Who put the X in SEX?
Rachel Johnson
Monogamy, we think it is our nature, but biology tells us another tale. Men and women are biologically different. No one can deny that. We are built with different sex organs, and made to do two different things. Males provide the sperm, women provide the eggs. So were we really built to mate and stay together?
The answer lies on our reproductive organs. Men make billions and billions of sperms. If men were meant to be monogamous they would not be driven to be so productive of semen. In fact if one man was given the chance he could father thousands of offspring. Yet not every sperm makes a baby. Chances are most of his sperm will die before it gets close to an egg. It is survival of the fittest.
Women only produce one egg per 28 days, so this must mean they were meant to be monogamous, right? Well biology is now telling another tale. After it was found that semen can actually fight inside of the vagina. That is right. It is a first come first serve war, and the winner is the dominant sperm. it seems that sperm can smell intruders, and some of the sperm will stay back and try to fend off the newcomers. The price they pay is with death, but in the hopes that the more dominant sperm will reach the egg. This would not be the case in a monogamous situation.
That is because it is an evolutionary development. A remnant of the past when a female mated with many males. She would spend time with her mate, and then leave him for the next suitor. this ensured that the males did not know who the father was, but the whole group would care for the offspring. Otherwise a dominant male would kill any offspring he thought were not his.
Monogamy is really a new word. For centuries kings, and men of wealth have had numerous wives, slaves and concubines. Even queens and women in harems have been known to keep other men around, and secret lovers. In reality monogamy has only served for the poor who wanted to retain their assets. It has not been common practice of anyone to be faithful for a lifetime. What we consider a standard for humanity is really just a religious designed illusion. In fact there is no where in any holy book that says for one man to keep to only one woman. There is only the command that one woman keep to her man. That was the creation of the security of men that their wealth was not being wasted on offspring that is not theirs. However; this has not changed nature.
From the time of the stone age to today if a man questions the paternity of offspring, he is more likely to be more hostile towards it, and care less for it. This is why it is often, but not always more dangerous for others to parent our children, when they are not biologically attached. It is an innate urge to not waste resources on offspring that do not carry our genetic code. Which makes modern parenting more complex.
The reality is we are primitively driven, and expectations about monogamy, and security are largely overblown. The chances of a person finding a mate that will be monogamous for a lifetime are probably as good as playing a scratch off ticket from the lotto. About one in every 500 win. In reality instead of fighting our nature we should accept it. This does not mean we all have to sleep with everyone, what it means is to understand that there are limits to how far we can push our nature. Dominant men still want to show their dominance by having lots of women. Dominant woman want to show theirs by being sexually selective, and enjoying lots of men.
No matter how you look at it nature is nature, and we are subject to the rules of the game. So maybe we should work with who we are. Put a little spice into romance, and accept people who chose to be openly non monogamous. We should understand that the rules to our true nature are decided by each of us and not society.
LOVE IT!!
ReplyDeleteTRUE.
ReplyDeletePeople have a long and successful history of not accepting the rules of nature. It is the undisputed hallmark of homo Sapien.
ReplyDeleteSuccessful open relationship commenting. Agreed wholeheartedly. It's amazing how many people tell me that someone involved in my OR is bound to get hurt.
ReplyDeleteTo add a little more biological perspective, I'd like to add that there are evolutionary benefits to both sexes of non-monogamy.
ReplyDeleteYes, males make lots of sperm and it benefits them to sleep with many women. But women are subject to the same evolutionary pressures - the drive to have many offspring.
Evolutionarily, the best way a woman can have lots of offspring is to have sons. Sons who will have many lovers.
So who is the best father for her sons? Which male does she want them to be most like? She wants them to be like the males who sleep around a lot. That's the guy whose babies would benefit her evolutionarily.
But she can't raise them alone very easily. It's better for her to have a social partner to assist in raising the children. So evolutionarily, women benefit most if they have multiple partners - a social partner who raises her children with her, and sexual partners who are the biological fathers of those children. Often the social and sexual partner will be one and the same. With numerous children, there could be numerous biological fathers but only one social father.
This is not an unusual set-up in nature. It's found in many species. In fact, this exact system is what we find in the icon of monogamy - swans. Those birds that we're told "mate for life"? They sleep around behind each others' backs. Because it makes evolutionary sense...
100%!!!
ReplyDeleteThere are quite a few social theories as to why monogamy is beneficial both in societal terms and evolutionary advantage.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the message, but the post has this niggling implication that monogamy is unnatural. It really isn't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1758187/pdf/v075p00126.pdf
DeleteSorry Anonymous. The trend has never been monogamy, but we are primates of poly amory. This evidence is found in sperm fighting in the uterus. Sperm would only have developed this trend if there was competition enough to do so. :D
...Did you really just post a section called "personal view" in response, and use an opinion as some authority? What about species of worms that are socially monogamous inside our bodies?
Deletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18674968
We tried a purely biological view before. It *never* works. As I said, and you didn't dispute, monogamy has several advantages in the social realm that aid to survival. As for sperm, sure, and the same is probably true of our common ancestor. However, we both know evolution leaves behind vestiges while behaviors modulate over time.
I don't recall saying "monogamy is the norm" but to try and frame it as "unnatural" is codswallop and completely against any sort of understanding of human behavior. Monogamy, polygamy, and asexuality are all natural. To go with this whole "free your body and mind" bull disguised as science seems peculiar to me. If you want to be monogamous do. If you don't, don't. But to frame one as unnatural is just a little dishonest.
Okay, I have no clue what worms you are talking about living in us being mmonogamous, but they are not part of us(if you have them). The only thing we share symbiosis with is mitochondria, which has its own DNA. So who we are is independent of other organisms. Monogamy is a choices, and a cultural practice. It has benefits for the genetic offspring and their caretaking, but in no way is superior over diversity. I know about genetic bottlenecking, and the need for diversity in our genes. I study biology in college, so my opinions come from biology. I am not yet an authority, but I do read and give the studies that are. Just liek the one I offered to you. I have no clue what this worm is but I hasve never heard of any parasite that effects our sexual selection. But thanks for your comments.
Delete"I have no clue ... (if you have them."
DeleteThe pairings are monogamous. As when they are in the human body (if they get in there, I suppose). The rest of your statement is irrelevant.
"Monogamy is a choice(), and a cultural practice."
And this is different from polygamy how? You don't get to specially plead and say one is nature, the other is a choice. It's the *exact* same argument used against homosexuality, and we both know it's bull. Monogamy is as natural as is polygamy.
"I study biology in college, so my opinions come from biology."
What you study is entirely irrelevant. And no, your opinions don't come from biology. They come from your interpretation of the scientific literature, which I contest because it's narrow and obscured.
"Just like the one I offered you."
If you had offered me a paper authored by Richard Davidson in Science or Nature that was an original report, that'd be one thing. You offered me a "personal insight" section. Those are *not* equivocal, and if even if I did grant that someone has "authority," it'd still fail in comparison to another.
"I hasve never heard of any parasite that effects our sexual selection."
Because no one has said that there is one. You clearly just didn't read what I wrote at all.
Please don't thank me for my comments. Just stop treating polygamy and monogamy in this sort of "oooh, one is natural and one is not." They're both natural and they're both dependent on the person, and they're both steeped in evolutionary benefit.