Monogamy
In today's world it is perhaps the norm to have just one partner in marriage. However, this has not been the case in times past. Ancient chinese emperors had hundreds of concubines. Indeed, just a few generations back, our great-grandparents usually had more than a single wife. In modern day, Islamic law still permits a man to have four wives.
So why is monogamy the standard practice in society today? Is monogamy the 'natural' way of life for humans? Certainly, in the animal kingdom, only a small percentage of animals practice monogamy, and it is because of practicality rather than fidelity that they do so.
But what about us humans? It is a cultural and societal norm that we are attuned towards a marriage involving 2 parties and thus we may think it is the 'natural order' of things. But if so, why is there a prevalence of adultery? If commitment to a life partner is 'in the natural order of things', there will hardly be the not-so secret temptation of extra-maritial sexual relationships.
It is of course common knowledge between the sexes it is man who have more inclination to commit adultery. This is due to the inherent nature of the sex, where sperm production is cheap and his primal instinct is to spread his seed (and genetic material) to as many as possible. In contrast, women are the ones who have a finite fertility period. Furthermore, they are the ones who will bear the child should they be impregnated, along with the responsibility of nurturing them. Naturally, they are more inclined to be picky or choosy about who they develop sexual relationships with.
*Sidetrack: For people who have always pondered the age-old paradox of 'how is it possible that more men than women are having illicit sex? Shouldn't the numbers be the same?' should always consider the Village Bicycle Theorem.
Similarly it is also common knowledge that attractive individuals get more interest sexually. However, while attractive females will choose only the 'cream of the crop', attractive males will take advantage of their superiority to spread their seed around as much as possible. Thus, an attractive male will not only 'get the girl' but he will get all the girls.
So where does that leave the mediocre males? Thats right. They get nothing. Winner takes all. That is why the Emperor gets all the Concubines and the peasants toil in the fields with scant reward. Perhaps this is also why monogamy was introduced.
Our contemporary society is hardly like those of days past. These days, we champion democracy, equality. While actual equality is an impossibility, laws and norms strive toward such a structure. To be fair to all the men and women, the law of marriage decrees that each person is only entitled to one partner. Monogamous marriage is a contract between two individuals, an institution incorporated in response to the modern social climate. Which is all well and good for the previously mediocre men and women, since they are now handed a better chance in an even playing field. Rather than the Alpha Male getting all the babes, theoretically he is only entitled to one. Therefore everyone has an 'equal' chance to each stake their claim on a partner.
Of course, the genetic quality of our species will be compromised, but this is partially negated because a monogamous relationship structure is a very ideal environment in to nurture a child. Nature (genetic) and Nurture are equally important in a child's development. One partner, the breadwinner, brings in the dough. The other partner, the nurturer, takes care of the children, giving them the love that is so essential in the developing years of a child. The ideal family.
However, the emphasis towards materialism has perhaps cast serious doubt on this once great medium to raise a child. These days, it is not enough for one parent to be working. Usually, both parties are out working, leaving the child to the attention of a third party, usually a nanny or child care centre. Thus the very basis for this family structure is undermined. Rather than task specialisation, each contributing to an aspect of family life, there is an oversupply of providence and a consequent undersupply of nurture. The highly artificial nature of monogamy then becomes farcical. And this is not even considering the even uglier aspects of a divorce.
[Of course, this is an extreme pessimistic view. There are many successful marriages out there which do not fall within this bleak scenario]
*To be continued
*For purposes of this essay, issues of companionship are not considered. Drop a comment if you wish to hear my views on companionship issues.
*For purposes of this essay, Monagamy refers to a legally recognised marriage between two individuals of the opposite sex.
Postnote: Many thanks to HUICHIEH who shared an article by J.Morse, who takes a 'libertarian' perspective and argues that marriage is a natural and necessary social institution. I have read the article only after completion of this essay. Many points raised here already rebutts her myopic generalisations especially pertaining towards the 'spontataneous natural tendency of marriage' and the inability to differentiate between a legalised union between 2 parties and a union between 2 parties by pure informalised consent, ie non-married coupling. In addition her language reeks of putting forward points in favour of an idealistic hypothetical perfect marriage as opposed to a realistic marriage. I may attempt a counter-rebuttal to other points she raises in a future post (if I have the time).
