23

As the question states, got curious and I was wondering if monogamy is an innate human behaviour or is it because of how we built society (religion, traditions, etc.)?

Let's say we go back in time, would we see humans settling down with a single partner at a time and caring for their children as a couple for life or would they reproduce with several leaving the mothers with their children?

Thanks!

4265726E6172646F
  • 767
  • 1
  • 6
  • 16
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – AliceD Jul 11 '17 at 07:11
  • Please see this meta post for a discussion on why this question was closed. – canadianer Jul 11 '17 at 18:51
  • Not at all... Humans are traditionally a warrior territorial tribal culture, that fight, that catch slaves as trophies, slaves are generally recorded in all human cultures, from roman, greek, north america, south american, papuan, african, oriental, chinese, vikings, slavery was the norm, as soon as the culture was a warrior culture... The female slaves did work for the owners, and they probably weren't nuns!!! I saw a papuan on TV say: my second wife, i ate the husband and buried his leg. the second one, I just ate the brain because i was not hungry and buried the rest. he had 3 wives. – bandybabboon Jul 11 '17 at 19:51
  • 5
    How in the heck is this opinion-based? The are arguments on human monogamousness based on the differences in physiology between humans and other apes (whose sexual behaviour is known, and probably stems from biology rather than cultural expectations). There may be other arguments. Whether someone accepts any of those arguments is different, but then humans are very good at denying things they don't like, regardless of the subject. Even a possible lack of consensus doesn't make something opinion-based: "we don't know for sure but here's what we do know" is a valuable answer too. – ilkkachu Jul 12 '17 at 09:28
  • 2
    @ilkkachu Quickly gain 2899 reputation and vote to reopen! – canadianer Jul 12 '17 at 16:49
  • "leaving the mothers with their children?" I'm a big fan of promiscuity theory, but my question is: where would they leave? Men and women lived closely to each other, in large groups. There was no such thing as a private house. – rus9384 Jan 24 '19 at 07:18

4 Answers4

23

Humans are believed to be mostly serial monogamists with a noticeable components of secret cheating. Serial monogamy means most will have a single partner at a time but will likely have several partners throughout their life, there is however an under current (~15%) of hidden cheating in most studied populations. Also I say mostly becasue human behavior is plastic and nearly every possible combination exists, albeit in small numbers. Males do have a stronger tendency to seek multiple partners at the same time, which makes biological sense.
like many social species you really have several mating strategies coexisting, often in the same head. Our large brains allow for more flexible approach to strategies.

In other animals exclusive (one mate forever) monogamy is exceptionally, almost breathtakingly rare, (not counting animals that only ever mate once). The Azara's night monkey is one of the few that has been backed by genetic research. Almost every monogamous species ever studied either has some rate of cheating, or is serial monogamous.

John
  • 14,652
  • 1
  • 22
  • 53
  • 22
    Unlike other species humans also have an incredible ability to resist and skew objective studies of their behavior (from reality TV wannabes to lawsuits to crimes against humanity trials) so be mindful of how any such data has been collected. – candied_orange Jul 10 '17 at 01:32
  • 2
    Data collected from the Ache hunter gatherer tribe suggests that humans were somewhat promiscuous even when it could not be kept hidden. Relative testes size, which for humans are intermediate between highly promiscuous chimpanzees and the gorillas with their single sire harems, would tend to confirm an intermediate level of promiscuity. The Ache data suggest that a moderate level of promiscuity was adaptive, with survival to adulthood maximized at about two potential fathers per child due to the significant chance of fathers dying from violence before their children reached adulthood. – Warren Dew Jul 10 '17 at 04:17
  • 8
    Answer would be improved by contextualising monogamy with an example of a species that is actually monogamous. I remember seeing a documentary which mentioned a species of lizard which pair for life, and walk side by side for the rest of their lives until one dies. But maybe it was just a dream I had when I fell asleep watching a nature program... point is, we often think we're "monogamous" but biologically speaking there are many species which actually pair for life and put our romantic efforts to shame. –  Jul 10 '17 at 12:02
  • I claim that humans have only one partner at a time only because they are too lazy to prove others that they do not live wrong if they choose to have several partners at once. Unless a date lasted for a few hours in prehistoric times. – rus9384 Jan 24 '19 at 07:19
13

The easy answer is simply, no.

