Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



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

December 9th, 2006, 11:50 GMT · By Stefan Anitei

Monogamy Is an Oddity

SHARE:

Adjust text size:

Are you wondering why you find it so hard to keep monogamy in your relationship? Well, it's not your fault. Your genes don't have it encoded. Or have you seen monogamous apes?

Monogamy is so rare in the animal world that only 3-5 % of the mammals are known to form lifelong pair bonds, like beavers, otters, jackals, foxes, some bats and a few dwarf deer and antelopes.

In fact, strict monogamy is almost inexistent, as creatures that do pair for life, occasionally have flings on the side and some, like the wolf, do not mourn too much a death or a no longer sexually performing partner.

Staying faithful is extremely hard for animals, as the males are programmed to spread their genes and females to get the best genes from the best males for their young.

Instead, monogamy requires an individual to invest its entire reproductive potential on a single mate. This puts lot of pressure on each individual to choose the best mate, which, as
in humans, can be tricky.

Three levels of monogamy are distinguished. Sexual monogamy is the practice of having sex only with one mate at a time, for example, pairs that last only one mating season. Social monogamy is when animals form pairs to mate and raise offspring but still have extra-pair copulations. Genetic monogamy occurs when a female's offspring are sired by only one father.

In the last case, there may be no pair bonding (like in fish or frogs). Theoretically (and just theoretically!), for humans, social and sexual monogamy usually go together, but rarely in the animal life. 90 % of all birds are socially monogamous, living and raising young together, but many frequently have extra-conjugal sex.

In one study, female blackbirds that paired with sterilized males were still laying eggs that hatched!...

Animals regarded as symbols of faithfulness, such as gibbons and swans, are now known to cheat, abandon and even "divorce" one other, exactly like in humans. And the famous example of stork fidelity is a bogus! The male is faithful in fact to the nest rather than to the female, and he won't protect her if another female fights with her for the nest.

The very few animals that do stick together are investigated to find the biological basis of fidelity. In the prairie vole, a male vole will prefer to mate exclusively with the first female he loses his virginity to. Far from trying to woo other females, a mated male vole will actually attack them: this is indeed a fanatic lover!

The rare behavior seems to be determined by high levels of certain brain neurotransmitters. One of these, dopamine, is also implicated in drug addiction in humans.

Black vulture has also high ethics: when extra-pair copulation takes place nearby, vultures will attack the philanderer. Vulture pair bonding must be strong, since both parents incubate eggs, each taking a 24-hour shift, and for eight months, the offspring gets fed by both parents.

In a beaver family, 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. But male dikdiks, an African dwarf antelope, are sexually monogamous even if they are not very involved in the raising of the calves. Even so, males have to defend a territory for their families against the intrusion of other dikdiks.

As homosexuality and polygamy are proved to be rampant in the wild, monogamy might be boring for animal sexual lifestyles.


82,652 hits · 21 comments
Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


No Straight Sexuality, No Straight Aggressiveness

Sexual Behavior is Determined by Social Inquest

Fake Homosexual Sex to Ease Aggression

Females Appreciate Masculine Behavior More Than Masculine Look

Testosterone Use and Organized Crime

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Anthropologist1 on 22 Jan 2009, 12:34 UTC reply to this comment

In actuality there are some species of primates that are monogamous that we are genetically more similar to than other, non primate animals.
White Handed Gibbon Hylobates Lal and Siamang Hylobtes Syndactilus being examples of this. (reference paper : http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~palombit/Palombit_1996.pdf )

It is my belief ultimately that monogamy works for some humans and not others and that this could be a result of biological or social differences, since in some cultures monogamy is prevalent, and in others polyamoury, polyandry or polygyny is practised, as well as the above findings on monogamous primates.

It is disappointing when an article meant for enlightenment merely puts an inaccurate spin on things. I think your intention may have been good, but the excecution a little misguided and somewhat lacking.

Comment #1.1 by: someone on 23 Sep 2011, 03:29 GMT

If you read more carefully, your monogamous pairing primate is written in a social system study, though a limited spec from a observational result. The monogamous it is talking about is social monogamous pairing, which may have extra-paring copulation that is not observed during the "observational time frame". Since it is a social study they wanted to find "Social" Monogamous behavior, which was accomplished. But on your comment your monogamous pairing is talking about sexual monogamous pairing, which is a different thing. Due to the intend of the original article, monogamous is some what explain, but the clear distinction is not made when it comes to sexual monogamous and social monogamous, when comparing to human perspective. i have no objection to your comment but the first part of your comment, which is basis of support, lacks coherent with the rest, because they taking about two different monogamy.


Comment #2 by: tina on 11 Dec 2009, 00:12 UTC reply to this comment

This is good for science research. The reality is we know better animals simply live off instinct and if they had nearly as many sexual diseases they'd all be dead. Evolution happens and we have developed to be an incredible species who has more control over our actions. Scientifically we will evolve to be more monogamous or find more cures for diseases and i hate to say that the later is more probable.
From a scientific point of view monogamy doesn't make too much sense until our species and it's sexual diseases come to play. Yet to be fair with the animals who try, you can't just point out a few infidelities in an entire species and go "AHA! THEY ALL DO IT." like the article says not everyone can be faithful, but everyone has the capability to stop it. I believe in monogamy, yet i also believe it's very hard work.
I just don't like it when men blame nature and even other species for what they do. It's just ridiculous. It's hard yes, but my genes make it hard for me to stay thin, however i don't blame evolution and give up, it's just harder for me, YET i deal because i know whats best for me.

Comment #2.1 by: Lu on 04 Apr 2010, 17:01 GMT

Well said!

Comment #2.2 by: Angela on 07 Aug 2010, 18:29 GMT

Very well said!!!

