Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

Is Monogamy Natural?

By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet. Posted July 25, 2007.


A lifetime of love versus a quick roll with a stranger. It's funny how we can have two seemingly opposite urges at the same time.
07252007story
07252007story
Advertisement

A hot naked chick hit on Joe Quirk at Burning Man. That's what he calls her: a hot naked chick. He's married. But his wife wasn't there.

"I was in the middle of a desert," he remembers. "Nobody would ever know."

It's funny how we can have two seemingly opposite urges at the same time. A lifetime of love. A quick roll with a total stranger.

He said no.

Because he loves his wife. Because he wouldn't want to ruin his life by losing her. But choices such as the one he made that day on the sand aren't totally matters of morality. They're not about cartoon angels and devils sparring on our shoulders.

They're science talking.

Vaunted in the mainstream media, two new reports from the Pew Research Center report and the National Survey of Families and Households indicate that couples become bored and unhappy sooner than was previously thought: more like three years into their togetherness than seven.

Well, sure, says Quirk, whose book Sperm Are From Men, Eggs Are From Women (Running Press, 2006) details what he calls "the science of relationships." A three-year itch makes plain biological sense, he says.

"This is when your genes are saying, in effect, 'No child has been produced. Move on.'" In relationship matters, Quirk says,"we tend to consult our feelings. Well, where do our feelings come from? Emotions are instincts. Lust is an instinct. Marriage is an instinct."

Sometimes those two collude. Sometimes they collide. But among heterosexuals at least, both indiscriminate lust and what biologists call the pair-bond are hyperpowered programs streamlined through millions of years of evolution to produce one paramount result: offspring, preferably those who will live long enough to reproduce.

"Desires that dominate in our psyches are those that are best at getting genes into the next generation," Quirk says. "Our desires are designed to get us to the next life stage. The initial joy of pair-bonding evolved because it got us to the baby-raising phase." In which case, honeymoon bliss is yet another consummately efficient biological function that meets a need, rather like pissing.

"Lots of animals," Quirk says, "have the 'marriage' instinct: penguins, parrots, swans, gibbons, seahorses, humans. ... What do all these animals have in common? Long childhoods. Who has the longest childhood in the animal kingdom? Humans." For species whose slow-growing offspring statistically stand better chances of survival with two parents providing double-sustenance, double-vigilance, double-protection and double-support, monogamy makes scientific sense. But because it's so difficult "to live in the same nest for 15 years," as Quirk puts it, "love is an instinct coded into our genes."

Fool yourself all you want about free will.

"We inherited the desire to fall in love," Quirk insists, because that soul-baring, die-for-you devotion helped our ancestors "raise babies on the dangerous Pleistocene savanna."

He'd get an argument from the intellectual anti-love crowd. Certainly from Guggenheim Foundation fellow Laura Kipnis, who in Against Love: A Polemic (Pantheon, 2003) argues fiercely but with a sardonic smile that love -- not even monogamy or domesticity, but love -- is not an evolutionary legacy but "a new form of mass conscription," a lockstep drill like organized religion, performed under "marching orders" from nefarious overlord forces that don't want us to notice our "flagging ardor," which is the lot of the committed. Kipnis rages against "domestic gulags," against "the straitjacketed roles that such familiarity predicates ... the boredom and the rigidities which aren't about to be transcended in this or any other lifetime." Invoking Karl Marx, she compares love to a factory, calling them both "social institutions ... [that] come to subsume and dominate" their victims "like a hostile alien force."

How to escape that evil grip?

"Adultery ... is at least a reliable way of proving to ourselves that we're not in the ground quite yet," Kipnis writes, "especially when feeling a little dead inside."

You see it everywhere these days except the Hallmark Channel, this charge that monogamy is bad for us -- as a species, as a society, as red-blooded primates whose DNA is almost identical to that of bonobos. You remember bonobos. Five years ago everyone was talking about these pygmy chimpanzees, an endangered species numbering several thousand and native to a between-rivers swatch of the Democratic Republic of Congo, distinctive for engaging in so much nonmonogamous sex: face-to-face sex and same-gender sex and oral sex. "Sex-crazed Bonobos May Be More Like Humans Than Thought" hooted the headline of an article in Science Today. It was hard not to worry: Am I less sexy than a bonobo?