The longer answer is that it depends on whatever cultural norms that are practiced in a given area at a certain time.

Often powerful men in history had multiple lovers, but had arranged marriages. Like wise open relationships were very normal in the 60's and 70's of the 20th century. Also polygamous relationships are practiced in certain religions today.

While in modern times, especially in the west, we seem to tend toward the monogamous relationships, it seems to be more dependent on culture rather than biology.

Jeppe Nielsen
  • 679
  • 3
  • 10
  • 8
    As a personal comment. If we were evolved to be monogamous it seems rather conflicting that we can be sexually attracted to other people besides our current partner. – Jeppe Nielsen Jul 09 '17 at 23:59
  • 4
    Mating partners die sometimes, and quite frequently in the past. Bonding so strongly that you don't find another attractive makes no sense. –  Jul 10 '17 at 20:00
  • @fredsbend: But many, if not most, humans actually act on those attractions without waiting for the death of the current partner. – jamesqf Jul 12 '17 at 05:00
  • @James 1) That has nothing to do with the original assertion in Jeppe's comment. 2) "Many" and "most" are not words I'd use to describe 15% of the population. –  Jul 12 '17 at 15:21
  • @fredsbend my original comment was mostly focused on the cases were sexual attraction occur despite the partner being within a few meters. However if that increases the chance of passing on our genes, it is hardly surprising that we feel that way. From a simplified perspective; males being opportunistic while females seek stability and safety, would make good sense based on the hunter/gatherer theory. Males would then seek to pass on their genes as often as possible, while females would prioritize the safety of children by pursuing relationships with the males supplying food most often. – Jeppe Nielsen Jul 12 '17 at 16:10
  • "males being opportunistic while females seek stability and safety". I think that's the leading theory to give explanatory power to male/female interactions. –  Jul 12 '17 at 17:58
  • @fredsbend: True, but the problem is not with the many/most observation, but with your 15% statistic. – jamesqf Jul 12 '17 at 18:36
  • @Jeppe Nielsen: You do realize, don't you, that a good many of us engage in sex without any intention of passing on our genes? Indeed, some of us spend time & money to avoid doing so. Over $19 billon in the US, as of 2015, per this: https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/contraceptives-market-report – jamesqf Jul 12 '17 at 18:41
  • @jamesqf, most certainly... but do you realise how few generations that have had that option. Also, sex in other species can be used in to build social cohesion. So sex doesn't have to be about having children. – Jeppe Nielsen Jul 13 '17 at 00:11
  • @Jeppe Nielsen: I think it's always been an option (at least since humans recognized the connection between sex and procreation), it's just that current technology makes it much more convenient. There are records of birth control techniques as far back as 1500 BCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control – jamesqf Jul 13 '17 at 17:37
  • And as horrible as it sounds, abandonment has been a common method for a long time. Birth the baby, leave it somewhere. –  Jul 13 '17 at 20:38
  • @fredsbend 15% is definitely many people. Many enough to take them into account and explain their existence more argumentatively than "They exist only due to random useless mutations". Also, an average polyamorous human might be much more attractive/fertile than monogamous. This is another important factor. There is literally no sense in a completely unattractive person wanting to have multiple partners because it is insanely hard to get even one. – rus9384 Nov 02 '18 at 20:02
  • @JeppeNielsen That theory is flawed. Males do not seek as much partners as they can, otherwise they would be attracted to any female they see. Why so? Because societies where everyone had almost equal amount of offsprings could be better suited to survival than those where most offsprings belong to one or a few males. For a further support males wanting to have several partners are not often competitive. Also, females would not be only ones being interested to save their children, because if you pass genes to 100 females and all your children die you are less fit than an average male. – rus9384 Nov 02 '18 at 20:20
  • @jamesqf To pass your genes you don't actually need to have an intention of doing exactly that. Especially when there is no contraception. Most animals don't have a desire to become a parent. – rus9384 Nov 02 '18 at 21:04
3

I just read a book on the Evolution of Sex and one of the questions was why primates have lost the estrous cycle. The thought was that the sexual desire of the female anytime rather then periodically tends to keep the male "at Home" ensuring survival of the female and offspring. This implies that males are genetically engineered for monogamy but since females can survive now without a male (as opposed to those living in a cave) some males at least in younger years practice polygamy as do females.

walt
  • 27
  • 2
3

No, they are not.