So why is monogamy the standard practice in society today? Is monogamy the 'natural' way of life for humans? Certainly, in the animal kingdom, only a small percentage of animals practice monogamy, and it is because of practicality rather than fidelity that they do so.
But what about us humans? It is a cultural and societal norm that we are attuned towards a marriage involving 2 parties and thus we may think it is the 'natural order' of things. But if so, why is there a prevalence of adultery? If commitment to a life partner is 'in the natural order of things', there will hardly be the not-so secret temptation of extra-maritial sexual relationships.
It is of course common knowledge between the sexes it is man who have more inclination to commit adultery. This is due to the inherent nature of the sex, where sperm production is cheap and his primal instinct is to spread his seed (and genetic material) to as many as possible. In contrast, women are the ones who have a finite fertility period. Furthermore, they are the ones who will bear the child should they be impregnated, along with the responsibility of nurturing them. Naturally, they are more inclined to be picky or choosy about who they develop sexual relationships with.
*Sidetrack: For people who have always pondered the age-old paradox of 'how is it possible that more men than women are having illicit sex? Shouldn't the numbers be the same?' should always consider the Village Bicycle Theorem.
Similarly it is also common knowledge that attractive individuals get more interest sexually. However, while attractive females will choose only the 'cream of the crop', attractive males will take advantage of their superiority to spread their seed around as much as possible. Thus, an attractive male will not only 'get the girl' but he will get all the girls.
So where does that leave the mediocre males? Thats right. They get nothing. Winner takes all. That is why the Emperor gets all the Concubines and the peasants toil in the fields with scant reward. Perhaps this is also why monogamy was introduced.
Our contemporary society is hardly like those of days past. These days, we champion democracy, equality. While actual equality is an impossibility, laws and norms strive toward such a structure. To be fair to all the men and women, the law of marriage decrees that each person is only entitled to one partner. Monogamous marriage is a contract between two individuals, an institution incorporated in response to the modern social climate. Which is all well and good for the previously mediocre men and women, since they are now handed a better chance in an even playing field. Rather than the Alpha Male getting all the babes, theoretically he is only entitled to one. Therefore everyone has an 'equal' chance to each stake their claim on a partner.
Of course, the genetic quality of our species will be compromised, but this is partially negated because a monogamous relationship structure is a very ideal environment in to nurture a child. Nature (genetic) and Nurture are equally important in a child's development. One partner, the breadwinner, brings in the dough. The other partner, the nurturer, takes care of the children, giving them the love that is so essential in the developing years of a child. The ideal family.
However, the emphasis towards materialism has perhaps cast serious doubt on this once great medium to raise a child. These days, it is not enough for one parent to be working. Usually, both parties are out working, leaving the child to the attention of a third party, usually a nanny or child care centre. Thus the very basis for this family structure is undermined. Rather than task specialisation, each contributing to an aspect of family life, there is an oversupply of providence and a consequent undersupply of nurture. The highly artificial nature of monogamy then becomes farcical. And this is not even considering the even uglier aspects of a divorce.
[Of course, this is an extreme pessimistic view. There are many successful marriages out there which do not fall within this bleak scenario]
*To be continued
*For purposes of this essay, issues of companionship are not considered. Drop a comment if you wish to hear my views on companionship issues.
*For purposes of this essay, Monagamy refers to a legally recognised marriage between two individuals of the opposite sex.
Postnote: Many thanks to HUICHIEH who shared an article by J.Morse, who takes a 'libertarian' perspective and argues that marriage is a natural and necessary social institution. I have read the article only after completion of this essay. Many points raised here already rebutts her myopic generalisations especially pertaining towards the 'spontataneous natural tendency of marriage' and the inability to differentiate between a legalised union between 2 parties and a union between 2 parties by pure informalised consent, ie non-married coupling. In addition her language reeks of putting forward points in favour of an idealistic hypothetical perfect marriage as opposed to a realistic marriage. I may attempt a counter-rebuttal to other points she raises in a future post (if I have the time).
posted by redrown at 8:52 PM
10 Comments:
Heh yes it is indeed a little extremist. (liberal extremism)
Companionship comes in the form of social contact. It comes in the form of friends, family, loved ones. It happens naturally, out of our human feelings, not from any artificial instrument. Even for those who desire the 'special someone' form of companionship, a commitment to the special someone doesn't need to be legalised in the form of a marriage (ie monogamy but without the formality of marriage).
