Saturday, July 3, 2010

Non-ogamy: Did they really need a book to prove this?

An interesting series of blog posts is up at from two psychologists that argue that humans are not sexually monogamous by nature. The posts are related to a book by the same psychologists arguing the same point. But did they really need a book to prove that?

I suspect that 90% of men would anecdotally confirm the overall conclusion of the book that humans are non-monogamous animals. If you could get them away from their girlfriends and wives at least. I think generally women feel the same way, even though they might be more hesitant to admit it because of the culturally negative connotation of being labeled a slut.

Anyway, we can't deny that infidelity is a common occurrence. Does that surprise anyone? The psychologists point out that even among "monogamous" animals like penguins, genetic testing of offspring reveals that the male is not the father. Thus it appears that monogamy is limited to a social context: protection, resource-gathering, and comfort. On the other hand, total monogamy is unnatural in a sexual context. Our society might have a reason to encourage total sexual monogamy (the psychologists point to inheritance of wealth), but that doesn't mean that society's demands comport with our natural instincts.

I'm wondering if anyone out there disagrees. Does anyone feel that, by their very nature and instinct, they are totally sexually monogamous? To be honest, a finding to that extent would surprise me much more than the "cutting-edge" research by these psychologists.

No comments:

Post a Comment