Monogamy

[TarnishedPenny]

Posted just for interest.

BBC: How monogamous are humans? Scientists compile 'league table' of pairing up

Helen Briggs, Environment correspondent

Humans are a bit like meerkats when it comes to pairing up, according to a study that examined the monogamous lifestyles of different species.

In our romantic life, we more closely resemble these social, close-knit mongooses than we do our primate cousins, a "league table" of monogamy compiled by scientists suggests.

At 66% monogamous, humans score surprisingly highly, far above chimps and gorillas – and on a par with meerkats.

However, we are by no means the most monogamous creature. Top spot goes to the Californian mouse - rodents that form inseparable, lifelong bonds.

"There is a premier league of monogamy, in which humans sit comfortably, while the vast majority of other mammals take a far more promiscuous approach to mating," said Dr Mark Dyble at the University of Cambridge.

In the animal world, pairing up has its perks, which may be why it has evolved independently in multiple species, including us. Experts have proposed various benefits to so-called social monogamy, where mates match up for at least a breeding season to care for their young and see off rivals.

Dr Dyble examined several human populations throughout history, calculating the proportions of full siblings – where individuals share the same mother and father – compared with half-siblings, individuals who share either a mother or a father, but not both. Similar data was compiled for more than 30 social monogamous and other mammals.

Humans have a monogamy rating of 66% full siblings, ahead of meerkats (60%) but behind beavers (73%).

Meanwhile, our evolutionary cousins fall at the bottom of the table - with mountain gorillas at 6% rating, while chimpanzees come in at just 4% (alongside the dolphin).

In last place is Scotland's Soay sheep, where females mate with multiple males, with 0.6% full siblings. The Californian mouse came top, at 100%.

However, being ranked alongside meerkats and beavers doesn't mean our societies are the same - human society is poles apart.

"Although the rates of full siblings we see in humans are most similar to species like meerkats or beavers, the social system that we see in humans is very different," Dr Dyble told BBC News.

"Most of these species live in colony-like social groups or perhaps live in solitary pairs that go around together. Humans are very different from that. We live in what we call multi-male, multi-female groups, within which we have these monogamous, or pair-bonded, units."

Dr Kit Opie at the University of Bristol, who is not connected with the study, said this is another piece in the puzzle over how human monogamy arose.

"I think this paper gives us a very clear understanding that across time and across space humans are monogamous," he said.

"Our society is much closer to chimps and bonobos – it just happens that we've taken a different route when it comes to mating."

The new study is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

They seem to be ignoring fishes and birds in their list of monogamous animals.

--Annie

 

[iwatchus]

They seem to be ignoring fishes and birds in their list of monogamous animals.

I don't know fish at all, but several species of birds are highly monogamous and will not take a new mate even after the death of their original mate.

 

[Jorunn]

The follow-up research on this should be ‘why are humans so jealous of each other’.

A trait not often found in nature, except during mating season. Or maybe that explains why female elk go off on their own after mating - so they can get far away from those bulls.

 

[TheLobster]

A trait not often found in nature, except during mating season.

And for us it's always mating season, because human females ovulate year round. Given that, I don't think it's a mystery why jealousy is so persistent.

 

[sirhugs]

I'd settle for gamous.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

This got me thinking about monogamy, which in a way is loyalty and love. When I was very young, there was a columnist named Greg Clark and I used to devour his short pieces every Saturday in a newspaper long since vanished. He was an outdoorsman and frequently wrote of his love of nature. One of his tales is called The Constant Mate and here it is in its entirety.

Foresters in the north of Ontario reported that they found two Canada geese in an open stretch of a river during the first week of December. This was several weeks after the wild geese had left for the south.

“We were able to get within a few feet of them in the outboard skiff,” said the foresters, “before the geese took wing, and then they only flew a hundred yards or so before alighting again.”

