Monogamy is not natural — but is ideal
The following letter to the editor that I wrote was recently published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
We may disapprove of politicians getting into sex scandals, but we should not be shocked, regardless of the person’s moral beliefs. The simple truth is that monogamy is not a natural state for humans of either gender. Millions of years of natural selection mean that the human male is biologically programmed to spread seed, and the human female, biologically programmed to diversify it. We can rise above our biological tendencies, but we should not be too surprised when people act on them.
Some people took the above letter as promoting polygamy or at least the practice of having multiple sexual partners. It does no such thing. The truth is that monogamous marriage is a good ideal and should remain the ideal. For one thing, while monogamy is not a natural state for either men or women, jealousy comes naturally to both. If a person is in a committed relationship, respect and caring for the partner often means adopting the discipline of fidelity. Additionally, adherence to monogamy keeps down the rates of sexually transmitted diseases, problem pregnancies, and children raised in unstable situations.
What is natural is often not ideal and should not be what we strive to do.
| More from Denise Noe
Stumble It!
August 11th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
This is something leftists can’t understand – Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it is good. Wishing doesn’t make it so.
P.S. Welcome back Denise. Been too long.
August 14th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Agreed: Good should not be held hostage to Perfect.
And I echo the welcome back, Denise. I have missed you. I have been worried about you.
I would welcome an email.
amfortas@aapt.net.au
August 16th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
“Additionally, adherence to monogamy keeps down the rates of sexually transmitted diseases, problem pregnancies, and children raised in unstable situations.”
Birth control is also a viable solution to two of those problems. Rubbers are a good solution to all 3. I don’t see how monogamy (unnatural state for either gender, in your words) is a good ideal. Repressing natural emotions in order to stave off a negative emotion (jealousy) in others makes little sense, since only those who are severely insecure would feel jealousy in the first place in a culture that views sexual liberty and fully enjoying life as a good ideal instead. I don’t think you’ve given a good argument why monogamy is a good ideal.
“We can rise above our biological tendencies, but we should not be too surprised when people act on them.” I am not surprised and I don’t think anyone really is, but it sounds like you are trying to defend hypocrites who preach one thing yet practice something else. I’m not surprised by hypocrisy, nor by someone defending hypocrites, but “being unsurprised” doesn’t take away from the immorality and deceit of being hypocritical. Most people don’t condemn right-wing sex-freaks for being sex-freaks, but for the hypocrisy of making/supporting laws that impede sexual freedom for others while living with a great deal of sexual freedom themselves.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Denise: “Additionally, adherence to monogamy keeps down the rates of sexually transmitted diseases, problem pregnancies, and children raised in unstable situations.”
Anonymous: Birth control is also a viable solution to two of those problems. Rubbers are a good solution to all 3.
(Denise) No one advocates the responsible and consistent use of condoms and other contraceptives more strongly than I do. I believe in a multi-pronged approach to problems. Both sexual restraint and contraception are necessary to decrease sex-related problems.
Children do best when raised in stable situations which means parents who are committed to each other. Marriage is the best — albeit highly imperfect — mechanism to ensure the stability that children need to grow up in safe and healthy environments.
Anonymous: I don’t see how monogamy (unnatural state for either gender, in your words) is a good ideal. Repressing natural emotions in order to stave off a negative emotion (jealousy) in others makes little sense, since only those who are severely insecure would feel jealousy in the first place in a culture that views sexual liberty and fully enjoying life as a good ideal instead. I don’t think you’ve given a good argument why monogamy is a good ideal.
(Denise) Jealousy, like the tendency to desire multiple sexual partners, is not something culturally imposed. It evolved naturally. In men it evolved as a mechanism to decrease the likelihood of supporting another man’s child (the tendency of many men to get sexually aroused by a wife’s infidelity evolved for the same reason: the male body is sending out reinforcements of sperm to compete with the previous male’s sperm). In women it evolved as a mechanism to decrease diversion of resources from a woman’s children to another woman’s children.
