It’s true that the instinct for monogamy is less strong in men than in women. This is illustrated by the fact that–though polygamous mariages are rare–when they do occur they overwhelmingly involve polygyny (having more than one wife) rather than polyandry (having more than one husband). Nevertheless, most men are monogamous. The fact that this happens across all cultures–even those that allow polygamy–indicates that there are reasons for male monogamy that are rooted in human nature.
What are those reasons?
Many point out that supporting more than one wife is hard, and so most men can only have one even where it is legal to have more than one. This is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that male monogamy is rooted in human nature. If human nature were such that males could support more than one wife easily, more would do so. Since that isn’t the case, human nature supports male monogamy. (Note that this argument also supports the traditional male role of provider/protector as having a basis in natural law. If men across cultures didn’t have to support their wives then their resources wouldn’t be consumed in doing so and they could take more wives.)
The difficulty of supporting more than one wife is only part of the problem, though. Here’s another and een more decisive factor: availability.
Among humans males and females exist in approximately equal numbers. Slightly more male babies are born, but men also have shorter life spans, so the numbers equal out. As you move up the age ladder, more and more women are present (because the males are dropping out) until women predominate at the high-end of the age ladder. Still, in society in general–and particularly during the childbearing years–the ratio of males to females never strays too far from 50-50.
This means that it is impossible for polygyny to ever become the predominant practice among human males. There aren’t enough women to allow that to happen. If there were five girls born to every one boy then that would suggest that polygyny should be the natural practice for males, but the fact that the sexes are approximately one-to-one strongly indicates that males should (and will) be overwhelmingly monogamous in marriage.
The only ways around this would be to change human nature in some way, such as removing the female impulse to monogamy, leading women to have multiple husbands. But that would probably destroy marriage altogether because if most women took multiple husbands, enabling most men to take multiple wives then the interconnectivity of who is married to whom would become intolerably complex and marriage as an institution would simply break down. That ain’t gonna happen because human offspring are far too dependent on their parents for far too long for societies to be successful if they don’t have marriage (which is why all existing societies do have it–again, a social institution flows directly from human nature).
Another, change in human nature could take place in male psychology so that humans operated like some species where all the breeding in a group is done by an alpha male with his harem. But this would only make polygyny the most common form of union when marriage occurs. For most men, marriage wouldn’t occur at all since the alpha males would be hoarding the women.
And that won’t happen in the real world because human psychology won’t permit it. There is no way ordinary, rank-and-file men would permit self-appointed alpha males to be the only ones who can get married. Ordinary men are too ornery, too organized, and too clever to let that happen. Any society which tried to impose such a situation on its male population would find itself quickly re-organized.
These considerations point out that human nature again drives us toward male as well as female monogamy. Human nature would have to change in fundamental ways for polygyny to become commonplace.
What we have said thus far deals with factors that don’t operate on the level of male desire. If males had no psychological impulse toward monogamy at all, the above factors would still ensure its dominance of marriag patterns. But I think there is more to the story than that. Though men may have “wandering eyes” more than women, this doesn’t mean that it is only factors external to the affections that lead them to be monogamous. If human nature has been set up so that monogyny is the norm among men, it is natural to expect that men’s affections too have been designed for it.
In other words, men also are monogamous because they want to be monogamous. They form unique emotional bonds with their wives and don’t want to have more than one. Though some–particularly in misanthropic feminist circles–might want to portray men as selfish pigs who will take as many wives as they can get–men themselves will tell one that this isn’t true. They really do form exclusive emotional attachments to their wives and regard something as wrong with men who don’t. Men are thus affectively monogamous by nature, just as women are.
Given your premises (with which I agree) what might be the consequences of the one child/abortion “experiment” going on in parts of India and China (and probably elsewhere) that, I see reported, will in a few years result in 120 or more teenaged males for every 100 females?
Consider this:
A certain culture is predisposed to violence. This culture also only allows men to fight in wars. Over time, the ratio of men to women shifts to a large majority of women due to the death of men in war. The society then adopts polygamy to help procreate. Only the men who survive battle sire children. These men pass on to their children the genetics in them that helped them survive the battles. The society’s population increases providing more men for battle. The next generations of men have genetics that make them better warriors to survive battle.
“It’s true that the instinct for monogamy is less strong in men than in women. This is illustrated by the fact that–though polygamous mariages are rare–when they do occur they overwhelmingly involve polygyny (having more than one wife) rather than polyandry (having more than one husband).”
Isn’t polyandry less common than polygamy because men are more prone to murderous rampages of jealous rage than women are?
Maybe men had more than one partner more often than women in some societies because they had more power and status – and therefore more choice than women. The more powerful women become the more sexual choices we have.
I don’t think: “It’s true that the instinct for monogamy is less strong in men than in women.” That’s not true any more if it ever was – again I think it’s a power issue – women used to need men, so they were more likely to be monogamous – but as females in society acquire more freedom of choice many are going the multiple partner route and have several partners in their lifetimes. As many men do and always have – men being monogamous is really funny – they may not have more than one wife, but that doesn’t mean they don’t fool around a lot – human nature actually and not necessarily a bad thing.
I’ll bet the Kool-ade tastes good.
“…as females in society acquire more freedom of choice many are going the multiple partner route…” Isn’t it wonderful that women now have the freedom to be as slutty as the sluttiest of men!
“again I think it’s a power issue – women used to need men, so they were more likely to be monogamous – but as females in society acquire more freedom of choice many are going the multiple partner route and have several partners in their lifetimes.”
So, in other words, women should act more like men? Thanks for that modern perspective.
I do notice that more women swear and drive like jerks these days, too. But its all about power, right? Who needs happiness and fulfillment?
I’ll take monogamy. My wife and I are in our 25th year. No affairs – or even a stray kiss – and we are not as unusual as you might think.
It would be helpful to stop talking about the failure rate of marriages and look at the success rate. It is well documented that steady, monogamous relationships correspond to increased fulfillment on every level – personal, professional, financial… and this goes for women and men.
Serial relationships correspond to increased anxiety, financial hardship and lowered professional achievement. Kids from broken families are more likely to engage in risky behavior and crime.
But, as long as you can feel like you have more power… what could it hurt? Whats important is having more choices, and women are now more free than ever to choose misery over contentment, and power over honor.
jgrl,
I recommend you read the book
A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue .
It is our fallen nature that causes someone to “fool around (perfect term)” and not human nature. Adultery is most definitely a bad thing.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“again I think it’s a power issue – women used to need men, so they were more likely to be monogamous – but as females in society acquire more freedom of choice many are going the multiple partner route and have several partners in their lifetimes.
So, in other words, women should act more like men? Thanks for that modern perspective.”
I didn’t say they should – I said they were. And it’s not “acting like men” per se – but acting like humans who have freedom – who will often overindulge in pleasurable things, let’s face it. Sex is a strong drive, I agree we need to treat it with respect, but I think people go overboard both ways – either stridently anti-sex and monogamous, or so sexually “liberated” that anything goes and sex no longer has any depth or meaning. As I said in another post, I’m a big believer in balanced nature. The excitement of life is acheiving that balance between freedom and discipline of our impulses so that we’re fine people. It’s the same tension that creates great art or music, I do believe, that fine line between structure and freedom.
“I do notice that more women swear and drive like jerks these days, too. But its all about power, right? Who needs happiness and fulfillment?”
I know plenty of monogamous people who have neither happiness or fulfillment. It’s an illusion that your sexual habits will make all the difference one way or another. I think happiness and fulfillment takes a full engagement with life and all it’s nuances. Being a “jerk” is not what I was promoting. But I understand why you thought that, since our culture is permeated with meaningless and awful sexual consumption. I agree with you on that point, but think there are also people practicing all kinds of alternatives to that and not all include monogamy.
I still think that having more than one partner is not necessarily a bad thing. Both can be done with dignity, it needn’t be all this media type of so-called sexual liberation that is more about consumption than sexuality. That’s probably what you keep meaning by “sluttiness” Bill and if so, I agree. Men or women mindlessly using each other and becoming more and more shallow is not what I have in mind.
“I recommend you read the book A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue .”
I have no need to read that book, because I grew up reading books just like that – on purity, modesty, obedience and the perfect christian lifestyle for women. I think human sexuality is way more complex than that – and it’s beautiful in many of it’s forms including some of the freer ones that that book would take offense at. I’m not opposed to some modesty though – I just think that sometimes free spirits and their sexuality are beautiful too – maybe not as expressed in pop culture right now, which I agree is hideous – but I’ve known some people who are not ugly about their enjoyment of sex and their particular varied beliefs about it. You won’t see them in a music video, but they’re out there. Some people who practice sexual freedom are really interested in being moral, loving and respectful about it. I don’t agree with all the principles in this next book necessarily so I don’t endorse or practice all it’s principles, but it wouldn’t hurt for you to read “The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities ” along with your modesty book – just for an alternative viewpoint.
Forgot to mention this:
“In other words, men also are monogamous because they want to be monogamous.”
Yeah I agree – many men (and women) are happier with monogamy and I respect that too.
“Serial relationships correspond to increased anxiety, financial hardship and lowered professional achievement. Kids from broken families are more likely to engage in risky behavior and crime.”
This is where I start to agree – about the essence of it anyway. Change does bring anxiety and stress (not always a bad thing if it’s managed though, and sometimes staying with the wrong partner can be far more stressful than leaving one. Also, sometimes the stress of change is the stress of growth and it leads you to a better place.)
And yeah, kids do need security (which can be provided by more than one model for relationships) They need the security of knowing they’re loved, protected, provided for etc… sometimes that requires leaving a relationships, too. Sometimes it requires sticking it out. It’s all too simplistic to create rules around it, you can only take your situation and try to navigate it. I think teaching people an engagement with morality instead of accepting simple solutions is a better way to go.
jgrl,
The book is actually written by an orthodox jewish woman. It is not a how-to-be modest book. Society is trying to tell women to act like men if they want to be happy and it is not working. The book takes an honest look at our society and points out what has been lost. Women and men are different and should learn how to act towards each other not act like each other.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I remember when I used to know everything. I’ve learned a lot since then.