along, outside simuli (such as enviromental changes ie urbanization and modernization) can only influence one to a certian extent.

Certian anthropological behaviors conserning the survival and propogation of the species have worked better than others and are very much a part of one's hardware or nature as opposed to others.

It shouldnt be a surprise that humanitys breeding habits are not as far off from their closest kissing cousins in the animal world as humanity would like to think.

If anything serial monogomy may be proven to be more of an illussion is all, like the difference between the romantic ideal of somthing and the reality of its function in actual practice.

[rocco]

yes it is a tricky one this topic, i have to admit. even in the plant kingdom there is pologomy in some sense of the word, if it was looked at like a "normal" relationship. i.e. a bumble bee has to pollonate a flower for the flower to survive, the bee takes the necta and turns it into honey! then other bees also settle on the same flower some time later. this could be perceived as pologomy i guess?!!!? i know it sounds odd but in respect this could be likened to any sort of "natural survival" of a species! when the world was young and the human race began its global dominance, everyone lived in tribes. monogomy was the way forward in that tribes survival as most would of been related in some way.[maybe im biting off a bit more than i can chew here] now as time has come forward and mankind is made up of different cultures customs and colour monogomy has in a sense is not taken as seriuosly as it once was! [i really hope this makes sense ive had to read it four times!!!!] but within a small unified relationship as you said denuseri, unless there are radical changes, especially to the "emotional" side of our genetic make up, monogomy is and should really be kept high on the priority list.
and thanks again thir, most intresting.