Denise: “We can rise above our biological tendencies, but we should not be too surprised when people act on them.”
Anonymous: I am not surprised and I don’t think anyone really is, but it sounds like you are trying to defend hypocrites who preach one thing yet practice something else. I’m not surprised by hypocrisy, nor by someone defending hypocrites, but “being unsurprised” doesn’t take away from the immorality and deceit of being hypocritical. Most people don’t condemn right-wing sex-freaks for being sex-freaks, but for the hypocrisy of making/supporting laws that impede sexual freedom for others while living with a great deal of sexual freedom themselves.
(Denise) I am pointing out that monogamy is the correct ideal and marriage the best way toward this ideal. Nothing is foolproof or perfect.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“This is something leftists can’t understand – Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it is good. Wishing doesn’t make it so.”
boy does that statement stink of ignorance. You know, by stereo-typing leftist in such a way you propagate the stereo type that all right wing conservatives are close-minded. Way to take the it there buddy.
Anyways, interesting article. I agree. I think the biggest problem with the human condition is the feeling of guilt. It serves little to no positive purpose to our mental stability and I feel its what often leads to people acting against their own morals and ethics. They feel that they should not have feelings or attractions for only one person and feel guilty when that turns out to not be the case. This weighs on their self image and self esteem and as the self esteem drops, the person becomes more likely to give in to their emotions and desires. When they do they feel more guilt.
If our society placed emphasis on relationships in the way this article presents them, it would reduce much of the guilt factor when people developed feelings or attractions for others around them. They would view it as natural and would not feel guilty about it. While it would not prevent everyone from betraying their spouse, it would probably reduce the number who do. Particularly the ones that do so due to lack of self esteem who hope he new or secret relationship will grant them whatever they feel they are lacking at the time.
If we got rid of the guilt, those who felt it could refocus their attention on finding healthy acceptable ways of addressing their feelings.
While they can be very entertaining, the typical romantic films, books, and plays that propogate the notion of soul mates and only having eyes for one person lead people to grow up expecting this ideal that does not necessarily exist, at least not in the way it is presented in the various art forms.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
There’s an obvious analogy in nutrition. We’re designed to crave sugar and fat because those were relatively scarce in the wild. Obviously not a good thing once technology allowed easy access.
In a similar way, we are simultaneously ravenous sexually and desperately jealous because, for the vast majority of beings on this planet over the last few billion years, life was very hard and fairly short. In a highly competitive and trecherous world, this double-standard wasn’t chosen, it was simply required for survival. Individuals were compelled to reproduce as much as possible by way of the most fit partner available, but also driven to prevent partners from reproducing with rivals.
In a prehistoric life span of only 20 to 30 years, where days were filled with a great many other struggles, opportunities for reproduction must have been few and difficult. In the modern world, where technology yields long, healthy lives, large amounts of free time to indulge in our wildest fantasies, and easy access to thousands of potential partners, like junk food, it’s not a good thing. (In fact, it seems that all social problems are rooted in primitive emotional anachronisms, our embrace of violence being the worst of all.)
Though difficult at times, monogamy is the popular ideal because it just works better. It is merely another evolutionary development that wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t beneficial for practical reasons, as well as being a way to satisfy the old urge to prevent our mates from being with anyone else. To quell the ancient desire for other partners, fantasy is more than enough for anyone with a healthy imagination, and can be particularly exhilarating if those caveman fantasies are shared with your spouse. Pure honesty coupled with deep committment works like a charm.
For those out there who are committed to blind and selfish indulgences…, unless you’re extremely wealthy (nice work Hef!), you’re very likely to change your opinion if you manage to live beyond your 40’s or 50’s. Faced with heart disease, you’re apt to give up the Twinkies and bacon. And, faced with the inevitable ravages of old-age, one devoted spouse is going to start looking really good.