Monogamy

[Britva415]

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.

I wouldn't call it BBC clickbait, unless you think BBC is responsible for the study itself or is dramatically misrepresenting the study.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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 term that polygamy rather than polyamory. Both involve one person getting to have multiple partners, but beyond that there are more differences than similarities.

 

[MrPixel]

I would term that polygamy rather than polyamory. Both involve one person getting to have multiple partners, but beyond that there are more differences than similarities.

Good point. I write about polyamory, but in real life it's polygamy. Mind fixated on the former.

 

[NaughteeDragon]

Smart Girls Guide to Polyamory has a whole chapter about this issue and how science has been used by both sides of the monogamy argument.

 

[OralAllOver]

Look at sexual dimorphism: species where male is much larger (tournament species) not at all monogamous

Where males and females are same size, high monogamy

Human males about 20% bigger? Well, we about 80% monogamous

Except for Kristi Noem: that there is a SLUT, a cum dripping grandma

 

[bbcbarry9033]

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

What does size have to do with anything?

 

[OralAllOver]

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

What does size have to do with anything?

If male baboons dont win fights then they dont get laid. Thus, males much larger (which has many disadvantages).

If everyone gets laid, then no reason to be big

 

[Comshaw]

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

--Annie

Canadian Geese mate for life. And if one of the pair is killed, many times the remaining one will not mate again. I'm not sure why they didn't mention birds like the Canadian in that study.

Comshaw

 

[TarnishedPenny]

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

What does size have to do with anything?

As a rule of thumb, particularly in mammals, species where mating rights involve aggression (either real or formalized) have a greater degree of sexual dimorphism, body size in particular. In humans, it’s only about 15%, but some species are much, much greater. Elephant seal bulls, for instance, whose mating battles are ferocious, can be four times as big as cows.

 

[ronde]

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 persoItnally like the assurances modern societies provide.

It's interesting that you reference modern society providing assurances. I read a long time ago, and I don't remember the source so it might be just a journalist writing his ideas but the article said modern people, at least in Western Judeo/Christian societies, are likely to have two "mates". The first will be selected based upon probability of successful procreation and will last until sometime after the female member passes through menopause. The second mate will be the person most aligned with the ideals, likes, dislikes, and morals of the other. Sometimes the second mate is the result of the death of one of a couple and sometimes it's the result of divorce blamed in 'incompatibility", but the second spouse is often very different in personality from the first.

 

[TheWorldBuilder]

I wouldn't call it BBC clickbait, unless you think BBC is responsible for the study itself or is dramatically misrepresenting the study.

Did I not make it clear in my post?

The headline and sub-header refer to a single point of reference in the study, which is simply coincidental, just so the writer can use a cute anthropomorphism. That's clickbait or tabloid journalism and it's far more common now than 10 years ago, when I was doing science pieces for the Corporation. The editorial and literacy standards have also declined and many articles now don't even get close to the guidance contained in the in-house 'Manual of Style'.

 

[lc69hunter]

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."

Well said.
I personally believe that the explicit tie in of marriage and monogamy, especially here in America is a result of our Puritan ancestors who first settled here. I am not saying it is either good or bad. It works for many. However, it quite often ignores reality

 

[SimonDoom]

Well said.
I personally believe that the explicit tie in of marriage and monogamy, especially here in America is a result of our Puritan ancestors who first settled here. I am not saying it is either good or bad. It works for many. However, it quite often ignores reality

This is all just conjectural theory, of course. But I think the meaningful legal emancipation of women, coupled with the power that modern technology affords (e.g., not spending all day cleaning the clothes and making dinner), possibly gives us the opportunity to "get back to our nature" in a way that doesn't tear society apart, as perhaps it might have before. People are freer than ever before to live their lives as they wish to, so long as they don't hurt other people, without consequences. So it's not surprising that we're seeing an increasing acceptance of things like polyamory, homosexuality, transgender identity. It's getting harder and harder to argue that accepting these things is going to tear society apart or "undermine the social fabric." The social fabric is probably much more robust than we thought it was 60 years ago.

 

[LegendInMyOwnMind]

It is very clear that monogamy is in decline among humans and has been in decline since the advent of reliable contraception. The study is not fully applicable to the modern world in developed countries. It is only examined by design mating that results in reproduction. So is a man who fathers children by one woman but has sex with dozens of others during that time just as monogamous as the man who fathers children with one woman and has sex with no other?

Biologists might say yes, who knows, I'm not a biologist. But normal people and even Literotica readers/writers like me say no.

 

[Lifestyle66]

66% leave 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

That's what I gathered from the article too.

At 66% monogamous, this tells me that it takes two to be monogamous, but it only takes one to cheat!

 

[Bramblethorn]

It is very clear that monogamy is in decline among humans and has been in decline since the advent of reliable contraception.

Is it, though? Or is there just less pressure on people to conceal nonmonogamy? I'm not sure there's any era in history where people were particularly good at monogamy.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Is it, though? Or is there just less pressure on people to conceal nonmonogamy? I'm not sure there's any era in history where people were particularly good at monogamy.

IMO it's neither. Monogamy isn't in decline, and people aren't more inclined to conceal or not their non-monogamy.

What they're finding is with genetic testing of many adults, their parents weren't as monogamous as they thought.

I have several friends and neighbors who discovered later in life they have half-siblings who they never knew about when they were younger. One of their parents cheated.

But today's cheaters will still make every attempt to keep their secrets. It's in the best interests of their kids and finances for a couple to try to remain together. And in many cases, divulging their cheating to a spouse only increases the risk of divorce.