At least three different pop songs are titled "No Such Thing as Love," one by Dwight Yoakam, one by the Roches, one by the late Ian Dury. Their lyrics are different, but the message is the same. Frank Zappa sang: "There ain't no such thing as love, no angels singing. ... Why should I be stuck with you? It's just not what I want to do."

So wait -- are we building our dreams together, or chained to the machinery of someone else's brave new world? Are we throwbacks: Mr., Mrs. and Ms. Myth, our vows and pledges vestiges of a sexist, classist, fearful, funless antiquity?

Awash in a popular-culture chaos that on one hand thrusts images of happy-coupledom down our throats while simultaneously whispering that marriage might be a neocon plot, we question our commitments. Are they really that -- or cowardice? We question the meanings of stability, of loyalty. "Can we be protected without there being a protection racket?" asks celebrity psychologist Adam Phillips -- whom Kipnis admires -- in his book Monogamy (Pantheon, 1996). Phillips' barbed aphorisms read like fortune-cookie fortunes dispensed in restaurants next-door to divorce courts:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: marriage, relationships, love, divorce, monogamy, cheating

Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, including Party of One: The Loners' Manifesto.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
4
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 25, 2007 3:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting thoughts...But I think some of the comments will be more interesting...I hope...Lots of stories for country songs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 4 Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: 4 Posted by: Balanchine
» RE: 4 Posted by: mr. joshua
Is Monogamy natural?
Posted by: Pau on Jul 25, 2007 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, monogamy is natural... in certain species. I take note of the fact "The longer the childhood...". Interesting.
But I believe that the main problem is not monogamy, nor love. Love exists, it has little to do with sex.
The problem is jealousy and the sense of property... or is it the fear of abandonment?. When we desire something, we do not appreciate someone else taking it awat from us, but there is a lot of confusion in the culture of modern man (and I mean modern man in a very wide sense, the product of the development of agriculture, property of the land, inheritance and heirs, confusion between territorial imperative and personal property.
On top of a reptilian brain, mainlly reproductive brain, develops a brain that cares for the offsprings. A further development allows us to plan for the future, be aware of our consciousness. And confusion begins, not yet solved by evolution. We either solve it or will be a doomed species.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is Monogamy natural? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Is Monogamy natural? Posted by: freethink7
» RE: Is Monogamy natural? Posted by: Blade
» RE: And the Saducees ... Posted by: bob t
» RE: And the Saducees ... Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: Is Monogamy natural? Posted by: treehugr
Obsession by the female of the species
Posted by: Abushite on Jul 25, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anneli Rufus, thank you for your few words !

Why is it that Alternet's space is invaded repeatedly by women
who are obsessed by sex? Give us a break let's talk about the idiot GWB.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it's about damn time
Posted by: ryazbeck on Jul 25, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally a good article on alternet. I check everyday and it's the same ol' bullshit but this article hits the spot! I've spent countless hours considering exactly the things that this article addresses and I feel strongly, among others I've spoken with, that the type of monogamy of love that a great deal of the fundamental thinkers of the U.S. is merely a fantasy, and that we will all have "other" desires. The catch here is that we are humans and that basically means that we have higher-order consciousness and the ability to reflect and make decisions, so we can choose whether or not we are monogamous, so if you want to be, then go ahead, but don't expect to be happy with that lifestyle just because Ma and Pa told you it's the best way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it's about damn time Posted by: drad
» RE: it's about damn time Posted by: Landbaron
Or is it just that Men are really, really Horny?
Posted by: halg on Jul 25, 2007 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a pushover for scientific evidence of what I always hoped to have been the truth all along. Or at least justifies me in case of my own poor reasoning.

I lust and have lusted for more than one mate most of my life. On one hand, I want intellectual compatibility. At other times, I want sexual release (read: "I am horny"). And serial monogamy is not half as fun as some would have me believe.

I have never married, and have rarely been in a steady relationship. I have fallen in love many times, and have somehow survived the emotional ruin subsequent to those brief runs. I have heart problems, and stewing in heartbreak does nothing to make me feel any stronger.

Yeah, it's lonely down here in scumbrainworld sometimes. But the occassional shot of sleaze-induced sexual adrenalyn feels great. I'm selective and careful at all times, and I always try to be honest and kind to everyone I meet. I do not pose as a "really" if I am only looking for a "player." And I NEVER cheat if those are the rules in a relationship. I am ethical.