What the foresters were witnessing is one of the great romances of wild life. The Canada goose mates for life, and rarely if ever does one goose select a new mate if the first is lost. What was probable in the case the foresters encountered was that one of the pair had either been injured or had grown too old to undertake the journey with the flock. So there the two of them were, sequestered in a lonely northern river soon to be bound in ice, and awaiting in unquestioning companionship the fate nature affords her own.

 

[TheWorldBuilder]

Usual poor BBC clickbait. The headline and sub compare humans and meerkats when the social environments are completely different and the only thing that aligns is the two species' monogamy score.

 

[lc69hunter]

Interesting study, and interesting comments and discussion. What I do not understand, because we are supposedly rational thinking animals, is why so much hate and judgement is targeted at those who choose a different path than strict monogamy.

 

[SimonDoom]

Considering the enormous divergence in monogamous behavior between us and our closest biological cousins, the other apes, the data suggest that culture is the determining factor for monogamy among humans. Which means comparisons with other animals is of limited use, since (other) animal behavior is largely a product of genetics and inheritance.

It's a natural human inclination to project romance upon the natural world, but that's not what's really happening. Geese stay together because they're programmed that way. Humans choose to stay together. I think the element of choice is what elevates the degree and quality of romance in human bonding. There's something very romantic, IMO, about the idea that you choose to bond with another person for life even though your genes are telling you, "You don't have to do this."

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Some get burned so bad, they don't even want to think about letting it happen again.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Humans choose to stay together. I think the element of choice is what elevates the degree and quality of romance in human bonding. There's something very romantic, IMO, about the idea that you choose to bond with another person for life even though your genes are telling you, "You don't have to do this."

Though I'd note that "stay together"/"bond with another person for life" is not synonymous with monogamy. Neither my partner nor I are monogamous, but we've been together several decades and I fully expect it to be 'till death us do part.

 

[Off_base]

Meerkats don't look good in jeans or have bank accounts

 

[StillStunned]

It's a natural human inclination to project romance upon the natural world, but that's not what's really happening. Geese stay together because they're programmed that way. Humans choose to stay together. I think the element of choice is what elevates the degree and quality of romance in human bonding. There's something very romantic, IMO, about the idea that you choose to bond with another person for life even though your genes are telling you, "You don't have to do this."

From quite early on I knew that there would never be anyone for me but the redhead. What I felt with her - and still feel - is so far beyond what I ever felt for anyone else that there's just no comparison. Is that choosing to bond, or is it being programmed that way?

 

[SimonDoom]

Though I'd note that "stay together"/"bond with another person for life" is not synonymous with monogamy. Neither my partner nor I are monogamous, but we've been together several decades and I fully expect it to be 'till death us do part.

I'm not saying that bonding with one person is the ONLY way to be romantic given the genetic inheritance, just that there's something romantic about that.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Meerkats don't look good in jeans or have bank accounts

Sacrilege! Have you not followed the stories of Oleg and Alexandr and the others on comparethemeerkat.com? Simples!

 

[MrPixel]

Not a single mention in the study (that I could find) of the human species' dependence on religion as a root basis for social structure. Modern Western monogamy is/was a survival strategy in times of limited access to resources. Polyamory was accepted practice among the resource-rich until Abrahamic faiths controlled Western civilizations. For example, Arabic harems, and Chinese wealthy and royalty, with their prevalence of mistresses and concubines.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

It may be relevant that Soay sheep are more like goats - they can and do jump over six-foot fences and will run a hundred miles in a day. So the chances of the same other Soay being near them come evening is not high.

 

[Zootonius]

I recall a documentary on the subject awhile back. Two troops of chimpanzees got into a fight, and in the midst of the melee, a female from one troop dashed off into the bushes with a male from the other troop. (Make love not war!)

 

[ronde]

Not a single mention in the study (that I could find) of the human species' dependence on religion as a root basis for social structure. Modern Western monogamy is/was a survival strategy in times of limited access to resources. Polyamory was accepted practice among the resource-rich until Abrahamic faiths controlled Western civilizations. For example, Arabic harems, and Chinese wealthy and royalty, with their prevalence of mistresses and concubines.

