|
I absolutely believe there is a "marrying" type. In much of the animal kingdom, there is what evolutionary scientists call pair bonding. One of the easiest non-human instance for us to observe is in birds. Many species of birds bond in pairs for a length of time to mate and raise young. This is a sound evolutionary strategy in terms of security in regard to safety and feeding, etc.
In humans, the challenge is the disproportionately long juvenile stage. Compare the well over 14(ish)-year stage to the length of time found in many mammals. It's quite long. Also compare the length of the gestation stage as well as the number of offspring per pregnancy. Having a human baby and raising it to reproduction age comes at a hefty cost and great risk (comparatively). This is why humans are generally wired to have a complex pairing that parallels what we see in many mammals. Granted, the human mind is far more complex, and so the pairing isn't as simple as it seems in, say, birds, but it's there.
This is not to say that polygamy doesn't exist, isn't a factor, or has its own advantages. But there is something to be said about the advantages of monogamy. We see many examples of this in large successful families.
On the other hand, this would also explain why some relationships don't work...or never happen: one or more feature of a potential mate suggests to the other that there isn't a long-term fit.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|