I guess what I am saying is, I kind of like my life this way after all; I only thought it was really rotten. (The only shortcoming is that I may have missed out on raising children.) But I see nothing "wrong" or invalid about the way I live my life.

I'm sure the holier-than-thou crowd out there will condemn me for being a devil-worshipper or something, when all I am in reality is a nonconformist. Hopefully, Alternet draws a more intellectual crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ? Posted by: alphakat
» RE: ? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: ? Posted by: suprmark
» Book recommendation Posted by: alphakat
» Women's sexuality Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Women's sexuality Posted by: Lauren
» male researchers Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Exactly Posted by: oregoncharles
» Get a spine, Halg Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Get a spine, Halg Posted by: halg
» Whitecliff the 'quote' man Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Whitecliff the 'quote' man Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: Whitecliff the 'quote' man Posted by: Blue Heron
this article reminds me a bit of the research that showed that chocolate
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 25, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is good for depression--Doh!

There is hardly anything more obvious in the world than conflicting desires and attachments. If we were totally indiscriminating or totally faithful and commited, there would be no need for love songs or romantic comedies.

I have suggested elsewhere that it might be better if marriages had expiration dates, say after 20 years or when the youngest child is 18. Then you could choose to invest in the marriage so that it could continue on a voluntary basis and/or invest in the children by giving them a secure upbringing.

If you made a poor choice (or were just complacent) you could walk away without putting yourself and others through a lot of emotional turmoil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To Ssegallmd Posted by: Whitecliff
» RE: To Ssegallmd Posted by: LMNOP
Geez what's this all about?
Posted by: Neilium on Jul 25, 2007 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anyone here can project their imagination back in time a little to the conclusion that we are definately primates even if we belong to the insane branch of the primate tree.
There are ' no monogamous primates' it just won't work out in the forest, the female can get her own food of course as can the male and baby will also as soon as it can grab hold of some fruit. Many indigenous cultures practise polygamy and have no problems that encourage them to be any different, but then again that is not the natural way of primates. A female dominated culture is a primate one with one dominant male and the rest are bachelors in waiting on the outskirts of the core group. Don't be chumps, learn about chimps
Monogamy is unnatural in the human primate.
I know.. I've tried, "joke"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bitter young maids
Posted by: drinkycro on Jul 25, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"honeymoon bliss is yet another need-meeting, consummately efficient biological function, rather like pissing."

I've heard statements like this from other women. For the most part they tended to be educated, liberal, single, childless and miserable. I attribute it to sour grapes; it's quite simple really.

When people are angry and jealous they tend to diminish and attack the object of their jealousy. I would guess these ladies are deeply sad, that they themselves don't have these "Hallmark" relationships. So, they dump all over the institution itself, to feel slightly less awful. But, given the chance, I think most of them would jump at the opportunity for all that "old fashioned romance/marriage stuff".

I've seen it happen before (many times): the liberal, cynical, big-city girl sits in the coffee shop, bitterly griping about patriarchy, biological destiny, the liberating joys of polyamory, etc. One day she meets that "special someone" and all that's out the window. Pretty soon, she has a spring in her step, dresses better, is CHEERFUL and no longer disses marriage...a total 180 degree turn.

Look, everything we do is driven by our biology, which is designed by evolution. Any action or sentiment, is "like pissing"...no matter how noble. However, how we see ourselves and our actions is important to our psychological well-being. I think we ought to see ourselves in a positive light. There's a reason most successful human cultures traditionally supported pair-bonding and have large bodies of work extolling the nicer points of romantic pairing: feel better, act better, build stable, decent families and society flourishes; feel miserable and cynical, don't build stable families, and society decays...and is replaced by other, stronger society.

Anyhow, the short of it all: stop being so bitter, find someone to love, love them well, be loyal, expect loyalty, give everything if you want the same in return, and don't be afraid of babies...they're pretty cool when they are your own :)

Good luck and be happy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» so, by your logic... Posted by: alphakat
» RE: so, by your logic... Posted by: drinkycro
» Yup, Posted by: alphakat
» "my dear" Posted by: goatini
» RE: "my dear" Posted by: alphakat
» So true... Posted by: idmaster2000
» RE: bitter young maids Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: bitter young maids Posted by: treehugr
» RE: bitter young maids Posted by: drinkycro
» RE: bitter young maids Posted by: Whitecliff
Sex has nothing to do with love
Posted by: terradea on Jul 25, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it's true. Unless the label "love" helps some readers stomach what they believe is a distasteful act. Personally, I think sex is just sex; an amazing way to connect to other people. Sex is a physical act that feels good, first, and produces children, if not prevented, second.

