Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Editorials

April 12th, 2008, 10:00 GMT · By Stefan Anitei

Humans Are Not Made Monogamous

SHARE:

Adjust text size:



Enlarge picture
Of course, when Hollywood stars or politicians have extramarital affairs, the whole world rumbles. But if we peek into human biology, anthropology and sociology, the monogamous human appears as a very weird notion.

We are mammals, and if we look to the mammalian world, just 3 to 5% of the about 5,000 species of mammals form lifelong, monogamous bonds - this is the case of beavers, wolves, gibbons, jackals, foxes, some bats, dwarf deer and antelopes (like dik-dik).

A strictly monogamous animal mates only inside the pair. For example, in the case of geese, albatrosses or some parrots, the death of a partner totally compromises mating for the other, for that season or for life.

But biologists say that strictly sexually monogamous species are almost non existent. Most mammals have just a social monogamy: they pair up to mate and raise offspring, but still have flings. For example, in the case of the Arctic foxes, 25 % of the litters are not fathered by the male of the pair. Having offspring from multiple fathers allows a female to increase the genetic variation in her cubs. This increase in variation improves the chances that at least one cub in a litter will have the genetically proper stuff to survive for a long term in such a harsh and changing environment.

Why Monogamy?

Monogamy is a breeding behavior that is considered to give offspring a better survival chances, as in monogamous couples females receive all the support of the male in raising newborns to adulthood, from food to protection.

It's clear: a pair achieves more food and survives better than the bachelors. The "married" jackals were found to live on average 3-4 years longer than the solitary ones.

In beaver families, there is a strong need for cooperation to maintain their dams and pools, that's why beaver social units are so tight. Thus, monogamy evolved in situations where young need a better cooperation of both parents in raising them. That's why humans, with their long childhood, form monogamous pairs.

The Story of the Primates

But how do our closest relatives behave? The Old World monkeys have basically two type of mating systems: harems of females (polygamy), in which one male only mates with the females of the group (like in gelada monkeys, colobus monkeys or proboscis monkeys) or a promiscuous system, in which all the females mate with all the males (like in many macaques), as the males form coalitions (they do not compete or fight inside the group, except for the hierarchy-establishing conflicts).

A
very interesting case occurs in some more primitive monkeys of the new world, like marmosets and tamarins: polyandry (which is rare in general in the animal world, more common being amongst some birds, 1% of them, like nandu, cassowaries, some shore birds (like phalaropes), lily-trotters or buttonquails), i.e. a female having several partners (2-3 in this case), which mate only with her. Polyandry could be stimulated for various reasons, one of them being that monogamy means investing your genes in just one variant, and, just like gambling, he/she may be the best, right, not right or the worst. At the same time, the female receives the support of several males in raising the offspring, as none of them can be excluded as the father. Other mammals known to be polyandrous are some Australian marsupials (Antechinus).

But in apes, we find the only case of real monogamy amongst primates: the gibbons. Even if as the swans, gibbons are symbols of faithfulness, they are now known to cheat, abandon and even "divorce" one another, exactly like the humans. After the age of 18, for the "married" gibbons the retirement period starts. They can no longer produce offspring, losing the parent quality, but they are accepted by the "family" of one of their offspring, as grandparents. This way, they benefit from the community protection and, when it's about feeding, they can get some scraps. The solitary gibbons do not go beyond the retirement age, as they are not able to defend and feed themselves.

This is not the case of our closest relatives: orangutans form "lose" harems (a male's territory overlaps with that of several females, which will mate only with him, like in the case of many carnivorous mammals), while gorillas live in strict harem societies.

What about our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos? That's total promiscuity.

The Sperm Cue

In the case of harem societies and real monogamous system, the female mates only with one male, that's why there's no sperm competition. Sperm competition appears in promiscuous or polyandrous species. What does human sperm says about this?

A 2007 research shed light on this, investigating sperm samples from humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and rhesus macaques (which practice the promiscuous system). The human sperm was found to travel at about 0.2 km/hour. The sperm from chimpanzees and macaques had a speed of 0.7 km/h. A chimp female can have multiple sex partners in one hour, thus the sperm competition is much stronger in this case. But in the case of the gorillas, the sperm speed was only of 0.1 km/h. Female gorillas have just one sex partner at a given time. The chimp and macaque sperm also appeared to be more powerful, at about 50 piconewtons, while human sperm developed just about 5 piconewtons, and gorillas some lousy 2 piconewtons.

