Is Monogamy Natural? A Slut Primer
by Beverly Fisher, Slut at Large and Woman of Easy Virtue

“Confusing monogamy with morality has done more to destroy the conscience of the human race than any other error.” — George Bernard Shaw

I started looking into the concept of monogamy chiefly because it’s never worked well for me. It’s never been comfortable, like a pair of cozy pajamas. It’s been work, like weaving a pair of cozy pajamas painstakingly by hand, using microscopic thread and a steel chastity belt for a loom. I wondered why men go to see prostitutes. I wondered why we cheat on our spouses or partners. I wondered why couples “swing.” I wondered why, if all of this sex outside of traditional relationships was going on, was monogamy really working. Was it, in fact, natural?

After extensive research, I can state confidently that monogamy is about as natural as the circa 1976 powder blue leisure suit hanging in my hall closet (how do I acquire these things?).

Now, like most women in our culture, I used to be pretty starry-eyed over the whole monogamy concept. I liked the idea of sharing myself with just one man, who would be so head-over-heels in love with me that he would never think of being with anyone else. I knew he would have to be really nuts about me, because, well, men wander. Women know this. They at least look at other women... and some of them actually do something about it. It’s all part of this stupid female fairy- tale mentality, that states that if a man really really loves you, he won’t ever in a million years want to be with someone else. You live happily ever after. The end. Sheesh.

In The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People, authors David P. Barash, Ph.D. and Judith Eve Lipton, M.D., write: “...compared to women, men in particular – and, as we shall see, males in general – have a lower threshold for sexual excitation and a greater fondness for sexual variety, or, to look at it more negatively, a penchant for equating monogamy with monotony.” In other words, guys get bored fast. And all the happily-ever-after-Cinderella-true-love on earth isn’t going to change that.

Women get bored too, though often their reasons for seeking satisfaction outside of their relationships are different than the typical male reasons. For women, it’s about feeling good, yes, but it goes beyond that into the realm of “what do I get out of it?”

Proponents of the fairy tale ending often hold up different species of animals as shining paragons of monogamous virtue, saying “Look! Eagles mate for life!” Well, according to new studies involving DNA fingerprinting, it’s starting to look like a lot of animal species that we thought were strictly monogamous and “mate for life” are actually getting a bit on the side. Quite a bit. Fact is, there’s lots of sex, extramarital and otherwise, going on throughout the world, whether human, mammal, fowl, or insect. (I won’t quote here the details about some of the insect sex. I had to read it. Suffice to say, it was downright yukky, like picturing George Bush having sex, and involving regurgitation and other charming things. But I’m sure it’s very sexy for the insects involved.)

The biology excuse

Why do we do it? “Because it feels good” is the typical answer. But pure satisfaction is what biologists call a “proximate” explanation. It explains our immediate reasons for doing it, but it doesn’t explain why sex with someone new is so gratifying. The real answer is rooted in our biology, that dastardly DNA whispering in our ear: “Go ahead, it feels good!”

Now I’ve heard women complain about what they call “the biology excuse.” They’re sick to death of men blaming their wandering eyes (and wandering penises) on their biology. Humans have choice, free will. We have our magnificent brain, right? We’re better than animals. Well, yeah. We can think and control ourselves if we choose to. But the fact is, “the biology excuse” really is more than just an excuse. It’s a fact. We are animals. We are driven by our internal programming, our DNA. More than perhaps we realize.

For example, Barash and Lipton quoted a study that was done on symmetry, or asymmetry. In both animal species and in humans, creatures that are more symmetrical are thought of as more attractive to the opposite sex. In humans, they measured ears, wrists, hands, fingers, eyes, etc. and rated them on degree of symmetry – in other words, how alike they were. Consistently, men who were more symmetrical were rated by women as more attractive. Further, symmetrical men reported having more sex more often, and women even reported having more orgasms with symmetrical men!

Now listen. You can’t tell me biology doesn’t play a part in how we choose partners. Because I know that I, for one, do not look at a guy and think, “ooh, damn, he’s so symmetrical!” I just look at a man and think “he’s attractive.” I can’t tell you *why* I think he’s attractive. He just is. Men can look at a woman with big breasts and say they like it, but why do men like women with big breasts? You did know that breasts become larger when a woman is pregnant and nursing? Our animal nature is driven toward reproduction. We are attracted to reproducing. Even if, as humans with big honking brains and free will and all that, we don’t want to reproduce, our DNA wants to anyhow.

So to all of those bitching about “the biology excuse,” I say, wise up. You’re a mammal. Deal with it.