Love, that's spiritual. Love is a deeper connection, a feeling that someone else is more important than yourself. There is no jealousy in love, only compassion, connection, understanding and a need to see the other happy and fulfilled.

When I see my lover enjoy himself sexually, it doesn't matter if it's with me or with someone else. I love him and want to see him experience pleasure. And he feels the same way with regard to me.

People who break up over sexual infidelity (how silly is that phrase?) are really breaking up because society and religion tells them they should be hurt. If people followed their instincts, there would be no monogamy, and sex would be considered a natural and valuable gift from nature or from their creator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's called "Sex Positive" Posted by: gellero
» At Last........ Posted by: gellero
Love is not Evolutionary
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jul 25, 2007 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is it that the author of this article, or the authors he cites, are so sure of what we/they desire? In the case of love, it is clear: most of us love not direct as/for ourselves, but as/for some ideal image of ourselves and our partner. In other words, the love we typically speak of is a fantasy about some other relationship. Is it not the case that when most people say they love someone else, they are saying it about what they find best in that person? Do people not fetishize their role as the ones loving to the point that any disturbance in that appearance results in the failure of the relationship as a whole? That, at least on one level, agrees with some of what this article says about love. I don't think it goes far enough or looks close enough though.

Is it not obvious that Love is not an evolutionary mechanism, a cog in a symbolic order, be it that of naive romantic-love or evolutionary (socio-)biology? Love does not necessarily get your genes closer to or further from reproduction. Is Love not the ethical form we take when we have come to grips with not only the real-death of our biological organism, but the conscious, experiential being of language? In that sense, there is no room for talk of Love as an evolutionary agent.

The pact people make with each other in the name of Love is a facade like the evolutionary psychologist says. This does not mean that we are talking about Love though, which is not about good feelings nor bad feelings, rewards or punishments, sex or children, but giving something you don't have to someone who doesn't want it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Love is not Evolutionary Posted by: bsbremmer
» RE: Love is not Evolutionary Posted by: hellofriends
otto
Posted by: otto on Jul 25, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We also have competing instincts - one to nurture and care for others and one to get angry, fight and kill. I suspect that there are higher instincts and lower instincts, and that we and humanity are better off when we try to follow the higher ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: otto Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: otto Posted by: Lauren
» re: caring and selflessness Posted by: axjxhx
» Predation vs bonding Posted by: vand
Margaret Mead
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 25, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe it was the great anthropologist Margaret Mead who said that she believed we should actually get married at least three times in life:

The first time---for sex

The second time---for children

The third time---for companionship

As a gay person and commited bachelor, I think marriage--at least in the idealized American perception of it---has been sold to young people in a totally fu*ked-up state by right-wing christianity, Hollywood media, and churches. I have talked to more young people, and especially the girls have a completely unrealistic fairy-tale view of marriage.

Having seen some brutal divorces among others in my family, I'm glad I stayed single.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Margaret Mead Posted by: drad
» RE: Margaret Mead Posted by: treehugr
No, it's not.
Posted by: messedup on Jul 25, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But diseases are. The patriarchy is only a few thousand years old.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Love is not evolutionary..?
Posted by: Pau on Jul 25, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Love is not evolutionary". ...? Is evolutionary a correct atribute of the name "love". No. Therefore the phrase loses its meaning.
If you do not believe in evolution, nothing can be the result of evolution. If you believe in evolution, wasn't there a particular stage in the evolutionary process when the brain developped the capacity for love?.
TO me the answer is a clear yes. And that capacity allowed the species whose offsprings needed help in order to survive, to survive themselves as species.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Lizard love Posted by: Whitecliff
» The Simple Difference Posted by: pdxstudent
Monogamy is a truce between competing hungers
Posted by: bw on Jul 25, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When women lost reliable coital orgasms (as frontal sex restructured the vagina), they evolved personal preference to an enhanced level, giving obsession. Obsession cannot tolerate promiscuity, and a crude monogamy is the result. Men inherit obsessiveness from mothers, so both sexes can "fall in love", which is the obsessive over-attribution of status to an otherwise average partner.

