# Cosmic Relief, about 'natural monogamy' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2008, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022 "2008-07-29T01:19:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/1 "2008-07-29T01:19:47Z")
This is the interpretation I have heard of the evolutionary advantage of females requiring more time to go from arousal to satisfaction than the male. After the alpha male has had the opportunity to mate, he is quiescent and less prone to confrontation. The female, not entirely satisfied, is willing to entertain a less powerful male. **Both** males have the opportunity to father the off-spring, particularly if the alpha has less motile sperm; this maintains a more varied gene pool, which is always good for the population. So, who is more impelled toward stepping out? The big old alpha male, who has to fight his way to every female, or the hot little mama, who can wait 'till hubby starts snoring and sneak off with the cabana boy? My point is not that women, or men, are naturally polygamous or monogamous, but that ascribing social mores to ‘natural law’ is more Natural Philosophy than science. Remember, some ‘scientists’ who claim that males evolved to desire multiple sexual partners will also write that they do not know _the purpose of the female orgasm._\* Their writings can be very Miltonian, _“He evolved, and she evolved for him.”_ - I look for an example … ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/2 "2008-07-29T01:59:14Z")
Thanks for your reply… as expected, I see some problems with these lines of reasoning.. [QUOTE=j666] This is the interpretation I have heard of the evolutionary advantage of females requiring more time to go from arousal to satisfaction than the male. After the alpha male has had the opportunity to mate, he is quiescent and less prone to confrontation. The female, not entirely satisfied, is willing to entertain a less powerful male. **Both** males have the opportunity to father the off-spring, particularly if the alpha has less motile sperm; this maintains a more varied gene pool, which is always good for the population. So, who is more impelled toward stepping out? The big old alpha male, who has to fight his way to every female, or the hot little mama, who can wait 'till hubby starts snoring and sneak off with the cabana boy? [/quote] I think this overlooks the fact that women are saddled by 9 months of pregnancy and then several years of raising a young 'un. During this time, even with female “infidelity” factored in, a healthy male can sire literally hundreds if not thousands of offspring. A woman cannot achieve anywhere near this level of reproductive output, and if she does, she risks violence from a jealous mate. The numbers favor male promiscuity, strongly if not overwhelmingly so. That isn’t to say that women _don’t_ possess innate urges toward infidelity when the circumstances are right, just as men do. It’s just that biology makes this a much less genetically lucrative strategy for women than for men. > [@](#): > > My point is not that women, or men, are naturally polygamous or monogamous, but that ascribing social mores to ‘natural law’ is more Natural Philosophy than science. I agree that the point of such observations should not be to authorize certain sets of behavior as “natural”. It smells of the naturalistic fallacy and the evasion of responsibility. Whatever behavioral pressures may be at work, for whatever reason we also have a sense of morality and ethics. However, that’s not to say that science has nothing to say about these questions… a number of very bright scholars (and myself, neither particularly bright nor a scholar) can present very convincing evidence that science does have something to say about these questions. > [@](#): > > Remember, some ‘scientists’ who claim that males evolved to desire multiple sexual partners will also write that they do not know _the purpose of the female orgasm._\* Their writings can be very Miltonian, _“He evolved, and she evolved for him.”_ Aside from the fact that this story seems apocryphal, and that there are actually several theories about the purpose of the female orgasm, does it logically follow that no scientist can comment on evolution of the male sexual drive until all of them understand the purpose of the female orgasm? There are many things about human physiology that we don’t know; if we arbitrarily said we can’t talk about one until we understand all of them, we’d never have gotten as far as we have. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/3 "2008-07-29T02:31:35Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] Thanks for your reply… **as expected** , I see some problems with these lines of reasoning.. [/QUOTE] Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were interested in a new viewpoint. As a scientist, I occasionally get the urge to inform others of how opinions presented as science can be influenced by preconceived notions. I was looking for a cite, but I really don’t see the need, now. I don’t think you’re all that interested. “…women are saddled by 9 months of pregnancy and then several years of raising a young 'un..” What does that have to do with the evolutionary advantage of multiple v. single sexual partners for female? “… a healthy male can sire literally hundreds if not thousands of offspring …” That would require dozens to hundreds of healthy females, no effective competition, and the most motile sperm. I don’t think that can be assumed during the evolution of the species. “… she risks violence from a jealous mate …” Actually, the evidence suggests that males risk, commit, and receive, more violence on each other than on the females, in most species. “… That isn’t to say that women don’t possess innate urges toward infidelity when the circumstances are right, just as men do…” The discussion is not about innate urges or infidelity (despite the flippant tone in my post), it’s about faulty inferences. “… It’s just that biology makes this a much less genetically lucrative strategy for women than for men. …” Why? No matter whether it’s alpha male or the cabana boy, her genes get passed on. Social support for the infant? I don’t think most species evolve in nuclear families. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/4 "2008-07-29T09:20:27Z")
