Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)
-   -   Monogamy: it's in the genes (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/139798-monogamy-its-genes.html)

abaya 09-03-2008 05:24 AM

Monogamy: it's in the genes
 
Saw this article today and thought it was fascinating (even though the study was limited to men--I'd like to see it extended to include women, of course)... basically, it says that there may be gene variants that account for different levels of "commitment" among men, which they study by asking people about their marital happiness, discord, etc in the past year... and looking at their genes to see if they have certain alleles. This would explain a lot!!!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Seattle Times
Not the marrying kind? It may be a gene thing   click to show 

Nation & World | Not the marrying kind? It may be a gene thing | Seattle Times Newspaper

What do you guys think? I tend to think that there are "marrying" types, and conversely, those who are not... even though most people get married anyway, this might help account for the 50% divorce rate. You might call it genetic incompatibility... not with your partner, but with the ability to stay committed, in itself. Evolutionarily, perhaps in the past it was more beneficial to NOT be committed, so that you could spread your seed more often... but these days, seems to be the committed types to prosper more. Thoughts?

Baraka_Guru 09-03-2008 05:48 AM

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.

ratbastid 09-03-2008 05:48 AM

Several people have asked me my thoughts on this article since it came out yesterday. Like: "Where do you think YOU fall, ya big polyamorist you?"

I honestly don't know what to think. I guess I'm the "marrying type", but with more than one woman at once... Doesn't seem like this study accounts for me. Or at least that "aha! monogamy!" is the unconsidered conclusion that the researchers leaped to.

MSD 09-03-2008 05:53 AM

It's all societal. In our culture, monogamy is expected at some point. You'll settle down when you grow up whether you like it or not. I see it as a faux maturity based on fitting in. At least a genetic basis gives weight to the argument that not everyone is suited to settle down, not that it's going to influence old-fashioned types who think that everyone should think like them.

abaya 09-03-2008 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2517603)
I honestly don't know what to think. I guess I'm the "marrying type", but with more than one woman at once... Doesn't seem like this study accounts for me. Or at least that "aha! monogamy!" is the unconsidered conclusion that the researchers leaped to.

I guess I see it more as "the committed type" than the "monogamy/marrying type." Clearly you are the committed type... at least, as far as I can tell. :) And I do think that some men, for whatever reasons (quite possibly genetic), are not cut out for long-term commitment... the biological evidence shows that this doesn't have to be a character flaw.

However, it would be annoying if people started claiming this as some kind of deficiency and reason for divorcing... "Well, I have that Non-Committal Gene, which makes me unable to stay with this marriage," etc. That would be turning the whole thing on its head... an excuse for poor behavior/immaturity, I mean.

MSD 09-03-2008 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya (Post 2517659)
However, it would be annoying if people started claiming this as some kind of deficiency and reason for divorcing... "Well, I have that Non-Committal Gene, which makes me unable to stay with this marriage," etc. That would be turning the whole thing on its head... an excuse for poor behavior/immaturity, I mean.

Give it five years and blaming cheating on genetics will be the new blaming fat on genetics.

Baraka_Guru 09-03-2008 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD (Post 2517682)
Give it five years and blaming cheating on genetics will be the new blaming fat on genetics.

And, of course, it will be just as wrong as the latter. Those of us who know better are aware of the behavioral and physiologic workings of humans, at least on a basic level.

Actually, don't some people already blame cheating on genetics, or "our nature"?

abaya 09-03-2008 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2517686)
Actually, don't some people already blame cheating on genetics, or "our nature"?

Yeah, I know a few. I can't stand 'em. I hate excuses.

You choose your lifestyle, and the consequences. If that means that you are genetically inclined towards/away a certain lifestyle, then live responsibly and honestly within those boundaries... and don't expect others to have the same boundaries that you do. In other words, if you're "naturally" a cheater, then you should probably only be in open relationships, and should avoid marriage and other long-term entanglements as a rule, etc.

But that doesn't mean that ALL of us are wired to be cheaters. Some of us really do love being "tied down" (gasp!). I see that as being the point of this article... yes, some people are not cut out for it, but that doesn't leave the door open for everyone to run through with that excuse.

genuinegirly 09-04-2008 10:22 AM

What a great article, Abaya! Thanks for sharing.
Interesting that the system affects women differently than men. I wonder why that is, and how it is different. Do we have blockers, or perhaps different receptors?

Sounds like an area that should get more study. I think polyamory commitment wasn't mentioned simply because it's not as common, fewer people interested in the results of such studies, more difficult to obtain funding. Note that they also didn't include committed homosexual males. You cannot rightfully say the study refers to commitment in general - they specifically studied heterosexual marriages, so that is all they can report.

Willravel 09-04-2008 10:24 AM

Fascinating. I wonder which, in the long run, will prove to be a survival trait.

neoinoakleys 09-04-2008 11:45 AM

That's an easy one Willravel...

The non-monogamous one will prevail. Think about it, they are the ones that are breeding uncontrollably.

Watch the first 15 minutes of a movie called Idiocracy, that will explain it all.

:cool:

genuinegirly 09-04-2008 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2518552)
Fascinating. I wonder which, in the long run, will prove to be a survival trait.

In the long run, I'd say it's in mankind's best interest to maintain both. The ability for a population to adapt is the key to survival.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360