Polygyny, polyandry and group marriage are, or have been, practiced in various cultures. Polyamory and other forms of non-monogamy are practiced. There are estimates that four to five percent of Americans are involved in consensual non-monogamy (despite social pressure for monogamy).

A sizeable portion of what the porn industry is creating revolves around the subject of threesomes, group sex, cheating, cuckoldry etc. etc., so quite apparently there is a market for that. It turns people on, be that for the thrill of "breaking the taboo" or some underlying desire. (Excuse me for not posting a link to back this up. Use your favourite bookmark.)

There is nothing to indicate that non-monogamy in any of its forms is "unnatural" to humans. Tabooed in some cultures and / or religions, but not unnatural.

...over much of human prehistory, polygyny was the rule rather than the exception...

This paper puts that shift at about 18,000ya -- roughly the same time that agriculture became common, but much too recent to claim that Homo Sapiens as a species is now "naturally" monogamous.

It is rather something that developed culturally:

...an analysis of foragers in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample reveals that male provisioning does affect the mating system. Societies with higher male contribution to subsistence are more monogamous.

On page 147 of "The myth of monogamy. Fidelity and infidelity in animals and people" (ISBN 0-7167-4004-4), David P. Barash concludes that about 80% of human societies lived polygynous before they came into contact with the "Western" culture.