Fooling around

The whole thing comes down to spreading our genes around, as widely as possible. It’s about survival of the species (and look, if you don’t believe Darwin was right, you may as well stop reading here, and get to work on that hate-email you were planning on sending me. Don’t forget the Bible quotes, now.). The more males that mate with more females, the more diverse the gene pool. Hell, here’s one for the hate-mail bag: have you ever noticed how beautiful people of mixed race are? Mix Asian with black, or black with white, and you get some of the most astoundingly gorgeous people. Why do we think they’re gorgeous? Because we are attracted to good examples of the species. The more attractive, the better the genes. Or so our biology tells us.

I was married once. (Once!) It was a sad experience. I don’t think my husband ever cheated on me, because he wasn’t too interested in sex. Once the baby was born, that was it. I was cut off, like a belligerent drunk at 2am. I endured eight months without sex. And then I cheated on him. Once. The object of my adultery was a young guy, mid-twenties (my husband was 20 years older than I), and very handsome (my husband was mildly attractive). I was just so lonely and horny and desperate I thought, “what the hell?” After it was over, I knew I wouldn’t do it again. While the sex was great (and it was – woo!) I realized that what I was really missing was the intimacy, the closeness, someone making love to me because of me – not because I was just there, hot and willing.

My experience illustrates an interesting point about women and why they are driven to have affairs or sex outside of their relationships. Females, human and animal alike, are geared toward a quality partner. Female birds want the biggest male with the brightest feathers, etc. We, as females, are looking for a genetically high-quality partner. Women seek quality over quantity. When I cheated on my husband, I paired up with a genetic example of the species superior to my husband. Female birds will rebuff males who are inferior to their mates, but willingly mate with males who are superior. In other words, females trade up.

But we also crave that “intimacy” the closeness that comes with an involved romantic relationship. Women want to nest. That’s not to say men don’t want, crave, or need intimacy, because they do. But it is true that it’s much easier for men to have intimate relationships and simultaneously engage in less meaningful sexual encounters outside of those relationships. I’m not saying women don’t do this too... there’s lots of happy sluts out there like me. We’re just a rarer breed of cat.

Often, though, women follow their biology rather than what’s really best for them, i.e. boffing the hunky young pool-boy instead of their wealthy, aged husbands. I’m sure they have their reasons, but geez. Of course, I don’t really have the right to judge.

Infidelity is one of the main reasons cited for divorce, and yet couples headed for a breakup are more likely to have extramarital affairs. It’s the “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” quandary. One theory is that affairs are a way of “road testing” a potential future partner, sort of preparation for leaving the old partner behind.

I’ve been guilty of this sort of “road testing.” My whole relationship pattern has been what social biologists call “serial monogamy.” I only date one at a time, but there’s been quite a string of them... and there has been the occasional overlap. I call it “the changing of the guard.”

If monogamy were the norm, why do we get jealous? Why would we need to?

The hole truth

Now as opposed to the “quality” genetic material women seem to be seeking, men are geared toward finding the nearest available hole. For men, “newness” is important. Barash and Lipton point out that many male animals will mate repeatedly with a female, then seem to tire out. But if a new female is introduced, suddenly the male regains his vigor and is able to perform again. I picture some guy busy with his girlfriend to the point of exhaustion, then a new woman slips into the room and BAM! He’s ready to go again. Perhaps this might explain some of the thrill of threesomes.

Many mammals and other animals hasten to copulate with a female who has recently copulated. They do this for sperm-competition reasons – in other words, the odds are that the last animal to copulate with the female will fertilize her eggs. Barash and Lipton point out, “Human beings, especially males, are also highly aroused by such indications. Hence, the attractions of hard-core pornography and voyeurism, which have been attributed to males generally having a low threshold for stimulation.” So just knowing I’ve had sex with someone else is, for some men, a tremendous turn-on. And don’t even get me started on porno movies. I enjoy ‘em myself. Why would women like porn, then? The studies don’t cover this sort of question. I’m probably some kind of aberration. Call it the Slut Factor.

But the thing is, we don’t think about this stuff. We don’t look for symmetry, better genetic stock, or even women who have had sex recently. We just know that we’re turned on by someone, and we can’t say why. It’s like breathing, or digesting, or any other automatic process. We just do it, without even thinking about it.

When we do think about our behavior, if we’re deviating from the social monogamy norm in Western culture, we feel guilt and shame. We feel like there’s something wrong with us, if we can’t somehow stick with one person forever and ever amen. Psychiatrists and sociologists cite myriad reasons why staying with one person is difficult. Our biology drives us to experiment with multiple partners. But our social selves, our mental selves, demand that we be monogamous.

To resist the call of biology, to use our huge wonderful brains and control ourselves, is very tough indeed.

The world’s oldest profession

Prostitution is one way that men (very rarely women) seek to fulfill their biological need for variety. And prostitution isn’t unknown in the animal kingdom either. There are numerous examples of prostitution-type behavior amongst species of hummingbirds, insects, and mammals. Barash and Lipton gave one example of an animal species that engages in prostitution, a little bird called the orange-rumped honeyguide. The honeyguides live in Nepal and eat beeswax. Beehives are thus highly valued, and owned and defended by male honeyguides. To get the beeswax, females must first copulate with the males. Thankfully, humans have refined this practice and demand payment in advance.

The biological drive to mate with multiple women may be the catalyst for men seeking liaisons with prostitutes, but there is more to it than that, on a social and emotional level. Christopher Jencks, a sociologist with Harvard University, wrote that men in our culture are raised with rejection. Women are taught to reject male advances, and especially to reject sexual behavior that is seen as deviating from the norm (“you want me to talk dirty to you? Gross!”). I know I was raised to believe that anything but the missionary position with the lights out (no talking) was considered kinky, and possibly wrong. So men have this constant stream of rejection growing up and into their adult lives (how do you tell your wife you like to wear women’s panties?). Jencks points out that with prostitutes, not only are male desires and fantasies not rejected, they are accepted and even appreciated. Further, in our culture, Jencks says, it is difficult if not impossible for men to talk about certain thoughts and feelings, with women or with other men. Can you picture two men sitting in the office, one saying “hey Tom, I really like having finger up my ass!” and the other responding, “Me too, Bill!” But the fact is, a huge percentage of men do enjoy having a finger up their ass, and have no idea that other men like it too. Prostitutes are able to talk to men about things that they are uncomfortable with or unable to share anywhere else.

Some men feel that it is better to go to prostitutes than to have an affair. The difference, for them, is emotional involvement with another human being. The rules are clearly defined in a prostitute/client relationship. There is not the emotional attachment that can occur with affairs, and less risk of discovery.

So there are other reasons for seeking sexual encounters outside of our relationships. Our biology may be the catalyst that starts the process in motion, but we make the choice to give our DNA control. For me, when I cheated on my husband, the lack of sex for eight months was driving me crazy, and my biology had definitely kicked in. But I chose to cheat on him because I felt lonely and unloved, unwanted. My feelings, my brain, had as much to do with it as anything else. This can certainly be true of men, as well.

I think for women, affairs outside of relationships have more to do with emotional needs than almost anything else. That insidious DNA certainly plays a role, though... that young pool boy must look pretty good compared to the hubby. But my guess is that the pool boy is also passionate, loving, delightful company... and isn’t too busy with work from the office to take a moment for some hot lust.

The fact is, we have to look at our relationships and ask ourselves, would I want to be him/her? You know your partner better than anyone else... is he or she getting what they really want or need? Are you?

Why do we do it?

Why does monogamy exist at all? If we’re designed to spread our genes around, why do we have social monogamy in our culture? When did it start? Is it a good thing, or should we trash the whole concept, start over with harems or something?

The word monogamy comes from the Greek, meaning “monos” = single/only, and “gamos” = marriage. According to the Wikipedia, “historically monogamy was much less practiced than polygamy. Mostly because of European expansion, monogamy is more popular than it was ever before.”

Polygamy, or having more than one spouse or partner, has been the norm for humans since there were humans. There are many groups today promoting polyamorous relationships, suggesting that we would all be happier if we had multiple spouses. I don’t know that I disagree. I was first exposed to the whole polyamorous relationship model reading Robert Heinlein’s books when I was a teenager. The idea of several husbands, and several wives, raising all of their mutual children together, sounds like a pretty great idea to me. But I’m afraid it may be something like Communism: great idea in theory, but lousy in actual practice.

As to when monogamy started, that’s an issue there’s some question about. One polyamorous website, http://www.polyorlando.org, states that “regulations of unions between men and women first became important when private property became important to a society, as a consequence of the growth of cities. At that point, the males wanted succession to be concretized and regulated. This idea of private property also coincided with the onset of monogamy. Stricter monogamy and private property ownership worked together since the inheritance of the property was decidedly the children of the owner. Therefore, the father took the most logical means at his disposal to guarantee that his property was inherited by his genetic offspring.” So monogamy started as way to make sure that children inherited the property of the father – and that those children actually descended from the father. From a feminist perspective, this is seriously problematic. Monogamy is therefore a patriarchal system. And yet ask a hardcore feminist if it’s okay if her husband has an extramarital affair and see what she says. Go ahead! She won’t mind. It’s fun to ask hardcore feminists questions, kids.

