Genes and monogamy/polyamory

[figmo]

This article features a study that says the tendency to be monogamous vs. polyamorous may be genetic.

I would have preferred they use less judgemental language in describing polyamory (why couldn't they just say meadow moles prefer multiple partners?), but the core information in the article is IMHO interesting.

Comments

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

The science sounds interesting, as science, but the idea that a "medical" treatment to impose "proper" sexual behavior on people might be something we could see someday, and worse, the suggestion that it would be a good idea, suggests to me that the Luddites might have been right after all.

[figmo.livejournal.com]

I believe the tendency towards monogamy vs. polyamory is genetic, just as I believe one's sexual orientation is determined that way. I also find the idea of imposing one group's idea of "proper" sexual behavior on another to be frightening.

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

I suspect that human behavior is slightly more complex than that of meadow moles.

From what I've read, sociological studies suggest that humans tend to pair-bound for period of 3 to 5 years, unless a child is born and remains alive, which extends the period; the woman's pregnancy tends to extend the duration if it occurs after 3 or 4 years of the relationship.

However, even though there is pair bonding, either one or both of the couple frequently has one or more side relationships going during that period; they're just less significant interactions. The women often look at the side relationships as an important source of extra wealth, including food for her and any children she has.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

I wonder how sociologists would react to my marriage, which is (a) childfree to date and (b) going strong after 17 years with one abortive attempt at polyamory about a dozen years ago and a successful second attempt begun two years back. By their estimates, we should have divorced by now. And I know a fair number of couples who've beat those figures, both monogamous and poly, children and no kids.

Re:

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

We've built up a lot of structures that exert control on our lives, moving us well out of the "natural state". Religion, economics beyond hunter/gatherer/collector, go on from there.

I suspect that polyamory, in the longer-term and/or every involved knows all about all the links, goes against the basic human programming as much as being monogamous or celibate does. Not that we can't chose to do so, it's just that I suspect both are likely to take more (much more?) effort than the patterns we evolved with.

Consider the zero kids thing. Until only a century ago no kids usually had a negative impact on whatever social organization the non-parent(s) were in. Go back 10K years or so, and not having kids might well mean that your entire tribe was hurt, and might die out. This would certainly be true if several couples dud so.

Zero kids is a non-reinforcing action, people who take that route tend to have their genes die out. Once human population levels got high enough, having too many kids also has a negative impact on longer term survival of your genes. It's a narrow path we tread...

Re:

[tibicina.livejournal.com]

On Polyamory... possibly, except that a lot of the problems with it are sociological. There are certainly human societies that have been polyamorous in various ways... though some are more an expression of control/status by one sex or the others.

There are people who spend a lot of time pointing out that chimpanzees seem to be monogamous and are one of our closest cousins genetically. These same people tend to forget to point out that we're equally closely related to Bonobos who are almost all bi-sexual and polyamorous (or at least form long term, but not sexually monogamous bonds).

Which all goes to say that I don't know how monogamous or polyamorous a human with no societal programing would be, but I suspect that polyamory is a more likely option than true monogamy... though I suspect even that would vary by person.

Re:

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

Sort of what I was trying to say while avoiding falling asleep at the keyboard. There's good reason to believe that humans are not purely monogamous by nature, but neither are they (to quote the article) promiscuous by nature; they have primary relationships that persists for several years, and may or may not have secondary relationships that usually come and go.

Besides the apes you mention, gorillas are polygamous, if a male and female gorillas establish a mating relationship, the female usually leaves if the male doesn't add additional females soon enough. At the same time, the males do not appear to be particularly possessive.

I hadn't heard that chimpanzees are particularly monogamous, at least in terms of forming a life-long pair bound. Chimps are also know to have a fair amount of homosexual activity, although not as much as the bonobos.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/social.htm

All that lets one do is to say that our closest relatives do not have a common, shared approach to sexual arrangements.

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

From what I've read, sociological studies suggest that humans tend to ...

Oh, dear. You could finish that sentence with all sorts of claims. To paraphrase you, I suspect that human behavior is slightly more complex than bad evolutionary psychology (aka social-science "Just So" stories).

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

I did qualify my statement with "from what I've read", not "expert state", please note.

As I
A) don't have a time machine, so I can't directly observe evolutionary events.
B) Don't feel like setting up experimental societies to see how modern humans would act if raised in certain ways.
C) Don't have time to run around studying societies around the world, ditto for those of our relatives.
D) Am not ready to turn it all over the Big Bearded Guy in The Sky, who says if we don't do what he says we're all bacon bits. Ditto for anyone who states that they know what Big Guy wants, so I should listen to them.

I'm left with reading the tech journals and deciding what appears to be likely. Alternative interpretations of available data are welcome.

I agree that it is fascinating stuff

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I was going to ask how long until the article was horribly misinterpreted but the answer is clearly, "Before I got around to posting this." :-)

Re: I agree that it is fascinating stuff

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

It's simple:

Studies in humans have also suggested that the same brain pathways involved in forming romantic relationships may also be involved in drug addiction.

This means that the War on Drugs must be expanded to cover romantic relationships.

Re: I agree that it is fascinating stuff

[figmo.livejournal.com]

The "preachy" overtone of the article bothered me. Instead of talking about "orientation clash," they use the "cheating partner" scenario.

I do think the tendency to prefer monogamy vs. polyamory has genetic roots, and thus I see judging someone on that basis up there with judging someone by eye color.

yeah, right

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

I haven't gone back and read the entire article you posted, but I want to point out that, both with my own experiences with friends and with magazine articles I've read on contemporary culture, there were a *lot* of people doing multiple relationships in the 1970s who had never done so before and have not done so since. I don't think this can be blamed on genetics.

Nate

Re: yeah, right

[figmo.livejournal.com]

Sexually, and IMHO in terms of monogamous/polyamorous orientations, most of the population is somewhere in the middle. Very few people (I think the figure is 10%, but I don't have the facts in front of me) are 100% gay or 100% het; likewise, I suspect the same to be true of polyamory.

Also, just because you try something doesn't mean it's for you. I've been involved in polyamorous relationships and learned it didn't work for me because I tried it. That doesn't make me polyamorous. Similarly, there are folks who have tried different sexual things and found those didn't work for them.

What IMHO is to blame is attitudes some folks place on orientations, making some orientations (and folks with them) automatically "good" or "moral" and those who don't share those orientations "bad" or "amoral." Orientations aren't good or bad; they're just what you are.

Re: yeah, right

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I get the feeling that you and I are talking about two different topics. I am trying to point out that "they're just what you are" can have to do with societal pressures and norms (I won't say "as much as" your natural instincts), as witness any number of people who *feel* gay or bisexual, but because of societal or religious pressures, live lives that fall into the social norms of a society that remains highly biased toward monogamous heterosexuals. (I am thinking of one dear woman friend who feels emphatically bisexual, but whose Christianity forbids her to act on the half that involves women; she is married and I am 99% sure she has been "faithful.") I am horrified that society demands this; I would be far more comfortable with a society that gives people free rein to be who they actually are; but I don't think, in the 35 years or so that I've been more-or-less adult (I turn 55 in August) I've ever seen that; in the 1970s, for instance, there was a lot of pressure toward polyamory, at least in the crowd I ran with, that had completely reversed by the 1990s. And given what I've seen, a lot of people are very much affected by societal pressure. I don't consider this "good," "bad," "moral," or "immoral;" I am simply trying very hard to point out that it can be awfully hard to separate out people's genetic predispositions from what society is trying to impose on them, or even (on a case-by-case basis) "lessons they've learned" in the course of living their lives. And I'm not at all sure the "separating out" is ever going to get any easier.