These results point that evolutionary, humans are mildly polygynous, balancing more towards the harem system. Evolutionary psychologists suggested that men are more likely to have extramarital sex, because of the male's urge to "spread genes" by broadcasting sperm. Both males and females attempt to increase their evolutionary progress by seeking out high-quality mates.

Other studies suggest that humans are equipped for sperm competition, which is widespread amongst promiscuous species. Women have "affairs" (extra pair copulations), and this is not a surprise, as we recently evolved (4-5 million years ago) from highly promiscuous chimpanzee-like species.

But in a species like ours, where the male invests all his resources in raising children inside a monogamous couple, spending them into genetically unrelated offspring means a biological disaster. For example, when men spend more time away from their partners (when their partners could get the opportunity to mate with other males), the number of sperm cells per similar sperm volumes rises sharply.

In one research, phalluses made after molds of human penises removed a sperm-like substance from an artificial vagina, pointing that the penis developed its shape to act as an anatomical squeegee. There are also sexual behaviors pointing to sperm competition. Women report that men thrust more deeply and quickly into the vagina after allegations of infidelity, a mechanism researchers believe is directed to sperm removal.

The authors believe that not only the increase in sperm cells after period of separation is a sign of sperm competition, but also their greatly increased libido in the same situation: the male wants to copulate as soon as possible and as much as possible, as insurance against possible extra-pair fecundation. When partners are separated for periods of time, males are more likely to arouse easily, produce more sperm, and even rape their partners.
Sexual conflict between males and females triggers a coevolutionary race between the sexes, in which an advantage gained by one sex selects for counteradaptations in the other sex.

It would be interesting to see in future studies if females developed mechanisms for increasing retention of sperm, after being inseminated by males with the best genes.

The human committed partnership between a man and a woman evolved for raising the children. Monogamy is invented for order and investment, not necessarily because it's natural, warn many researchers, which point that both social and sexual monogamy in humans is not a natural state. In fact, most primitive human societies and many evolved societies have been practicing the harem system. Researchers believe that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the social roles of men and women to become more fixed.
It is clear that in humans, there is more paternal investment than in most other primates. Still, it is clear that males have less to lose than females by having extramarital sex. Women, on the other hand, would lose resources, and female promiscuity clearly does not boost the welfare of her children.

Human Polyandry

Still, human cultures have evolved so much that, amazingly, there are societies that forced our biology even beyond monogamy into polyandry. The marriage of a woman with more than one husband is extremely rare, but it does exist. The most common type of human polyandry is the fraternal one in which two (or more) brothers marry the same wife.

Various Himalayan nations practiced it: in Tibet, Kashmir, Nepal, Bhutan, Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh (northeastern India) and Mosuo people (in southwestern China). The extinct culture of the Marquesan Islands (Pacific) practiced polyandry, but the phenomenon was also encountered amongst Amerindians (in the Canadian Arctic), Ceylon, Mongolia, South India (by Toda people), some Sub-Saharan African tribes and Guanches, the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands.

There are tribal societies considering that a child could and should possess more than one father. In many cases (like that of Tibet), polyandry was caused by a need to retain aristocratic titles or lands within the family or due to frequent absence of the husband from the household for long periods (so that usually only one husband was present). Poor farmers, too, could not afford to divide their small agricultural lands. Some anthropologists see in human polyandry a method of birth control, as the woman will have only one pregnancy, no matter the number of partners, while in polygyny, a man impregnates several women, resulting more children.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

40,841 hits · 35 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Sexual Cannibalism: Some Males Lose Their Heads for Sex

Four-Day-Dead Soldier's Sperm for Fertilization

How to Sexually Outcompete Bigger Guys

How to Skip Sex

Orgasmic Calls Boosting Sperm Competition

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: crystal on 07 Apr 2009, 18:27 UTC reply to this comment

very well written, it's very nice to see someone who actually knows what they're talking about and has actually done research.


Comment #2 by: kailash chandra joshi on 10 Jun 2009, 06:20 UTC reply to this comment

this information is very much educative and it will help every body who have zero knowledge about this subject. Pl. keep in touch .


Comment #3 by: Martin on 18 Jan 2010, 01:20 UTC reply to this comment

Excellent article!
It is difficult to find a proper article on Internet with proper research done.


Comment #4 by: Bryan on 05 Feb 2010, 20:39 UTC reply to this comment

first of all I would like to say how BAD this article is, and I mean in every way. whom ever wrote this didn't do a clear research and is probably a cheater. first I would like to express the first paragraph the part that says "the monogamous human appears as a very weird notion"
like wow. really? u think like that, hahahah
most importantly I would like to say that the part that says "We are mammals, and if we look to the mammalian world, just 3 to 5% of the about 5,000 species of mammals form lifelong, monogamous bonds - this is the case of beavers, wolves, gibbons, jackals, foxes, some bats, dwarf deer and antelopes (like dik-dik). "
is completely irrelevant and wrong, first of all, you should NEVER compare us to other mammals, helloooo we are human beings, smart and rational, why do you think other mammals aren't monogamous, they can't even remember who they are half of the time neither alone another mate.
secondly you are so wrong to NOT include the best monogamous mammals out there, the penguins.
now I don't want to keep talking about this, such a waste of time to read that article.
:)

Comment #4.1 by: Yvette on 29 Oct 2010, 20:50 GMT

"...we are human beings, smart and rational, why do you think other mammals aren't monogamous, they can't even remember who they are half of the time...". I have been laughing so * over that!

Comment #4.2 by: big will on 24 Jan 2011, 18:30 GMT

i find it hilarious that u disagree with the article because "we are human beings, smart and rational, why do you think other mammals aren't monogamous, they can't even remember who they are half of the time neither alone another mate." smart and rationale doesn't seem to fit a species that tries to eradicate its own kind and destroy its home at the same time. but we're smart enough to know the sexual nature of our kind.

Comment #4.3 by: PenguinsAreBirds on 24 Mar 2011, 19:43 GMT

Penguins are flightless birds. Not mammals. Maybe before accusing someone of not doing enough research you should do some of your own. Furthermore, there is strong evidence to show that several mammals are as self aware as humans, if not as intelligent. Elephants are able to recognize themselves in a mirror without thinking it's some other rival elephant. Do you have a dog or a cat? Do you feel that he/she can't remember who they are half the time? If so you might want to take them to the vet.

Comment #4.4 by: The Cox on 13 Jun 2011, 21:26 GMT

Nice trolling Bryan. Well done.

Comment #4.5 by: nikki on 16 Sep 2011, 04:46 GMT

peguins=mammals ..... LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! when did this happend????

# *

Comment #4.6 by: Haldo on 25 Sep 2011, 00:39 GMT

My god Bryan, you have really really embarrased yourself with that comment. You sound like you are about 12 or 13. Absolute moron. So much of what you said shows you are highly uneducated.

Comment #4.7 by: Forgottenwhoiam. on 23 Nov 2011, 12:36 GMT

You need to crawl back under your rock man and be afraid of the angry sun gods or whatever...... Quit being part of the problem, people like you slowing down evolution.

Comment #4.8 by: alex on 21 Jan 2012, 11:23 GMT

Wow, nice one. Humans ARE mammals. Dolphins have been shown to be just as self aware, and they are highly intelligent. Also, intelligence, self-awareness and cognition have very little to link to the issue of monogamy. The need to reproduce and the urge to mate with several different partners is an innate part of our nature, and we should embrace it. Seriously dude, do some research.

Comment #4.9 by: Basura on 29 Jan 2012, 04:59 GMT

Clearly, someone has some suppressed memories of their parents as a child.


Comment #5 by: Sean on 20 Feb 2010, 13:02 UTC reply to this comment

Bryan is an idiot. "you should NEVER compare us to other mammals, helloooo we are human beings". Humans are animals, and we are mammals FULL STOP. There is no questioning it, no arguing it, no point you will lose. Also why would the writer include penguins (which are birds) when you just said mammals where irrelevent? You need to get your facts and argument straight. You are just an absolute moron.

Its a good artical.


Comment #6 by: Kieren on 21 Feb 2010, 04:08 UTC reply to this comment

Sorry but the argument doesn't hit the mark. It is very easy to convince people who share your point of view with week statements, but that doesn't a good argument make.

The notion that a small percentage of mammals form monogamous relationships does not disqualify humans from the list. We very well may one of the 5%. Why is that not a possibility?

There are also social and biological reasons behind monogamy. Some are even touched upon in the article but seem to be dismissed out of hand. When it comes to breeding, a monogamous couple requires less promiscuity because the young are protected by both parents. Promiscuity is required when animals do not mate for the long term as the males chance of getting as much of its seed out there so that some of its young, and therefore its own DNA, is maintained into future generations. It also reduces the chance of sexually transmitted diseases which affect one's chance of maintaining one's genes in the overall gene pool. These are biological incentives and have nothing to do with morals or religion.

There is also an emotional component. In many cases one partner who wants to be promiscuous, pulls the other partner into it without the same willingness. Why would we be emotionally programed/wired to want something - a secure, monogamous relationship if ti wasn't in our nature?