I would agree that religion plays an important part in the practice of monogamy, but it's not just in Western civilization. Most Native American tribes practiced monogamy, though divorces were much easier and the divorce was primarily the right of the woman. All she had to do was put all her husband's belongings outside the home and they were considered divorced.

Other primitive tribes also practice monogamy and it is a survival strategy that some anthropologists believe dates back to the formation of basic society. For females, having a constant provider was the best guarantee of her survival and the survival of her children. Unlike most other animals, pregnancy places pretty severe limitations on a woman in the late stages. She wouldn't be able to hunt or even gather food. Having a monogamous mate insured that she would pass on her genes.

For the male, it would seem that impregnating as many women as possible would insure his genes were passed on, but having one woman that he cared for gave him better odds since he could pick that woman based upon physical attributes that indicated probable success in child bearing and child raising.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Not a single mention in the study (that I could find) of the human species' dependence on religion as a root basis for social structure. Modern Western monogamy is/was a survival strategy in times of limited access to resources. Polyamory was accepted practice among the resource-rich until Abrahamic faiths controlled Western civilizations. For example, Arabic harems, and Chinese wealthy and royalty, with their prevalence of mistresses and concubines.

All perfectly valid points, Mr P, but all comparatively recent, too. To be sure, we have no idea when religion came along, but the Abrahamic ones have only been around a few thousand years and that’s a mere blip in terms of the species. Yes, religion can be used to build (support/modify/destroy) societies, but I suspect that most tend to follow long-standing, instinctive habits.

Given the number of religions which are or have been around, it’s odd, for instance, that we know of no (or maybe very few) polyandrous societies or religions. There are a few matrilineal ones and I guess a couple or three matriarchal ones, but polygamy and at least theoretical monogamy seem to be almost universal.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I would agree that religion plays an important part in the practice of monogamy, but it's not just in Western civilization. Most Native American tribes practiced monogamy, though divorces were much easier and the divorce was primarily the right of the woman. All she had to do was put all her husband's belongings outside the home and they were considered divorced.

Other primitive tribes also practice monogamy and it is a survival strategy that some anthropologists believe dates back to the formation of basic society. For females, having a constant provider was the best guarantee of her survival and the survival of her children. Unlike most other animals, pregnancy places pretty severe limitations on a woman in the late stages. She wouldn't be able to hunt or even gather food. Having a monogamous mate insured that she would pass on her genes.

For the male, it would seem that impregnating as many women as possible would insure his genes were passed on, but having one woman that he cared for gave him better odds since he could pick that woman based upon physical attributes that indicated probable success in child bearing and child raising.

Acknowledging your concept, but there’s a minor issue. Monogamy giving better outcomes to a male only works if for some reason that male is limited to but one mate. Yet mating, for the male (sticking with H. sapiens), is low-risk and low-cost. Limiting one’s reproduction to only the ‘best’ available female (however one wishes to define that) is a poor strategy. (I’m speaking speaking outside of our modern opinions and mores, of course.) Better, for the male, is to mate as often as possible with as many females as possible. If some of those females are ‘defective’ or less-than-optimal, so what? The male has lost nothing. Maybe his genes will survive…

It’s of course the reverse for the female of the species, whose reproductive potential is much more restricted. It is very much in the female’s interests to be highly choosy, both in terms of health and WRT the likelihood of the male supporting her later.

All that’s buried pretty deep in our subconscious, to be sure. I personally like the assurances modern societies provide.

 

[MillieDynamite]

66% leaves 34% to screw their brains out with as many as are willing. And for some of the 34%, they don't even have to be human to have fun with them. LOL

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I have referenced the monogamous nature of Gibbons in some of my stories. They're not 100% monogamous, and sometimes "divorce" their mates, but they are pretty loyal as animals go.

 

[Britva415]

I'd settle for gamous.

Sounds like you're zerogamous.