![]() |
![]() |
#1 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
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:
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
![]() 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.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 (permalink) | |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 (permalink) | |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Quote:
Actually, don't some people already blame cheating on genetics, or "our nature"?
__________________
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 (permalink) | |
Location: Iceland
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 (permalink) |
Eat your vegetables
Super Moderator
Location: Arabidopsis-ville
|
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.
__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy Last edited by genuinegirly; 09-04-2008 at 10:24 AM.. Reason: typos, clarity |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: Michigan
|
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. ![]()
__________________
It's My Duty to Please That Booty!! |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 (permalink) |
Eat your vegetables
Super Moderator
Location: Arabidopsis-ville
|
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.
__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy |
![]() |
Tags |
genes, monogamy |
|
|