Is monogamy in humans natural?

[Pearls18]

A guest on This Morning is talking about it, I'm not having a crisis

Do you think it is realistic to expect the majority of people to be happy being monogamous? Is it unnatural? Is it a pressure we have put on ourselves or do we believe in the concept?

 

[Kate&Lucas]

I've always it must be unnatural because so many people have a problem with it. We don't "mate for life" like some animals. If monogamy was natural we surely wouldn't find others attractive when we're with someone too? There'd be something in us that'd stop that reaction? I haven't a clue I'm not a scientist
I think it's a sensible lifestyle choice as civilised humans, but I don't believe it's how we're predisposed.

 

[lhancock90]

Ooo thats a interesting one MW!
I genuinely don't know, some mammals mate for life and some don't right?
I'd like to think its completely natural, i mean for me it absolutely is now i'm with my OH. I can identify between someone being attractive or not but i don't want to do anything about that.

 

[HBGirl]

I appear to be but I think it depends on the individual.

 

[Yammas]

I dont think so either, just look at, how many partners the average person has in a lifetime, the divorce rate, how many people have had affairs/been cheated on.

 

[Bex84]

For me it is, I have only been with my husband and he is my soul mate. I think it is individual. I have friends who go in relationships over fear of being in love and some in love with the idea of being in love. I think it also has to do with societal pressure, women over certain age are questioned if not in relationship, media represents perfect relationship, peoples expectations that life will be like a romance novel, people able to leave relationships which are unhealthy more without stigma and some people being narcissistic and not realsing how their actions impact other people while cheating. I was talking to my dad recently. He cheated on my mum, he was talking about a family member who divorced her husband who was cheating and he had the cheek to say what had she done wrong. I know full well when what happened with my dad happened he got his head turned by young woman who was not after my dad for his good looks but for what he could represent. My mum had done nothing wrong, quite the opposite as she was doing a lot for him. I know more men who struggle with monogomy but then that's just out of who I know

 

[katherinegrey]

I often wonder this myself. I honestly think in humans it's an individual thing, some people are wired that way, others are not. I think the biggest show of this is when a spouse dies. Some people will die of a broken heart so to speak, others will barely bat an eyelid and be looking for another partner before they're laid to rest. I know my maternal grandmother was widowed fairly young, she lived until she was in her 80's, and never once looked at another man, when she did pass away, she was still asking for him on her deathbed. My paternal grandmother however was also widowed fairly young, she was remarried within six months.

So I guess my conclusion is as a species in general, no, I don't think we're monogamous, but that's not to say I don't believe humans can be monogamous.

 

[Noodlebear]

We are attracted to people because on a basic, primal level we want our young to be the strongest and the best. That isn't meant to be exclusive to one person. I think we have evolved to become more emotional beings which is what allows us to fall in love and 'mate for life' if we so wish but we don't stop finding other people attractive. So, no, I definitely don't think it's 'natural'. I just think that as a race we tend not to follow our natural instincts anymore.

 

[steph.]

I have read somewhere that cheating has a genetic component. So if you are a cheater it's not entirely your fault because you have a cheating gene. Ha! Regardless of whether this cheating gene actually exists or not, I do think it varies from person to person. Or maybe the people that cheat/divorce/stray just haven't met their soul mates?

 

[Button#]

Monogamy in humans is linked to owning property and used to be an upper class thing until the 20th century. Then the trend trickled down to the rest of society. It's only been since the emancipation of women that men have been expected to be monogamous.

 

[bumpy_j]

I think it's mostly a social norm tbh - polygamy has existed throughout history, and there are theories regarding the introduction of marriage which tend to revolve around the notion of heirs and inheritance. I certainly don't think we're a 'mate for life' species - that dynamic seems to only be propelled by institutional influence, mainly religious.

That being said, there is probably something within us that makes us stay with a partner for a long period, but a lot of that tends to be strengthened by rearing children. So we're possibly designed to stay with a partner until a child grows up to flock the nest, and then with later life it's hard to say - life expectancy has only really rocketed within reasonably modern history. We get jealous, so there must be something biological there that makes us want to maintain a monogamous relationship. There's so many variables that it's hard to pinpoint a solid trend really...

 

[Bex84]

Historically obviously marriage developed to pass on land etc but mistresses were common, then creating economically stability when having children and going back to ancient times a protector for family. For me monogomy is hugely important and my husband is the one person I am attracted to. Scientifically apparently you are more likely to be attracted to someone with immune system that compliments yours for healthy children. I think the fact as humans we feel love for a partner means that we must have predisposition to stay monogomis

 

[Sarahkka]

The biological drive in humans has been eclipsed by social conventions, I think. Monogamy is relatively rare in any species, and in terms of the evolution of a species, it can be an issue in terms of genetic diversity and dispersal. I think it was socially and politically convenient for many human cultures (not all, but many), but I don't think it has given much of an advantage in terms of biology.
However, I don't think crying biology as an excuse for cheating holds all that much weight, either. Sure, there's good old chemistry and sexual attraction, but we've got a great big brain with the capacity to reason and that's supposed to give us the power to overrule our gonads....
And then there is the strong possibility that nature and nurture are constantly affecting and changing each other. So whatever gives you the advantage to survive to reproduce in your specific time and place may very well be affecting what you are selecting for.
Very interesting topic!

 

[emyandpotato]

Monogamy in humans is linked to owning property and used to be an upper class thing until the 20th century. Then the trend trickled down to the rest of society. It's only been since the emancipation of women that men have been expected to be monogamous.

It's been a lower class thing as well since biblical times.

 

[emyandpotato]

Also, I don't think that talking about what is natural to humans is the same as what is natural to animals. An animal that is monogamous just is without exception or thought, because that's just what they do. We aren't either way, because we've evolved to think about things a great deal more and create societies and certain institutions etc. etc. and that has become what is natural to us. It wasn't natural to the earliest humans, but we aren't early humans, we're a much more evolved animal.

 

[lhancock90]

Historically obviously marriage developed to pass on land etc but mistresses were common, then creating economically stability when having children and going back to ancient times a protector for family. For me monogomy is hugely important and my husband is the one person I am attracted to. Scientifically apparently you are more likely to be attracted to someone with immune system that compliments yours for healthy children. I think the fact as humans we feel love for a partner means that we must have predisposition to stay monogomis

I have an awful immune system and OH has a brilliant one, does that mean he should not love me

 

[Sarahkka]

Historically obviously marriage developed to pass on land etc but mistresses were common, then creating economically stability when having children and going back to ancient times a protector for family. For me monogomy is hugely important and my husband is the one person I am attracted to. Scientifically apparently you are more likely to be attracted to someone with immune system that compliments yours for healthy children. I think the fact as humans we feel love for a partner means that we must have predisposition to stay monogomis

I have an awful immune system and OH has a brilliant one, does that mean he should not love me

Actually, she's right. Very interesting studies done on this and how it affects the chemistry of attraction. We can sense pheromones in sweat and are attracted to those whose immune systems best compliment our own. So in your case, his being great and yours being awful (as perceived by you - remember he may only be bringing immunity to colds, etc and you may be bringing immunity to some big bad guys that neither of you knows about - impossible to say without a genetic analysis), means he's filling in the gaps in yours for the best possible outcome for your kids. If you think you have a really bad immune system, however, you need to have a word with your parents!

Not sure I agree on the rest, however. Love is a very personal construct. There are many different (and very successful) family units that allow for multiple spouses. In fact, there is very little monogamy as we define it in Order Primata. If we truly evolved to be monogamous, you would think that we would see more evidence of this in other closely related species, but there really isn't. And even within our own species, there is a huge spectrum of successful family models.

 

[pinklightbulb]

I don't think it is on a primal level.

 

[Bex84]

Historically obviously marriage developed to pass on land etc but mistresses were common, then creating economically stability when having children and going back to ancient times a protector for family. For me monogomy is hugely important and my husband is the one person I am attracted to. Scientifically apparently you are more likely to be attracted to someone with immune system that compliments yours for healthy children. I think the fact as humans we feel love for a partner means that we must have predisposition to stay monogomis

I have an awful immune system and OH has a brilliant one, does that mean he should not love me

Actually, she's right. Very interesting studies done on this and how it affects the chemistry of attraction. We can sense pheromones in sweat and are attracted to those whose immune systems best compliment our own. So in your case, his being great and yours being awful (as perceived by you - remember he may only be bringing immunity to colds, etc and you may be bringing immunity to some big bad guys that neither of you knows about - impossible to say without a genetic analysis), means he's filling in the gaps in yours for the best possible outcome for your kids. If you think you have a really bad immune system, however, you need to have a word with your parents!
.

What said above, its more the immune system compliments yours to make healthier off spring. My dh has a far better immune system than me lol ( I just remember reading it somewhere as I am interested in history and also the anthropology of humans)

 

[Bex84]

I do agree there are many types of family, love is a very personal construct and maybe now it is less to do with practical reasoning. As a woman in the west you can now support yourself more easily as a single woman, marriage tends to be at an older age, we have more opportunities meaning you can more easily leave a relationship. However I suppose it can be countered by consumerism means that it is now harder to get a mortgage on a single wage packet etc..... As others have said maybe it is a social construct. For me I find I feel monogomy is important due to my values. I do know people who say they have been in love multiple times. I have read stuff about early human behaviour being the male need to spread biological material in order to create largest amount of diverse offspring and the argument that babies will look like dad so he knows baby is his so more likely to protect (saying that did looked more like me when she was born lol) maybe monogomy is more the ideal cultural norm rather than what comes naturally and is linked more to human need for norms and values in society