March 1, 2014

Monogamy - Part 1

When I was a kid, we used to hike up along a canyon in the mountains. After an hour walk we got to a spot where we could climb down to the river at the bottom of the canyon with our fishing rods. It was my favorite place to fish, because we always caught 10-15 trout in an hour or two. Every time we got there, a screaming buzzard couple circulated above our heads, trying to scare us off, to protect their nest in the cliff above the river. In recent years I’ve been there with my own kids. Both the trout in the river and the buzzard in the cliff are still there.

I don’t know if it’s the same buzzard couple (they can live for 20 years). It could be the same couple, because the buzzards live in lifelong monogamous relationships. Monogamy is quite rare in nature. It’s common in only a few species, including buzzards and humans (but not trout).

Is monogamy (or the opposite) a natural or cultural phenomenon (nature or nurture)? That’s an interesting question. I don’t know the answer, but I have some thoughts about it. This topic has been carefully researched by a variety of scientists (check it out in Wikipedia), and here are just my thoughts. I'll touch into both the biological and cultural aspects of it.

Let’s start with biology and nature. Two issues are important for every species of animals: (1) reproduction, and (2) protection and safety. Humans are just one species among many mammals. Our main purpose on earth is to breed and spread our genes as wide as possible. This is good for the genetic health (just take a look at the paintings of the Habsburgers, and you will see what happens when the genetic variability becomes too limited). Therefore, the males want to screw as many females as possible.

After the ejaculation the male needs some time to recover before he can perform again. The recovery time is shorter (reduced from, say, 20 mins to 5 mins) if he’s offered a new female. That’s the way it works. The biological purpose of this mechanism is to throw the seed over as many fields as possible. This counteracts the idea of monogamy. In the modern society the consequence of this is that men enjoy watching porn (I think I have read somewhere that statistically 95% of men get turned on by porn, whether they admit it or not; for women the number is lower). And they want to see a great variety of models (that’s why the Internet is full of porn).

For the female mammals, things are somewhat different. They can’t spread their genes in the same way as the male. The female must bear and give birth to the offspring, and feed it until it's able to survive on it's own. Hence, they use a different strategy. The females want to be fucked by the superior males, the alpha-males in the wolf pack. That’s why the females put so much effort into clothing, hair and make-up when they go out to bars and discotheques. The red glossy lipstick is a projection of their their swollen horny labia for the reproduction marketplace (the last proposition isn’t my idea; I read it in a book by the British behavior psychologist Desmond Morris). 

In the wolf pack, the alpha-male is the strongest and most dominant individual. For humans, the situation is more diverse. The alpha-males can acquire their status by (symbols of) physical strength, thick wallets, political power or bright minds, or a combination thereof (that’s why women tend to admire Johnny Depp). The men who lose the alpha-male battle go to the prostitutes and pay to get their seeds spread over the fields.

Remark, somewhat on the side: Men tend to like chubby and curvy women because they appear more fertile, which is appealing to men’s biological instincts. The strive for skinny and bony bodies and narrow hips is just a counter-natural competition between women who don’t realize that it just makes them less attractive (unless that’s what they want).  

Another remark: For ants and wasps, the situation is different. The female can produce lots of eggs in a short time, and the ant and wasp queens attract and serve an army of males. Humans however, are more like wolves and gorillas than marching ants (imagine what it would be like if we were like ants).

That’s my thoughts about Monogamy-cons, the reasons why we want to fuck around like horny gorillas. I have to split this topic in two parts, and deal with the monogamy-pros later (otherwise this post becomes way to long, and I would get to tired tomorrow morning).

(The picture is from my archives, taken some years ago, in the canyon with the nesting buzzard couple)

4 comments:

  1. Fascinating! Looking forward to part two.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are some problems with these theories. For examples, if men were "mean't" to be distributing sperm in that way, then surely we would be producing far more males than females biologically. It is a waste of all resources, natural, AND sperm to produce 50/50 male and female in the sex of offspring, and yet remarkably, the population is geared toward exactly this.
    I'm not necessarily a fan of monogamy - certainly not if it is not done radically and in an exciting way - but I do find some of this pop science stuff to be a new form of conservative attitudes to sex - very straight down the line, very traditional and very heavily aligned with religious beliefs. I also think the science behind it is dubious.... and a pandering to the male ego.
    But I'm really keen to see what you say in part two.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ... apologies - I think I was a bit reactionary with my previous post. It's frustrating when things are cited as "scientific" when there is no evidence for them, just leaps in conclusion.
    Anyway - I know these aren't your ideas... they're just part of the clumsy discourse on sexual relationships.
    I'm really looking forward to the next post - and I really enjoy reading your blog.
    Thanks
    :)

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails