|
mikeyOfGeorgia -> RE: Flaws I have, but is Monogamy a minority concept? (2/7/2010 4:56:48 PM)
|
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
By David P. Barash, Ph.D. and Judith Eve Lipton, M.D. I picked up The Myth of Monogamy while doing research for my Monogamy Rant, part of the Slut Rants. The book ended up becoming the linchpin of the essay, cited so often that I'm embarrassed -- I should have just referred people to the book. In the re-write, I intend to include more extensive sources, but that's another blog. I found The Myth of Monogamy so intriguing, because it finally detailed scientific evidence for something I had long suspected: that monogamy is not a natural state, for people or animals, but simply a socio-cultural creation. Monogamy is just a choice we make (like going vegan, for example), using our amazing big brains and free will, following the norms of our culture. But genetically, biologically, it not only doesn't exist, it doesn't even make sense. In the book, Barash and Lipton look at the behavior of animals primarily, but also draw connections to human behavior, as well. They present the most common theory, that the institution of monogamy began when human beings ceased a hunter-gatherer, nomadic lifestyle, and began cultivating land, staying in one place. Monogamy was simply a useful way of ensuring that a man's property would be passed on to his own family, his sons. In one fell swoop, monogamy and inheritance law came into being. But because monogamy is a cultural construct, rather than a natural urge, I also think that monogamy also brought about the birth of prostitution. In this way, natural urges could be satisfied while still maintaining a "monogamous" relationship with one's spouse, as contradictory as that sounds. There is a difference between social, and genetic monogamy. Prostitution exists in the animal world as well, as The Myth of Monogamy points out. Several species of birds show these behaviors, exchanging sex for something of value, in this case, food. Further, and perhaps most importantly, the book demonstrates that animal species which are well-known to "mate for life" -- whales, swans, golden eagles, to name but a few -- don't actually mate for life. Perhaps only 10 percent, maybe less, of these famously monogamous animals really do take mates for their entire lives. Barash and Lipton demonstrate that with modern genetic and DNA tracking, it's become obvious that when the Daddy swan is away from the nest, the Mommy swan is getting busy with anyone who swims by -- while the Daddy swan pays housecalls to the neighborhood ladies. They may indeed spend their lives together, but they definitely fool around on the side. While the book deals with animal and human behavior from a scientific perspective, it does so with a wonderful sense of humor, in easy to read, flowing prose. It's a fun read, and fascinating besides. As I've been saying for a long time, from a survival of the species standpoint, monogamy just doesn't make sense. It's hard-wired into our DNA to spread the seed, to create as much diversity in the gene pool as possible. Look at species of cats (like Persians) or dogs (like Cocker-Spaniels) that are so inbred that the brains and survival skills have been bred right out of them. Makes white supremacy seem even more dangerously idiotic than before, if that's possible. Further, I personally tie all of this in to the notion of attraction, which I discuss in my Attraction Rant. The things that we perceive as attractive, or beautiful, are the things that nature tells us are examples of the best our species has to offer. Humans of mixed race, whether Asian and Caucasian, or African-American and Asian, etc.... these people are amazingly beautiful, physically speaking. Our DNA calls out to us, to share quality genetic material. And monogamy, and "purebreds," just don't fit with that utterly natural equation. Social monogamy, in our culture, makes some sense, as it takes quite a few years to raise children. But genetic monogamy is not present, in my opinion. And trying to force our bodies to follow our minds clearly isn't working that well. I know a great many happy polygynous people, but far fewer joyful monogamous folks.
|
|
|
|