Comment #2.3 by: Liz on 11 Aug 2010, 06:17 GMT

I wonder if both of these comments come from religious people. Monogamy was invented by religion, and this article is merely showing nature's reality: that monogamy is rare in animals. This point cannot be disputed. In humans, obviously monogamy is based on desire. Yes we still have sexual urges even after forming a bond with and choosing our mate. Yes the option to be monogamous is a conscious decision. The article merely implicates it may not be in human nature to be monogamous, which I don't believe is true. Cheers to the happy couples who endure and make it through because they fear it being the end-all of their relationship, but I believe sexual desire and urge; and action if society wasn't so against it, is natural in humans and shouldn't be shoved under the rug out of fear.

Comment #2.4 by: O'Reilly on 14 Feb 2011, 18:02 GMT

Monogamy was not invented by religion. It's a social contract that goes all the way back to the first people who saw the very real benefits that partnering can bring.

Yes, various religions have promoted monogamy...and science, and the arts, and charity...but they didn't event these things either, they just saw the good they bring to humanity.

And as another point, societal reactions against infidelity exist in the animal kingdom (check out the Black Vulture and others) and as such could be said to be just as natural for humans as monogamy or polygamy.

And on a related thought...if some animals are naturally monogamous and some polygamous, and if humans are little different then animals, and if our society might be the only thing to blame for us trying monogamy (as the previous poster claims)...isn't it then equally true that our society might be the only thing to blame for us being polygamous?

Comment #2.5 by: inor nerokstein on 17 May 2012, 15:12 GMT

monogamy was not invented by religion.... at least not by some of the more known ones. don't Mormons allow polygamy? didn't most of the men mentioned in the "old" bible have between 2 and 1000 wives and many had mistresses, openly?

the bible, does not discourage polygamy.
it does however discourage pre-marital sex, and it discourages adultery.
i think the main forces behind the above are jealousy and insecurity.
and for those reasons the bible invented the concept of "adultery" and other restrictions.

if we invented a cure for jealousy and insecurity we would all have a lot more sexual partners over our lifetime.

2) even if monogamy is not the natural thing to do, it does not mean we should all become polygamists. an "eye for an eye" is in the bible, and it's probably the natural feeling, but sometimes the good of the society takes priority over the good of the individual.

3) having said that, i don't think monogamy should be enforced by law. just like abortion, i am pro-choice on the issue of monogamy. it's a contract between people.

if a landlord wants to rent a place for $500 a month for the lifetime of the renter, and can find a renter that would agree to this, then they should do it. both sides realize that
at times it may be to their disadvantage, as rent may go up or down over time, but if both think that this is beneficial for both they should be allowed to do it. but the Law should not force anyone into this contract.


Comment #3 by: aasd on 07 Sep 2010, 02:56 UTC reply to this comment

cool story bro


Comment #4 by: Anonymous on 25 Feb 2011, 14:29 UTC reply to this comment

"Are you wondering why you find it so hard to keep monogamy in your relationship?"

Nope, because I don't find it hard at all. Quite easy, in fact.

Comment #4.1 by: suz on 14 May 2011, 19:15 GMT

*Thumbs up** :)


Comment #5 by: suz on 14 May 2011, 19:13 UTC reply to this comment

We are human, and have the ability to be civilized. Animals are called animals because they act primarily on instincts. Humans are called humans because we have the ability to be civilized and have responsibilities beyond that of animals.

Comment #5.1 by: Anon on 06 Jun 2011, 02:43 GMT

Humans are not animals.

Comment #5.2 by: 3144o8 on 27 Jul 2011, 06:52 GMT

duh... "Yes, humans are animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is mammalia. It's order is primate (the same as apes). It's family is Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is Homininae. It's tribe is Hominini. It's genus is * and it's specie is scientifically named * Sapiens."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_humans_animals#ixzz1THnVWak7

Comment #5.3 by: Bingo on 07 Oct 2011, 16:54 GMT

I think that monogamy, polygamy, homosexuality and celibacy are choices we can all make: we have free will, as the Biblical story of Adam and Eve so wonderfully describes: God gave us free will. So it is completely up to us! Yes we are animals, but we also have minds we can decide for ourselves. People don't like the feel of that responsibility, it makes them scared, because we are alone, but in the end that's true.

Comment #5.4 by: Anonymous on 22 Feb 2012, 10:58 GMT

Oh God someone HAD to bring the Bible into this didn't they. I get so sick of being preached at. Keep your Bible thumping beliefs to yourself!


Comment #6 by: James Michaels on 13 Mar 2012, 04:11 UTC reply to this comment

Something that is natural shouldn't be "hard work". That, alone, should answer the question.


Comment #7 by: inor nerokstein on 17 May 2012, 14:28 UTC reply to this comment

very good article that answered some questions i had about monogomy very well, but i think it could be improved by deleting the word "homosexuality" from the last sentence, for the following reasons:
1) * /hetro-sexuality is not related to mono/poly-gamy. why mix the two in an article about monogamy, and why at the very end, when nothing has been said in the article about homosexual behavior among species?
2) the last sentence starts with "homosexuality and polygamy" and concludes with "monogamy might be..." implying that homosexuality, like polygamy, is mutually exclusive with monogamy. obviously there are monogamous homosexuals.

Comment #7.1 by: Checkers on 29 Dec 2012, 03:08 GMT

Thank you. Homosexuals can too have monogamous relationships!


Comment #8 by: curtis william on 17 Jun 2012, 23:56 UTC reply to this comment

very interesting article , i showed it to my girlfriend and i still got in trouble for cheating on her

Comment #8.1 by: Monogamos on 29 Apr 2013, 01:15 GMT

Follow your heart. It will not lead you astray.

Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

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