Yes, we can bring morals into this ... they certainly shape our behaviour ... but don't be so quick to dismiss a deeper reason for monogamy than just people who say 'God says.'

Finally, just because some have a need or feeling to explore their sexuality with multiple partners does not mean we are meant to be promiscuous. I feel like slapping or yelling at people from time to time but I don't. My feeling wouldn't make my behavior natural and therefore totally acceptable.

Funnily, I have no issue with people who are open about their desire to be with multiple partners. Where I get annoyed is when people start making statements that make it seem like only those who accept promiscuity are in touch with reality, and the other option is somehow less valid.

Monogamy for me is very natural and very real and very much ingrained in my being. For you it may be different. That doesn't make it the same for every other person out there.

Comment #6.1 by: Newborn Sage on 16 Mar 2010, 18:14 GMT

I like this response best. In short, there is no 1 right way to live. Period.

Comment #6.2 by: RaniBan on 05 Mar 2011, 01:32 GMT

While I believe that it is not embedded in our genetics to live in monogamy as we naturally seek out desires, and society and social change plays a major role in our mental development i totally agree with the latter part of your comments about not adhering to every whim and desire and the beauty and purity of monogamy.

Comment #6.3 by: CA on 02 May 2011, 00:59 GMT

This article only presents research. One quality of us as human beings is that we do have the level of consciousness to evaluate our actions, respond to emotions, and other intellectual abilities that make us able to think about what we are doing and make decsions in response to what we conclude. Heck, it's the reason someone of our species could write an article on this subject in the first place. However, this means we are capable of CHOOSING to go against our biological tendencies at times, it doesn't mean that those tendencies don't exist at all. Therefore, your decision towards monogamy was instilled in you from your upbringing and other sources that determine a lot of what each of us ends up believing about the world around us, and that's fine. But...it does not mean monogamy is scientifically/biologically natural or that this article is somehow incorrect.

Comment #6.4 by: Jazzy on 02 Jul 2011, 11:31 GMT

Hello Kieren..Been reading the comments hopefully someone would say or echo my views about this article and it was you and it was very objective too. The most fav line of yours is "why would be programmed/wired to want something - secure healthy monogamous r.ship of it wasnt in our nature???"

Excellent!!!!


Comment #7 by: Birdbrain on 16 Mar 2010, 18:09 UTC reply to this comment

...Wow, are you for real? What else are you going to claim? Maybe you can ferment water to wine for us sometime?


Comment #8 by: Bryn Burnett on 19 Apr 2010, 13:50 UTC reply to this comment

While I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I think their opinions would be taken more seriously if they proofread their comments before posting them. After all, calling someone a 'moron' or an 'idiot' has no weight if one cannot utilize the language properly.
These things being said, look at more articles of valid research about this, or any other subject you are passionate about before taking a stand. You all will appear more intelligent and well read when your comments are posted. proofread them first, however, and perhaps buy a dictionary...


Comment #9 by: Ashar Zubair on 09 Jun 2010, 04:09 UTC reply to this comment

Yeah, whatever you say. You can not ignore personal liking or disliking of an individual.
As far as scientific reserch is concerned, it is ridiculous.
I believe in monogamy and I'm satisfid with my status.
And yeah it depends upon sexual satisfection. If a partner is not satisfied then he/she will definately look for another one.


Comment #10 by: Margo on 28 Jul 2010, 20:12 UTC reply to this comment

I think that "monogamy" might only work for women who sit at home, raise kids, wash their husbands' socks and cook meals for them. If they stray, they loose it all (yet they have sex outside of marriage and keep it hush-hush). Humans are not monogamous by nature. Monogamy was forced on us by religion for the most part. I'd say that having my own career, my own car, my own money to spend and my own place to live, the last thing I need in my life is a male who'd be my "bread winner" and "protector". Forget the monogamy and marriage. These are rules that are forced by society and I despise them. Being completely independent is woman's best chance to have as many sexual and romantic encounters as she wants without being told by a male what to do. And I see quite often the hungry eyes of those "family" men, searching for more "tail". So much for "monogamy" :)))

Comment #10.1 by: John on 03 Mar 2011, 02:15 GMT

It's hard to take your comment/rant seriously, Margo, when you attack like that. It seems that your "insightful" comment/rant just reeks of insecurity. But of course an independent woman like yourself won't stop at nothing to get what she wants.