We come from a long history of promiscuous primates, and monogamy is a truce between our urge to be promiscuous and our obsessive preference for only one. We are better at demanding monogamy from our partner than we are at displaying it ourselves, but most of the time it works fairly well.

Once the obsessiveness starts to wear down, the promiscuity rises in importance by default, and we revert to behavior that is more deeply engrained than the monogamy is. With care, respect and true love, the relationship can be nurtured for a lifetime. But with inattention, or where there was nothing but obsession in the first place, the relationship will wither in perhaps 3 to 5 years.

We marry for a predictable time not because evolution selected that span for the good of children, not because evolution demands we move on if there are no children. We marry for predictable times because it takes a predictable time for obsessiveness to wear down.

Read The Passionate Ape.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for this article
Posted by: hellofriends on Jul 25, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it encapsulates everything terrible about alternet. a crappy, sensationalist writer (if you haven't checked out "party of one," don't,) writing a crappy sensationalist article that provides no information and no insight into a general and generic question that will easily lure in lots of "for" or "against" readers and commentators speaking insultingly and almost entirely from their personal experiences. as if the "naturalness" of monogamy were the sole issue involved in divorce. as if spirituality has nothing to do with the idea and experience of love and marriage. as if this author has any authority whatsoever to present even these poorly written Cliff's Notes that devastate the complexity and depth of this issue. this is not news or essay or meditation: it's a pop-up ad and it's disgusting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you for this article Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: Thank you for this article Posted by: hellofriends
One of the
Posted by: ArtemInox on Jul 25, 2007 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the worst articles I've read on Alternet. Using examples of songs and movies to back your point up is just.....you put the word in. That's just one point I'm going to make, I could go on but I'm not going to, the bad writing and method speak well enough on their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One of the Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: One of the Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: One of the Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: One of the Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: One of the Posted by: Lauren
» RE: One of the A SUBTLE TRAP Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: One of the Posted by: Pau
» RE: One of the Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: One of the Posted by: Landbaron
Monogamy is a choice...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 25, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and I happen to be pro-choice.

Quite natural, then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Monogamy is a choice... Posted by: alfalfa friend
» You're quite right, but... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Monogamy is a choice... Posted by: freethink7
sex is a mind game
Posted by: solrev on Jul 25, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not sure what this article is even about, seems to me that if one throws in some science, talking about sex is permissible. The author seems to imply that differences in male and female behavior is determined by genes. This is simply wrong. Males and females have the same genes. The only difference genetically is one pair of sex chromosomes. Genetically they share twenty-two pairs of chromosomes. These twenty-three pairs create infinite diversity whether it is male-male, female-female, or male-female.
The nature nurture debate has been around for a long time and the more we learn the more nurture becomes dominant. Discoveries such as genes effecting more than one property, and identical twin studies that show chromosomes change over time depending on which genes are turned on, really complicate the issue. The science is in its infancy. It is impossible to demonstrate any instinctual behavior in human beings. Instinctual behaviors are by design something that can not be overcome. Any instinctual behavior you attribute to human beings can easily be dismissed. One can find groups historically and presently who cognitively do not perform that behavior in their social group. “Fool yourself all you want about free will”, the author is wrong again. Now for the good part sex, sex is physically pleasurable to the human body. Ones sexual behavior or expression is a learned behavior. The problem arises from so many different teachers, thus the confusion. Since I am a Christian I know most of the sexual taboos being taught, or taboos of any kind, are not about the behavior itself but they are about the consequences. For instance in my area in the last year two Iraqi vets came home and killed the dudes screwing their wives while they were in Iraq. My advice to anyone is in your pursuit of happiness do what ever you want, just be aware that actions have reactions and beware of the consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sex is a mind game Posted by: Lauren
Lest we forget...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Jul 25, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That we in the USA decend from largely Puritan forebears driven here out of Europe because no one could stand them and their austere, passionless, nonsensual approach to life, basically. The people in most European countries accept extra marital affairs as a natural occurence that in the long run actually helps sustain the long term marriage commitment by relieving that naturally occuring boredom. After a few years and maybe a couple of kids we may still love our partners dearly but not necessarily want to have a lot of sex with them. Marriage as it has come to be in modern time is mainly for economic and familial stability but ideally also because the people LIKE each other and accept each other as they are.

