Wednesday 21st October, Slick’s room, 16:55
Rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated!
By which I mean, I’m sorry I have not blogged for ages. I really do wish I could write with more consistency, but when the mood doesn’t strike me, it doesn’t strike me. I’d promise to update more regularly, but you all know I would fail, so I will promise simply, once again, to try my hardest. Also, I seem to have misplaced the notebook I was using to help inspire me… no matter, I’m sure it will turn up.
My personal mild guilt and being a terrible blogger aside, let us consider the question at hand. The blog I have in mind today stems directly from a conversation I had with Rebel lately. Rebel is a biologist, and he shared an interesting puzzle with me. All animals, he tells me, have specific breeding patterns. Some, like lobsters, some types of penguins, some types of seal, some types of bird, mate for life. They are faithful to their partner, and produce lots of offspring over a lifetime. This is a good, stable breeding strategy in a population which has roughly equal numbers of males and females. Some animals have an alpha male with a harem of women (lions, for example, and some species of deer/antelope). This is also a good strategy: the alpha male exemplifies the most successful genes, and these genes are passed on to the next generation. Genetic diversity comes from the fact that there are multiple females involved, and also the occasional crafty “satellite male” who gets his leg over while the alpha male isn’t looking, thus sneaking his genes into the gene pool. Some animals have many indiscriminate partners, which also ensures a good deal of diversity. There are many different strategies, but the main point is this: seemingly all animals have one cohesive mating strategy, and they stick to it.
Now here’s the relevant question: what is the human mating strategy? We appear to contain elements of all of them. Many people mate “for life”; settle down, get married, have kids, have grandkids etc. But we are all aware that the system isn’t that simple: many of those people cheat on each other. Many people choose one “mate for life”, and then subsequently change their minds and upgrade to a new “mate for life”. Many people choose to mate indiscriminately. Some people (rock stars, for example) act as “alpha males”, holding exclusive access to a “harem” of groupies. Once again, it seems that we humans, with our big brains and our big libido’s, are the exception to the rule.
Now, Hollywood, and society in general, will tell us that the way to “win” the game of life is to fall in love with that one special person, get married and settle down- so that would lead me to the suggestion that “mate for life” is really our thing. But, it must be acknowledged, hollywood, and society in general, are full of crap. Something like a third of marriages end in divorce (although, admittedly, that means that most of them do “succeed”); and in many of those marriages which do stay together, it must be acknowledged, statistically speaking, that someone has probably had an affair. Affairs outside marriage are so endemic in human history and imagination that they seem to be hardwired into our society, into the very notion of marriage itself (after all, the “forsaking all others” vow in the marriage service is aimed specifically at combating this insidious threat to good social order). Finally, it must also be acknowledged that the search for “the one” is a search fraught with perils, missteps, drunken one night stands, and all those people who you thought were “the one” but who, it turns out, were not. All of this leads me to the conclusion that, if humans are meant to mate for life, we really, really suck at it. Personally I’m inclined to blame our intellects: while a mate-for-life animal, seeing an available alternate partner, would simply not think to attempt anything, because they “know”/genetically intuit that it is more beneficial in the long run to stay with one partner, a human will think “hmm, I wonder if/how I can mate with this person with any negative consequences”. Our minds and our urges team up in a deadly tag team combo against our better judgements.
Of course, it is also possible to view the puzzle form another angle. Perhaps it is the case that humans are “meant” to have multiple, indiscriminate partners, and we have simply been lulled into this idyllic “partner for life” idea by the inscrutable machinations of society. Part of me is tempted to blame religion, but let’s not open that can of worms today. This would explain the human lust for cheating and philandering, and the position held by some that the whole “marriage+kids=happiness” deal is off anyway, and that eternal bachelorhood (or maybe celibacy) is an option to be equally considered. Of course, this position would have to explain those anomalous people who do stay together for life, and i’m not sure it can- other than dismissing them as anomalies, or explaining them via other socio-economic/religious factors.
As should be apparent, both solutions to this enigma I have proposed are incapable of explaining all of the facets: if we should mate for life, why don’t we stick with our partners? If we should mate with lots of people, why do some stick with one person? I think then, that the only response which can be offered is to say that humans are, unsurprisingly, unique in this regard. We are confused about what we want, and our massive intellects elevate us beyond the point where instinct would choose for us. We are at the mercy of the twin forces of nature and nurture. And personally, I quite like it like that- I don’t want to be told that there is one girl out there for me, who I should stick with come hell or high water- but nor would I like to be told that there is definitely not such a person, and that I will be forever adrift in a sea of promiscuity, or, at best, serial monogamy.
Does anyone else think the phrase “sea of promiscuity” conjures up rather unsavoury imagery?
You can thank me some other time.
Slick
Slick111's Blog 
A good one. I can’t wait to read the responses. I’m afraid I cannot comment beyond that!
Rumours of your demise are no where near as common as rumours of mine.
This is an interesting issue, as a lot are. I would say we can compare humanity rather unfavourably to some sets of birds. Exotic displays of colours and dancing are all well and good in nature but head down Loveshack at some point and realise that humanity is more than willing to make itself look like a fool.
But I think Humanity lacks something the animals don’t. A pressing urge to continue as a species. Humanity is a vast parasite on the face of the earth and we will survive even if I don’t breed. In the animal kingdom, its a far less common position. And as a result humanity has lost its way.
Thats my thinking on the subject.