In the continuation I will satirically propose hypothetical institutions and structures that may just work, with emphasis on circumventing the childbearing and childrearing aspects (as opposed to the companionship aspects).
Bearing in mind, of course, that personally I am in favour of as the current norm of monogamous marriage as well.
P.S I am enjoying the WP/Casino debates going on at WL and Ink. I must say I was impressed with your post on Han's as well. I agree that it is a conflict of ideology, first and foremost.
Liberal extremism is just that: Liberalism taken to its extreme:)
I would really wish to hear your opinion, especially with regards to the 'special someone' companionship, since it is an issue I find hard to accommodate with the framework I have in mind..
Regarding 'special someone' companionship – damn is there a term for this (incidentally discernible from love, there are reasons why I do not deal with 'love' but I shall reserve comment for now). I would think that the reason why everyone desires a 'special' someone is because it is a societal norm rather than a fundamental human need. If duality wasn't a societal norm, I would think that a person would consequently not desire a 'special someone'.
Actually my (admittedly amateur) model will be in a way it is not unlike the pagan lifestyle a few millenia ago, but factoring in the different societal and technological norms of today, but taking into account the children's welfare (and that is the difficult part).
Unfortunately my model is some aspects totalitarian in nature but since it is only a hypothetical framework I guess it'll do:)
Ok, some comments.
First, the Emperor gets all the girls he wants not because he is the most attractive, but because he is the most powerful. He can employ the coercive powers of the state to round up as many pretty girls he want. Why does he do that? Well, let's just say that many emperors let a certain organ do what should have been done by their brains. But also because of the imperative to produce heirs. Thirdly, the number of wives/concubines and offspring is often (traditionally) a sign of wealth, status, power etc.
Second, relatedly, ok, say that once upon the time, it's pretty much "as many as you can", and furthermore, the attractive boys have been getting all the action--to the detriment of the unattractive ones. But is that really a plausible scenario? No matter how attractive the boy is, he can't possible have all the girls on the basis of his attractions alone. What about this unattractive but fabulously rich boy? Or that so-so but very intelligent kid? In my own experience, I've seen people being (romantically) attracted to others for all sorts of considerations.
Third, the notion that the monogamous marriage is "unnatural". Well, there is natural, and there is natural. A lot is going to depend on what is meant by the judgment that X is natural (to human beings). Now the phrase "X is natural (to human beings)" could mean a number of different things. I'll begin with three:
(1) X is widely found in the animal kingdom.
(2) X is widely found among human beings (historical and present).
(3) Human beings would practice X given the appropriate conditions (just as acorns would grow into Oaks if given the appropriate conditions), and the appropriate conditions may be quite rare.
Note that (1) and (2) do not entail each other; neither (1) nor (2) entail (3); and (3) does not entail either (1) or (2). Now consider these paragraphs (emphasis mine):
I think (1) is probably false (I'm not sure), but even if true, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Hibernating through winter is natural to lots of animals, but not to us--and we are talking about human beings after all. (2) may or may not be true; I suspect that it's probably closer to a 50/50 case. But I'm not really sure what's the significance about that either. Slavery used to be very widely practiced, and the exposing of unwanted infants, and human sacrifice and any number of other practices that we would intuitively consider wrong today. At least, one might say that even if some things are "natural" to a large part of humanity--including our own ancestors--it might not be natural to us.
I think that (3) is true, though I won't be able to defend the claim here. The immediate question is, is (3) falsified by the observation that many people (especially males) have temptations to indulge in extra-monogamous sexual relationships?