Here because of our inherited "morality" we are expected to refrain from sex with anyone but the person we marry and risk losing everthing if we get caught following our natural ways. As a former teacher I can tell you the pressure's gotten so bad and the understanding of our nature so weak that young teens must endure being held to those same standards if they kiss more than one person or go on dates with more than one person. Girls in tears after being called a slut for being friendly with more than just one guy? Guys being called pimp or horn dog because they are interested in several young females. Come on, how does this serve mate selection? They're supposed to spend the rest of their lives with that first crush just because he/she was the first to get a kiss? What EVER are you parents TELLING these kids? Youth is the biggest time we ever get for sampling what is out there and getting a sense of what we ourselves might actually want in the physical aspect of a relationship and putting these pressures on youth already stressed to the max to "perform" scholastically has a lot to do, I think, with the absurdly high divorce rate in this country. Almost twice that of Europe. After school ends and they begin to develop some perspective they see the sham of everything they did because that's what everyone else expected of them and begin to be themselves by leaving a lot of it behind... including marriages to people they were with because they'd be a slut or a pimp if they did anything else.

We forget that we are primates and that all these restrictions in all aspects of our lives, especially around sex make us ill.
Nature is natural. Tune into it and follow it and you'll live long and happier lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» highly debatable.. Posted by: superdan
» RE: Lest we forget... Posted by: treehugr
I think people should always remember
Posted by: adh on Jul 25, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That science can only provide a picture of what "is", not what ought to be. I am not using this aphorism to ignore the issue and preach lifelong monogamy, but just a reminder that biological evidence of human nature can point us in the right direction, but won't answer all our questions.

I actually think jealousy and anger over infidelity are natural competitive primate emotions, from an evolutionary standpoint its quite understandable to be pissed off if your female partner gets knocked up with someone else's kid that you now have to raise, or if your male partner falls for a younger more "genetically fit" female and leaves you high and dry.

What religion and social conditioning do is amplify and focus those instinctive emotions in order to achieve social control: it is common to see people behave in a completely insane manner with relation to the possibility of their partner being sexual with someone else. A lot of people seem to believe that 'cheating' is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and should rightly be punished with absolute loathing and abuse. I can't see how that could be right, how guilt and self-denial could possibly be considered healthier than openness and honesty, and I think our tendencies towards jealousy are just another example of how absolute loyalty to instinct leads to selfish and irrational behavior. Everyone thinks its acceptable to restrain and control our feelings of aggression and hatred, why do we not expand the field to jealousy and possessiveness, emotions that seem out of place in a liberal society where relationships are (supposedly) entered into voluntarily?

Anyway what I'm getting at in this long winding rant is that there will always be problems whether in monogamy or without so long as people continue to behave like robots blindly following social conditioning and not developing genuine understanding of their own emotions. The fact that our society has ONE model of the ideal relationship with stereotyped behaviors associated with it that millions of people just so happen follow to the letter should set off alarms in peoples heads that things are not right. People need to trust themselves and eachother enough to create their own relationships and negotiate their own parameters if they ever want to be genuinely free to show genuine emotion, rather than live out scripts that have been pre-written for them by a bunch of hacks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some of Us Have Been Married For a Long Time (over 20 years) and Are Happy
Posted by: freethink7 on Jul 25, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In spite of a myriad of socio-cultural labels/stereotypes that we refuse to ascribe to: (We = my husband and I):

-We stay married because we want to, not because it’s based on whether or not pop-psychology mandates it’s acceptable
-We stay married in spite of the notion that marriage, and one person monogamy/love is outdated + supposedly obsolete
-We aren’t concerned that [theoretically] humans are products of evolutionary-biological forces, therefore, ultimately we must be non-monogamous creatures
-We neither care if monogamy is natural, unnatural, or popular, or unpopular: we choose to stay monogamous because this is our choice
-We believe in the (radical?) notion of love and that lifetime monogamous love is possible
-We continue to stay married in spite of the fact that statistics say 50% of marriages fail/50% survive
-We don’t feel the need to explain why we’ve been married for so many years, even though some of our family-friends who were married at the same time we married have divorced
-We continue to work through our problems (and marriage has its fair share of problems) instead of running from them (divorce is so easy!) But after 20+ years of marriage we have reached a point where our problems are minimal
-We’re both liberal and believe in the institution of marriage and monogamy
-We neither want nor feel the need to fit into any of the stereotypes/labels presented in this article