In some societies, this need for the father to be assured of parentage is carried to, in my opinion, a ridiculous degree, as men prefer to marry virgins. Barash and Lipton (my favorite couple), note that “there is a cross-cultural tradition that voids a marriage if the bride is not a virgin. Physicians in Japan and – more covertly – in the Middle East have long had a booming business re-creating virgins via plastic surgery.” Who knew hymens were so valuable? (Although I checked on ebay and couldn’t find one.)

Still, patriarchal control and manufactured hymens aside, monogamy does work on lots of levels. According to The Myth of Monogamy, “It has been documented among animals that the longer pairs are together, the more likely they are to be successful at rearing offspring. This may be because experience and familiarity with each other make for better and more efficient parenting.”

And that’s really what everything comes down to: offspring. Babies. Rug rats. Caring for offspring is the key issue when it comes to monogamy. Unlike so many other species, human babies are ridiculously helpless for a very long time. And then they become ridiculously helpless toddlers, and finally completely clueless teenagers. Having more than one parent is, from a biological standpoint, a good thing. Though Barash and Lipton refer to “superfemales” which are animals capable of raising their babies single-handedly... and thus more likely to seek copulations outside of relationships.

Count me as a “superfemale.”

Further, monogamy tends to work better when the pair in question are well-matched, having the same hobbies, political leanings, interests, intelligence, etc. I live with my best friend on earth, and we are well-matched. We don’t have a sexual relationship, and we like it that way. We are free to be friends completely and utterly, ‘till the end, no matter what... but we are also free to screw around with anyone we like. It’s the perfect relationship, in my opinion. I’ve never been happier than when I let go of my serial monogamy ways and stopped trying to find Prince Charming (or Princess Charming, as in the case of a couple of my relationships).

Yes, but...

Still, as The Myth of Monogamy points out, “the evidence is overwhelming that monogamy is no more natural to human beings than it is to other living things.”

So what’s the evidence? Aside from looking around, and seeing monogamy failing all around us? Part of that evidence is (here come the big words) human sexual dimorphism and bimaturism. Dimorphism refers to men being generally larger than women, taller and heavier. In the animal kingdom, dimorphism is a trait of harem-keeping, non-monogamous species where males must compete and fight to get the females.

Bimaturism refers to the fact that human females mature faster than human males. This gives older males the edge when it comes to reproducing. And in the DNA world, older means a better example of the species. Older animals must have fought successfully against other animals, and had good genes besides, in order to live longer. Again, bimaturism is a trait of polygynous species. Ditto for men’s larger testicles (yes, that’s right mister, they’re big, compared to other species of mammals). Yet another proof: men are more violent than women, as violent males must compete for the females, the most aggressive getting to run the harem.

All of the studies point to men preferring greater variety in their sex lives, which makes sense if humans are incline to be polygynous. One study shows that, before contact with the West, on average more than 80 percent of human societies were polygynous. The fact is, there is no evidence at all that monogamy is natural for human beings... though there is plenty of evidence showing we are predisposed to screwing as much as possible, with as many people as possible. Sounds like a brief synopsis of my life.

Yet I am not opposed to monogamy. I simply believe that it isn’t “natural.” But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a purpose, a function. Not the least of which is raising children. And in our society today, the concept of monogamy is firmly entrenched. Those of us who move outside of this social “norm” – a norm that is hardly normal – face dire social consequences for our behavior.

No, our biology is no excuse. We do have these beautiful big brains, and those brains have higher functions. We can think, reason. We can decide for ourselves whether we will heed the siren call of our DNA, or choose to remain faithful to one person only. Relationships are hard. Damned hard. Making them work, and choosing to stay faithful even when they don’t, is a herculean challenge. One more Barash and Lipton quote: “Maybe instead of taking monogamy as the norm.... we should see infidelity as the baseline condition, whereupon we might be free to examine monogamy, dispassionately, for the rarity that it is.”

There is much to be said for the intimacy and closeness that a relationship affords. I don’t believe that stepping outside of that relationship necessarily has to change its quality. But I do think that we have to look at our behavior and realize that we are in fact animals, with animal drives and needs. But we have choices the beasts do not have. I choose to believe that love and intimacy can be found everywhere, even in the prostitute’s boudoir. As humans, we have the capacity for love – not merely breeding. We are open to the whole panoply of human experience. In the 70s, they said, “If it feels good, do it.” Today we can say, “If it feels good... think about it first.”

I think I’m going to go watch a porno movie.

 

-30-