[QUOTE=j666] Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were interested in a new viewpoint. As a scientist, I occasionally get the urge to inform others of how opinions presented as science can be influenced by preconceived notions. I was looking for a cite, but I really don’t see the need, now. I don’t think you’re all that interested. [/quote] My apologies as well; I thought you might be offering a new viewpoint, but I don’t see any. I am always interested in hearing a new angle on this debate, but if you were expecting the easy job of convincing someone who already agrees with you, I don’t think we need to continue here. Let me guess, social scientist? ---
**Author:** ![brujaja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@brujaja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brujaja)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/5 "2008-07-29T09:46:45Z")
Well, see, this all leads _right into_ my theory of how to combat world overpopulation; and it is true that if we can solve that, we’ve solved a lot of other problems, too. Here’s my theory: polyandry. One wife, several husbands. She can only have one baby at a time… meanwhile, all that sperm would be focused in (more or less) one place. What would all those husbands do when she was pregnant? Well, what do polygamists’ wives do when it’s not their turn? What? ---
**Author:** ![Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/6 "2008-07-29T15:41:05Z")
I find this thread interesting, but I don’t understand what you are arguing about. There is Canadian geese and beavers who mate for life, there is horses and people who mate with whoever they can convince to do so. Both approaches work as all of the mentioned species are successful in that they are not extinct. I don’t see why there has to only be one. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/7 "2008-07-29T17:44:35Z")
Have read articles (sadly don’t remember from where) stating that birds that mate for life usually also fool around on the side, too. Don’t remember hearing about beavers particularly, but the implication was that most animals aren’t completely monogamous, even if they remain together for continuing sets of children. ---
**Author:** ![Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/8 "2008-07-29T20:50:23Z")
[QUOTE=Yllaria] most animals aren’t completely monogamous, even if they remain together for continuing sets of children. [/QUOTE] So there is a possibility that no species on earth are monogamous and even those that raise little ones together for a life time have something going on on the side. Well I wouldn’t rule it out, people used to claim animals never did anything gay too. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2008, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/9 "2008-07-29T21:11:32Z")
There’s also the substantial investment that is required to raise a human infant to the point of self-sufficiency. Human newborns are helpless for a much longer time than any other land-dwelling animal that I’m aware of. They can’t even walk for a year or so! That puts quite a bit of pressure on both parents to maintain monogamy for at least the first few years of their child’s life, in order to better assure the survival of their offspring. In this situation, both partners benefit from monogamy by being able to better provide for and protect their child than either parent could by themselves.\* \*I don’t mean to disparage modern single parents. I’m talking strictly about the kind of situation that existed during most of human evolution, when humans were prey animals as well as predators and hunting and gathering food took a major investment of time and energy. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2008, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/10 "2008-07-30T11:01:23Z")
[QUOTE=Cornelius Tuggerson] So there is a possibility that no species on earth are monogamous and even those that raise little ones together for a life time have something going on on the side. [/QUOTE] Well, there are fish where the ( much smaller ) male physically fuses permanently to the female; he’s not likely to be fooling around. And quite a few species that dies after mating and breeding. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2008, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/11 "2008-07-30T11:16:29Z")
-Moved to Great Debates.- [Here’s a link to the argument that inspired this thread.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10041984#post10041984) ---
**Author:** ![Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/12 "2008-07-30T15:42:50Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Well, there are fish where the ( much smaller ) male physically fuses permanently to the female; [/QUOTE] Ahhh, I knew I was missing something. But can we agree that all animals that are physically capable of polygamy do in fact engage in it? Or is there some special ultra-loyal subspecies of beaver out there that really means it about the “till death do us part” thing? PS How awesome would it be if [these](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_beaver) things were still around? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2008, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/13 "2008-07-30T16:05:46Z")
[QUOTE=Cornelius Tuggerson] Ahhh, I knew I was missing something. But can we agree that all animals that are physically capable of polygamy do in fact engage in it? Or is there some special ultra-loyal subspecies of beaver out there that really means it about the “till death do us part” thing? [/QUOTE] I don’t think there is anyone who seriously argues that any animal is 100% monogamous (when the male survives breeding). The premise to be debated is whether human females are physically more predisposed to polygamy, as stated in the error-riddled and now-abadoned OP. ---
**Author:** ![Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/14 "2008-07-30T17:55:01Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] more predisposed to polygamy [/QUOTE] More predisposed to polygamy then who? Or just more predisposed to polygamy then previously assumed? The existence and safety of modern birth-control and abortions will probably screw up any meaningful comparison to anything. Or are we only talking about sex for reproduction and not for pleasure? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cosmic-relief-about-natural-monogamy/458022/15 "2008-07-30T18:08:32Z")
As I said, it’s all in the abandoned OP. Read it and knock yourself out; I see no reason to continue the discussion if the original poster won’t stand behind it.