 

[LegendInMyOwnMind]

Is it, though? Or is there just less pressure on people to conceal nonmonogamy? I'm not sure there's any era in history where people were particularly good at monogamy.

There was a time when extramarital sex carried the risk of unwanted pregnancies, and it still does, but to a much lesser degree. Sure, it has happened throughout history, but the specter of unwanted pregnancy stopped a lot of infidelity. The thing about my son's generation that scares me is that many aren't even seeking longer-term relationships, much less monogamy. He tells me that in his social group, a sexual relationship of one week is long. BTW, he despises that trend, but is not celibate (nor do I wish him to be--he's 26).

 

[ronde]

There was a time when extramarital sex carried the risk of unwanted pregnancies, and it still does, but to a much lesser degree. Sure, it has happened throughout history, but the specter of unwanted pregnancy stopped a lot of infidelity. The thing about my son's generation that scares me is that many aren't even seeking longer-term relationships, much less monogamy. He tells me that in his social group, a sexual relationship of one week is long. BTW, he despises that trend, but is not celibate (nor do I wish him to be--he's 26).

Yes, the fear of an unwanted pregnancy did curb infidelity, but the birth control pill relieved that pressure somewhat. As soon as that happened though, the incidence of STD's increased. Before the pill STD's were mostly confined to men serviced by prostitutes. Most of those men were not in a steady relationship with a woman. That's why they used prostitutes. Men in a steady sexual relationship didn't want to tell their significant other that she needed to go to the doctor. "Free Love" freed people from the risk of pregnancy, but opened the way to the spread of STD's. That fear is the limiting factor now. If you do some research into "swinging", you'll find that most groups who swing are small and basically only swing within that group, or they require all participating members to be tested for STD's on a regular basis.

By the way, a "sexual relationship" that lasts only a week is not a relationship. It's a guy masturbating in a woman or a woman using a man to substitute for a dildo. Just the opinion of a guy who's lived long enough to know the difference.

 

[Comshaw]

It is very clear that monogamy is in decline among humans and has been in decline since the advent of reliable contraception. The study is not fully applicable to the modern world in developed countries. It is only examined by design mating that results in reproduction. So is a man who fathers children by one woman but has sex with dozens of others during that time just as monogamous as the man who fathers children with one woman and has sex with no other?

Biologists might say yes, who knows, I'm not a biologist. But normal people and even Literotica readers/writers like me say no.

I don't think that is the case. Up to the 1930's there was no reliable way to determine paternity. If you couldn't determine who the father was, there is little danger in getting pregnant by a man other than your husband. Because of that, I believe that infidelity was as prevalent as it is today. When the paternity blood test was discovered in the 30's, the condom was growing in use. So one form of protection (not being able to determine the father) was supplanted by another (contraception). By the time DNA testing was invented, other forms of contraception were in use so a woman had multiple choices in protection. The only thing that happened through history was going from not being able to determine the father, to contraception that eliminated the possibility of pregnancy. I don't think infidelity either increased or decreased. Of course, all that is just my speculation on the matter.

Comshaw

 

[MillieDynamite]

But, is cheating a bad thing all the time? I don't know, I have no reason or desire to cheat. I do like writing about it.

That's what I gathered from the article too.

At 66% monogamous, this tells me that it takes two to be monogamous, but it only takes one to cheat!

 

[Lifestyle66]

But, is cheating a bad thing all the time? I don't know, I have no reason or desire to cheat. I do like writing about it.

There are many cases where it's not "cheating".

I know several couples who have been happily married for decades and still going strong in their relationship. But the husband or wife has a lover or goes out for "extras" occasionally, either alone or they go to swinger parties together.

One plays to get their fill, while the other spouse just socializes at the party or stays in a bar nearby. They have different levels of desire or physical/health problems causing performance issues, and they are FAITHFULLY staying with their spouse through marriage, "In sickness and in health!"

One changed, and the other didn't. So, they don't see it as "cheating" or "cuckolding", since they know about it, and because one of them doesn't want sex anymore!

EDIT: My wife likes to tease me by pointing out hot-looking younger women to me.
"Did you see the one in the tank-top, mini-skirt, and black stiletto boots over there?"
"Oh, YEAH!" I'd reply.
"Dream on. I know who I'm going home with," she says. "But she does seem to have nice tits. Maybe I should ask her for me."

 

[iwatchus]

I guess I draw a line between monogamy and faithful, in terms of morality. If you are in a (somewhat) open relationship, I have no moral qualms with extra-marital sex. My problem is with infidelity. Yes, I have written stories that involve unfaithful spouses (and spouses who struggle but manage to maintain their fidelity). I also write cases of mutually agreed upon open relationships. They are all part of the human experience. I am never nice to cheating spouses, but reward the faithful ones, I will admit. Sometimes it's good to be god.

 

[nice90sguy]

I live right by a canal, and I feed the Canada geese every day, and recogconise individuals. I can confirm Canada geese's famed monogamy. But I also see threesomes (sometimes including a barmacle goose). And gay and lesbian mallard pairs are pretty common too. Interspecies couples occasionally (Canada+Barnacle geese produce viable offspring)

 

[MillieDynamite]

Cats and dogs living together!

I live right by a canal, and I feed the Canada geese every day, and recogconise individuals. I can confirm Canada geese's famed monogamy. But I also see threesomes (sometimes including a barmacle goose). And gay and lesbian mallard pairs are pretty common too. Interspecies couples occasionally (Canada+Barnacle geese produce viable offspring)