To begin with, I'm not even sure if the observation is true--many people don't have such temptations too. And even those who do, I suspect that many have them because they are not satisfied with their current partners rather than because they want more than one partner. In the latter case, the fact that they have such temptations may not say much about the naturalness of the monogamous sexual union. But even if the observation (that many have such temptations; unqualified) is true (and I'm not saying it is), I don't think it falsifies the claim that monogamy is natural (3), not quite. The temptation to want to to do something is one thing, the act another. Acorns have the inherent tendency to burn and give off smoke if the external temperature is high enough, but I'll be hesitant to say that giving off smoke is natural to acorns...at least, not given any unqualified sense of "natural".
Hi Huichieh
Let me qualify what I mean by attractive. 'Attractiveness' is more than just physical beauty. Wealth, power, virility, even intelligence and character are factors which contribute to 'attractiveness'. In the emperor's case it is mostly power and wealth that are the 'attractive' factors. He is the Alpha male of yesteryear, more because of his birthright rather than natural competition. And as a consequence he get most of the girls, but as you have said, but of course it is physically impossible to get all. What I am saying is that in such a medium, the Alpha Male will have the cream of the crop, and not only that, he will have as many as its physically desirable/possible for him. In contrast to today, an Alpha-Male will also have the 'best/most' options, but monogamy means that he is entitled to only 1. Thus the less desirable males have more options as a result of this artificial instrument.
Apologies for failing to qualify my usage of 'natural'. My usage of 'natural' is tp descrobe something not imposed by a human 'instrument/invention', such as the legal recognition of 'marriage'. Just like the recognition of corporations as a legal person. Whereas you are looking at 'natural' in a normative way.
If humans were physiologically able to 'hibernate', that would be natural. If humans have to apply, say, anaesthesia, to be able to hibernate, that would not be 'natural' to the definition which I have used.
To take the angle I am adopting, there are those who are predisposed to have more than one mating partner and similarly there are those who will merely stick to one mating partner. Exactly how many of each type are there, I can produce no empirical evidence, but it is adverse to deny that either phenomenon does not occur. Both are 'natural' situations within the definition I use.
Let me differentiate between a monogamous relationship between two individuals and a monogamous marriage between two individuals. Those with a propensity to be a 'one-partner' person do NOT need to be married to stick together. It is the institution of marriage that is the 'unnatural' thing, not the phenomenon of duality per se.
There are those who will wander and there are those who will stick to one partner. Irregardless of this, a contractual marriage restricts the former while serving no purpose to the latter.
Why I say this is because those predisposed to wandering are restricted by the terms of the marriage contract - adultery resulting in divorce, alimony etc. Thus he is restricted from his natural tendencies by an artificial, human-imposed penalty.
Those who are predisposed to a sole partner will stick together, whether they are formally married or not. As such, it would seem that marriage would be redundant.
It can thus be seen then that the presence of a monogamous marriage institution is to impose a restrictive obligation on the people predisposed to wandering, especially if a union literally bears fruit. The institution was created as a haven for child nurture, to prevent wanderers to evade their 'obligations' to care for their child.
Except that, now that there is dual providence and zilch nurture, it would seem such a structure is increasingly unworkable..
Ivan: I think Foucault's theory of power IS the fundamental theory underpinning any form of governance. And indeed the institution of marriage is one prime example.
Imho the fundamental reason for institutionalisation of marriage is because it provides a haven for child-nurturing.
Heh, if at all, I subscribe mainly to third-wave feminism..and I certainly did not know about this law at all, even more incredulous if such legislation is still being exercised in courts in the modern day!
Ok. That helped some. I'll wait for the final installment.
redrown, Nice blog, really enjoyed it, will be back for sure! I'm always looking for interesting related sites to Cheating Wives that I can link from my page Cheating Wiveshttp://www.heather-friends.com
redrown great blog! Glad I found it! After looking at your Monogamy I will definitely be back again! amateur wives
redrown great blog! Glad I found it! After looking at your Monogamy I will definitely be back again! Sex Pics
I came across your site while doing some research on female sexual addiction. You have a great site! If you'd like to know more about how to make a woman sexually addicted to you check this out. You'll find it quite enlightening.
Post a Comment
<< Home