Comment #10.2 by: Evnissyen on 29 Mar 2011, 06:02 GMT

John. It seems your own comment was insecure, as displayed via your sarcasm. Does it offend you that this woman expressed her paradigm. So, she's seen a few married men looking at her "tail.." this is her "reality." Her perception. You may not agree with it, for whatever reason, and certainly I don't... (as I prefer monogamy, myself) but I'm not going to assume someone "insecure" because I disagree with them. This is how she feels happy living her life... good for her. It's certainly not for me, though. Maybe you like monogamy, too? Or perhaps you were offended at the idea of a woman not wanting to wash your socks. XD

Comment #10.3 by: deeeznuts on 14 Sep 2011, 18:35 GMT

Men in the world have created such systems of government, farming, security etc that it gives 'independent' women the illusion of their independance. Who 'gave' women the right to vote- men. Who own the vast majority of businesses and more importantly who created the economic system of mixed capitalism so that there is so much surplus that there are enough jobs even for women- men. Who will this 'independent' woman call when the evolutionary disadvantage of sexual dimorphism is evidenced by a man trying to rape or otherwise control her physically- she will call men who have guns, invented by men, to come to the rescue of this very 'dependent' damsel in distress. You can try to live in the unnatural facade of the man-made modern world, invented by men for your provision, safety and protection and deny your place in the world but it is that, a facade. Get out in any kind of real world natural human situation and you will be running full speed towards the strongest, wealthiest man that will have you. And you will find your place along with other women that are already with him.


Comment #11 by: lola on 07 Sep 2010, 00:11 UTC reply to this comment

Sex is an activity that is very competently facilitated at the rodent level of technological development. If as humans we consider the species "advanced" we must work to maintain an environment that facilitates advancement. As anthropology shows, humans make great leaps in advancement when our society rises above the daily grind of exclusively surviving. This requires the need for a man and a woman to work together to create and environment for advancement. There is massive amounts of proof that women left with children and the children face a purely survival situation. If we as a society think we are going anywhere anytime soon the monogamous relationship must prevail.

Comment #11.1 by: CA on 02 May 2011, 01:11 GMT

there are too many people on the planet, we'd do our species one better by slowing down the reproduction by a lot. so go out with whoever you like, use the technology of birth control, then there's no worry about children being left without socially or sexual monogamous parents :)


Comment #12 by: Jenn on 23 Sep 2010, 00:01 UTC reply to this comment

Can I get some sources for this? I'm writing an essay on a similar topic and I'm hoping to find some concrete studies.


Comment #13 by: Rebecca on 21 Mar 2011, 19:24 UTC reply to this comment

Bottom Line: We should not be surprised when married people have affairs; we should be surprised when married people do NOT have affairs...


Comment #14 by: Evnissyen on 29 Mar 2011, 05:49 UTC reply to this comment

What a biased article. Lol... So men are a bunch of mindless brutes... therefore, they have the advantage of "baring more resources" in a society they constructed to benefit themselves... whereas women, being less of a mindless brute, (as estrogen has proven to strengthen intellect. And, apparently, gray matter in the brain) will wither and die in a world where mindless (ape-ish) brutality reigns victoriously? Oh, and of course, there's the whole "her biology doesn't benefit from it" nonsense. Lol!

Interesting read. But something seems very off.

Comment #14.1 by: deeeznuts on 14 Sep 2011, 18:16 GMT

men have worked hard to 'subdue' and secure the word and control its resources to provide a safe place where the weaker and fairer of the species can goff and scientific facts when it doesn't please their Oprah book club influenced ideology


Comment #15 by: Kaye on 07 Jun 2011, 01:57 UTC reply to this comment

As a Biology Major, as well as a Masters in Forensic Science, I find this article to be very interesting. It takes a biologist to understand Human Nature and its Origin. Next aticle provide sources to support your thoughts. Many scholarly sources that support your argument are out there! Show them your scientific findings, throries and facts! Good Job.


Comment #16 by: pj on 09 Jun 2011, 01:07 UTC reply to this comment

this story is cool.


Comment #17 by: MiMI on 14 Feb 2012, 18:09 UTC reply to this comment

First of all Im not saying she is wrong this is just my opinion. I have not done any research this is also a statement and also looking for answers too. I love the article it makes you think , But..I think we were ment to be with one partner. I think Centurys ago this might of been the case because of how hard it was to survive, so we had to make sure the human race did not die off. Im sure everybody has heard of the hormone that is released after an orgasim that makes us bond to our partner . I dont think that is released for nothing. If we were ment to be with multiple partners we would not have feelings for our partner and women would not release that hormone to become attached to them. It goes deeper than this but I cant comment too much cause Im at work..

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM