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

[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.