From an evolutionary standpoint, do you believe humans are suited/designed to be monogamous?

Question

I mean do you really think our evolution led us to monogamy, or did we turn to its practice because of cultural/religious beliefs of society. It seems that most people are incapable of remaining faithful to one mate, and most people do not stay with only one mate their whole life. Unless they follow religious beliefs or society that says they are supposed to have only one mate forever. Is it really in our nature to do this? or are we more suited to a variety of mates throughout life, or even multiple mates. Is there any evidence of the mating habits of our primate ancestors or what human mating was like before modern culture, religion and society??

Answer 1

Humans are not designed to be monogamous. I wouldn't chalk it up to society or religion either though.

In anthropology there is a thing called sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism usually takes place in species that are NOT monogamous. The bigger the male is the better he can fight for more females. Take gorillas for example. The male gorilla has lots of female mates. The male gorilla is also much larger than the female gorillas. You can also use Black Widow spiders. The female has more male mates and is bigger than the male spider (whom she eats after they mate). Now, while it isn't always the case, in general men are bigger than women. This shows that we are not a monogamous species. However, because this is not always the case and because the size difference is not that great we also know that we can also be monogamous. It's a mixed bag with humans.

Answer 2

IMO, I don't believe humans were designed for monogamy. I believe society and religion have forced that behavior upon humans, teaching us we are GOOD people if we follow those rules. There are a few birds and animals that are monogamous, but the majority are not. I suspect our primate ancestors were not monogamous at all, I think they were driven by the biological need to reproduce the species as often as possible. Today we no longer need that drive to motivate us, so it is actually good, I guess, that some peoples drive may be held back because of society or religion.

Answer 3

It does not matter what I believe, but I believe you are in the social science section too much, because many of your questions have been and are being addressed. You forget genetics. We have quite a good idea od what human mating was like before your " social constructed " ideas came along. Our primate ancestors and more importantly, our primate contemporaries are well elucidated. The gist. Homo sapiens is a twig on the primate tree, with his own sexuality. That is quite comparable and obvious from the comparisons of primate and our testicular region. These comparisons fit the other data as a glove fits the hand. Homo Sapiens is a generally monogamous species with polygamous tendencies. Polyandry is quite rare. It may seem that every one cheats, but that is not the data. Men cheat, well, because they are men, trying to maximize pleasure, proximately and reproduction ultimately. Women who cheat, are generally trying to improve the genetic quality of there children, ultimately. This information has been quantified for al most 40 years and social science still does not have a clue.

PS A description of what is, is not an endorsement of it's morality. Do not forget the difference between ultimate and proximate cause. Remember, al data is on a statistical average, meaning tails and outliers of data exists.

Answer 4

You are putting definition into concept.

African culture was essentially polygamous before other cultures interfered. In some African tribes, women were "taking the spirits" of more men. Underneath this logic of survival, this woman and her child were safe in the group.

Monogamy is society - inflicted. Women were cut their clitoris, uglied their appearance, kept out of sight, all for a one purpose.

Around 50% of both males and females have had a strive toward another partner during their "official" bondage. Our subconscious behavior is determined by our genes. Our genes determine our chemistry; the level of testosterone, etc. This varies from individual to individual; there are Alpha males and Alpha females no one can resist... There are other subconscious strategies as well.

Mating is one of the primary strives. Long ago, when one wasn't the best hunter, he was coming back to the cave earlier than others, and thus that strategy too, survived in the genetic code of our behavior... Others, even though full of testosterone (Testosterone levels rise much higher during chance occasions, unlike being steady when the two mates live together...), could never be absolutely sure if the child was theirs. Even today, one out of ten children does not know that the father is not the real one...

Answer 5

Good question. Not all societies practice serial monogomy. Even within societies that do it certainly seems to be more for social, cultural, or economic, convenience than for personal preference. I think a life long mating is more for economic reasons than physiological ones. Somebody has to support the babies.

No I don't think it is our nature to have just one mate. Look at how few people actually do only have one mate.

Answer 6

Something to consider:

Back in the early days (like 20-30,000 years ago) life expectancy was about 30-35 years, monogamy lasted about 10-15 years after the children were born. It is impossible to determine what we are supposed to do for the rest of our lives, when old age is such a recent development.

Answer 7

Human survival depended on understanding nature. An opportunistic hunter mutually with a Neanderthal could kill a deer that it occurred upon. cutting-side people, even with the undeniable fact that, studied the strikes of deer in the process the direction of the days and seasons. that they had a miles better theory the place the herds and the berries could be on a given day. An obtrusive characteristic of issues in Nature, is they flow....many times, there is an evidence for why they flow...Primitive scientists tried to fill interior the blanks for issues that moved with out any obtrusive reason (wind, volcanos, the solar and Moon have been humanized). They have been appeared to be very helpful and fickle entities. at last they have been deified by employing primitive people. God keeps to be a build that helps the primitive human ideas to understand issues that take place with out an obvious reason.

Answer 8

Ever thought of earlier presence on earth it's thought of being or having more than one mate gave u a sence power, hell look at Africa they still practice polygamy this day and having more than one wife is pushed to increible extent. So being monogamous is in our nature. U figure when u walk past someone of interest or beauty no matter who ur with that thought has lead u to think of how sex, life,and beliefs would be with that person. Now religous beliefs also have a part in it for catholics don't belive in birthcontrol and don't believe a priest should be banished or inprisoned for their failures and pervertedous of little boys. But thinking back even middle ages times that was the norm.

Answer 9

how about both

Humans were born with the capability to reproduce, and with cultural and religous pressure, humans (although not naturally and definitely polygamous) tend to avoid monogomy. why though is a range of answers that could be presented.


So yes, humans can be DESIGNED to be monogamous, but curiousity and society may be the most influencial factors to polygamy

Answer 10

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, yes, humans are meant to be monogamous. I think the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are deadly, is proof of this. Also from an evolutionary standpoint, females of all species choose mates who appear strong, virile and healthy because they instintictively want good providers for their young, if necessary, and they want a healthy gene pool.