DevSolar
  • 556
  • 3
  • 6
  • 1
    The question is about a general characterization of the species. You've posted examples of exceptions, not generalizations. That's cherry picking, a logical fallacy. –  Jul 10 '17 at 20:02
  • 1
    @fredsbend: At which percentage of current population living non-monogamous, or historic records of non-monogamy, do these so-called "exceptions" suffice in your eyes to indicate that we as a species are not "naturally" monogamous? It's a cultural / religious taboo, mostly. – DevSolar Jul 10 '17 at 20:19
  • @fredsbend: FWIW, lifting from WP, three representative studies in the USA found that "about 10–15% of women and 20–25% of men engage in extramarital sex". There are more numbers in there. That's a pretty large number of "exceptions" to uphold a claim that humans were "naturally" a monogamous species. (Be very aware when crossing the line where you're calling non-monogamous people "unnatural".) – DevSolar Jul 10 '17 at 20:34
  • "It's a cultural / religious taboo, mostly." *citation needed –  Jul 11 '17 at 20:25
  • A taboo shared among cultures and religions throughout millennia. I don't think the evidence can suggest religion and cultural taboo is the only reason people are monogamous. Instead, the fact that it's a widespread taboo suggests something bigger. Something like "innate behavior", or simply "biology". –  Jul 11 '17 at 20:27
  • Don't put a value judgement on the word "natural". The plain meaning is "existing by nature". As the top (and correct) answer says "Monogamous, plus a small minority of cheaters" is an appropriate characterization. Your answer, "no, not monogamous", is not just a mischaracterization, but wrong. –  Jul 11 '17 at 20:33
  • @DevSolar: I think your numbers don't include what seems to be a very large majority of Americans/Western Europeans who engage in sex (often with multiple partners during the same time span), before marriage or in the intervals between marriages. So maybe most are serial monogamists if you compress "serial" down to a day or so :-) – jamesqf Jul 12 '17 at 05:05
  • 1
    @fredsbend: I take "natural"/"innate" behaviour to mean "freak cases nonwithstanding". Tigers are natural carnivores. Horses are natural flight animals. Swans are naturally monogamous. Humans sometimes are, sometimes aren't monogamous, so saying they are "naturally" so is just false, and marginalizing a sizeable portion of the population. Also, you seem to confuse this with a discussion forum. Post a dissenting answer and downvote mine, if you like, but I woukd wellcome if you could get off my back about this. – DevSolar Jul 12 '17 at 05:57
  • @James That's a good point. But what is the actual incidence of people who "sleep around before marriage"? Yes, there's a hookup culture, but my impression is that most people aren't having multiple sex partners day-to-day, month-to-month, or even year-to-year. –  Jul 12 '17 at 16:29
  • @fredsbend: You're still confusing "mainstream culture" with "natural / innate" behaviour. – DevSolar Jul 12 '17 at 16:48
  • @DevSolar Nope. I concede a "hookup culture" which may be an indication of a natural behavior, but then immediately challenge that notion. "Yes, [concede a point], but [challenge the implication]" is a common form and does not indicate confusion on the point or the implication. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. I thought you wanted me to leave you alone? –  Jul 12 '17 at 18:04
  • @fredsbend: These are the comments to my answer you're confusing with a chatroom, and I get notified when you post. And I challenged your closing statement, because it is assuming Western culture as "what's innate behaviour". Check the updates to the answer. Comments are for improving an answer, not discussing an alternative viewpoint or trying to change the poster's mind. – DevSolar Jul 12 '17 at 18:09
  • Why do you keep pinging me? I've been using SE for 5 years. I know the rules on comments and I don't think I've done anything out of the ordinary here. –  Jul 12 '17 at 18:45
  • Consequently, your edited answer is certainly better than the original. Down vote removed. However, I think you need a source for "18000ya [is] much too recent to claim that Homo Sapiens as a species is now "naturally" monogamous." But the Barash source is provocative. I'll be looking closer at that one. –  Jul 12 '17 at 18:47
  • 3
    @fredsbend: If humans were "naturally" monogamous, the first person anyone has sex with would be the only one (barring death &c) (Like some fish, where the male embeds himself in the female.) But (per CDC statistics: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm ) the average is 4-6. When you consider that many people either don't have the practical option of having multiple, frequent sex partners, or choose not to do so for religious/cultural reasons, the conclusion is that the majority aren't monogamous by nature. – jamesqf Jul 12 '17 at 18:51
  • @James Yeah, I didn't want to get into the definitions of monogamy, but that seems inevitable. Monogamy certainly can mean one mate for life, but another definition is one mate at a time. Then we have to define mate too. I would take the definition that it has more to do with procreation and less to do with sex. Ugh. I'm starting to not care. –  Jul 12 '17 at 19:14
  • @fredsbend: S. Fink, L. Excoffier, G. Heckel: Mammalian monogamy is not controlled by a single gene. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. 103, Nr. 29, March 2006, S. 10956–10960. I think you will agree that 18kya is a bit on the short side to make Homo Sapiens come about full swing on a multi-gene trait... – DevSolar Jul 12 '17 at 19:23
  • @fredsbend: WRT monogamy as "one mate at a time", how short a time are we looking at? Years, months, weeks, days? Certainly when we get down to minutes, there are fairly obvious physical limitations :-) Defining "mate" as procreational rather than recreational has difficulties, too. There are people who choose not to procreate but who enjoy recreational sex; there are likewise half-siblings are by no means vanishingly rare. – jamesqf Jul 13 '17 at 17:18
  • @James I don't want to comment much further on this (maybe I would in chat). You bring up some good points, but among many of them we could flip the challenge that has been put on monogamy. The non-monogamous behaviors could very well be culturally influenced more than biologically, and it could be that monogamy is more biologically influenced than culturally. –  Jul 13 '17 at 20:44
  • I wouldn't call humanity polygynous as well. As you said: "group sex, cheating, cuckoldry etc. etc." This quite disproves this theory. As well as that many people (including men) do not have jealousy. I only suspect that many others are jealous because they are only complying to rules (like getting angry if you go to a theatre in shorts) which are not natural. Probably, we are the only primates with group sex (in particular gang bang) and that might explain our differences from other polygynandrous/with dispersed mating primates (like solid ejaculates, dimorphism and big testes). – rus9384 Nov 02 '18 at 21:15