Since we don’t fit any of the preconceived carefully constructed albeit narrow parameters and stereotypes presented in this article, statistically speaking, we must be anomalies…..but we don’t care. Lifetime love and commitment is ultimately more important to us than fitting into some pop-psychology-pop-culture schematic blueprint dictating who we should be or should not be. Who cares anyway…..if you are happy being single, dating, non-monogamous, fine. If, on the other hand you want to be in love and married for a lifetime (with the same person!) that’s fine also.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please.... Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» Please....Dear mmeetoilenoir Posted by: freethink7
» Please....Dear mmeetoilenoir Posted by: freethink7
The Energy/Spiritual Nature of Lust
Posted by: BillDouglas on Jul 25, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think most married people will agree, that when our lives feel fulfilled with meaningful creativity, we are less "of a burning need" for extra-marital adventures. Isn't it usually when our spouse, boss, kid, makes us feel worthless or unvalued when we find ourselves sitting at a bar with a leering look at the cutie a few seats down?

Why is that?

In ancient Indian Vedic, and ancient Chinese energy medicine, both recognized that powerful energy generators in the pelvic area of the body, are the source of "creative" energy. Yes, pro-creative energy in the sense of sex and child creation.

But, they are also the same energy generators for other types of creative energy which becomes art, music, new ideas on how to approach challenges in our lives and in society.

In modern society, especially in America, media makes a big deal about being an "individualist," etc. But, how do they say you do that? By buying the new cool car or electronic gadget that millions of others are buying. It's insultingly ludicrous once we pull our heads far enough out of the matrix to see it for what it is.

Our education system is increasingly not an exercise in mind expansion, but rather a factory process to create widgets who can pull levers and punch buttons, but not think creatively. Truly creative citizens are unruly and hard to control.

So in humanity's, and America's frustration with our repressed creative urges, they get turned toward unbridled lust. Why? One, because sex is natural to us, but also because the corporate media uses sex relentlessly to sell us "anything."

The next level of humanity will require tremendous creativity to address the burgeoning population's needs. We all feel the need for new fresh ideas, but our system isn't built to foster or in many cases even allow it. Four times more children are on psychotropic drugs today, as were a decade ago, so that they can be made to "fit in."

If Einstein or Edison were in school today, they'd have them on ritalyn. Airline stewardesses are now, according to recent reports, encouraging parents to drug their babies, so they'll fit in better on the plane's ambiance.

Creativity is what our souls are hungering for. Find it. Write poetry, music, paint, etc. etc. etc. Innovate in the face of a society that wants you to just "fit in." It'll be the best thing you can do for your relationship, and for your world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

justification for irresponsibility
Posted by: axjxhx on Jul 25, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what i understand from reading this article is that there is a growing attempt to justify the irresponsibility of people who can not muster the strength to stay faithful to another that THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO. and the people who are being justified appear to be mostly male. hm. how INTERESTING. "it's a part of their ancestral genes" so don't get all bent out of shape or anything.

this kind of discussion ALWAYS seems to leave out just how many THOUSANDS of years we have been modernized beyond that of PRIMATE (if one is to believe that we evolved that way)....as if we were all picking fleas out of each others' hair just about a month ago.

this kind of incessant reminder of "where we came from" does NOT help humans to respect each other more. IT ONLY GIVES INFIDELITY ROOM TO GROW.....because, as you see, it's a part of our inherent nature....see??? this way, cheating is seen as a "human" quality......THUS, JUSTIFYING WHEN OUR MALE LEADERS LEAD US INTO POLITICAL INFIDELITY: cheating everyone out of QUALITY OF LIFE.

it's just absolutely amazing to me that more people out there can not seem to make this connection. the more we give up on the idea of companionship the more we give up on the idea of quality of life. just what was it that stopped that guy in the desert from cheating on his wife??......the idea that his quality of life will be hindered by his irresponsible actions. he gave all options a thought, and was able to deter his "primal urge" because i KNOW he understands that he is FAR from being a monkey. now, THAT is a MODERN MAN!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]