G
It seems to me breeding patterns reflect how significant the male is in raising the offspring. You get your harem lions, who usually sod off soon after the mating is done, and you get your birds, where both parents keep the nest and take it in turns to get food while the other warms the eggs. A male bird with a harem would be pretty unsuccessful at having offspring who would survive, as he’d have no hope of collecting food for all the females while they sit on the eggs, and feeding all the chicks would be yet harder. I would venture that the animals who will mate indiscriminately also tend to be ones (say, insects and fish) which have a very limited role in raising offspring, perhaps as little as fertilising and laying the eggs.
Incidentally, I remember reading an article, after that film about (emperor?) penguins came out (with a christian subtext I think? I’m not sure) stating that penguins were nowhere near as monogamous as the film made out, and while they usually do keep a partner for several breeding seasons, they don’t actually keep one all their lives.
We get elements of both behaviour in humans, and it seems to depend vastly on age. Generalising, of course, it’s younger people who want to get around, and ‘sow your wild oats’, as the saying goes. As people get older, they crucially actually want a family; where monogamy comes in, to provide better conditions to raise a child; something that applies as much today as it did before the days of loincloths.
I certainly agree with G in that humanity has veered off from what would have once been our average breeding pattern, but I’d say pretty confidently we do all have ‘a pressing urge to continue as a species’, even if we’d rather not regard it as such sometimes…
I’d attribute the change to the advent of contraception. Do any guys out there know a girl who would let you touch her if she thought there was any chance she’d get pregnant and you’d leg it? Probably not. Actually, when I think about it, it would be the combination of contraception and a society where having children at a young age is perceived as (and may well) decrease the person’s quality of life, given we live long enough to put off having a family and enjoy our youth longer. I’m sure a 15 year old girl 2000 years ago would have had no qualms about having kids.
I actually changed my mind halfway through writing this response. I was going to say I think humans are predominantly in the ‘mate for life’ camp, and that (to quote myself) “thousands of years of human history seem to have this trend, within countless different cultures and societies, and under scores of different religious beliefs.” But I realised that, as you say, both mating behaviours are pretty inherent in us. On the one hand there’s an instinctive drive to mate with anything that attracts us, and on the other, there’s the instinct (which will come to most of us eventually) to raise offspring successfully, in a safe environment. Perhaps that’s part of the reason we’ve been so successful as a species, because we have a flexibility like that with reproduction.
The thousands of years of human history pushing for monogamy is probably a result of the repercussions of the former mating behaviour, and the success of the latter. Generally, societies are kind enough to watch out for children, and they realise that a guy fathering countless children with 10 different women isn’t going to provide properly for any of them. The reason we find ourselves questioning these ancient practices is because we now have (far more reliable) contraception than ever, and usually the repercussions of the former can be prevented.
I wouldn’t get trapped trying to choose which of the behaviours is the ‘proper’ human mating habit; they both are, and they’ve been with us for all of recorded history.
Didn’t realise I wrote so much there… still, I’m not done :). Ammendments; I wouldn’t really describe societies as being ‘kind enough to watch out for children’; many were/are pretty brutal, but they at least recognise the importance of raising children…
On a more personal note, I know from your ‘about me section’ that you currently have no intentions of having kids, and to me this explains your position on this, namely being somewhat hostile to the cultural pressures to be monogamous, and of course religion. Understandably of course, since they basically insinuate that you’re immoral, even though you may not have harmed anyone. I apologise if I come across as if you’re rabidly anti-monogamy, which I don’t really think you are, but I’m working on the premise that this blog is fighting against the pressure to conform to monogamy, and I’m just defending it somewhat. Personally, as I said earlier, I think both are legitimate ‘right’ human behaviours.
I’ve wondered what your thoughts are on the origin of religion? If you don’t believe in it being the will of some greater being, then my logic would be that religion is in a sense a reflection of human nature, in that it creates practical rules that are in many respects beneficial to us as a society. Certainly the staples such as ‘no murder’, ‘no theft’, and for the reasons I argued above, ‘be monogamous’, seem pretty practical and beneficial. You might say the monogamy clause is out of date in our modern world, but if you could for a moment imagine that you did want kids, what relationship environment would you want to have them in? ‘Strict polygamy’ would be an option, but I suspect that problems would outweigh any benefits. Even if it were feasible, would that appeal to you over monogamy? You needn’t actually answer that if you like.
On this point: “all those people who you thought were “the one” but who, it turns out, were not”, my view is that ‘the one’ very much depends on your mindset and where you are in life, rather than the other person’s personality and flaws. I recall a conversation with a few girls in my first year uni accommodation, about potential boyfriends. A flatmate had two guys in her life; one who she had great fun with, and another who was a wonderful guy, but unfortunately not as exciting as the other guy (I hasten to add, this doesn’t mean he was an asshole). I pointed out that she was in a situation where she had effectively met her ideal guy for a university-time relationship, and her ideal guy in about 10 years time (I use the word ideal loosely). One was suited to where she was in life at that time, seeking fun and experiences and memories at university, and one for when she might settle down; a guy who cares about her a lot and would stick by her, and she might love to itty bitty pieces. I’m sorry to say I don’t know which one she ended up going with, if either of them. But my point is, were she to take the exciting guy, he may have seemed like ‘the one’, at least until she got older. But then he’d seem inadaquate compared to the other guy, who’d become the new ‘one’. Conversely, she might have got bored and abandoned the less exciting guy, when their relationship might have flourished later on. This will probably reinforce your view that monogamy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be (bar serial monogamy), but I think it better just to take it as something to be aware of with relationships. And possibly responsible for many divorces.
As a note to anyone who actually managed to read everything I’ve written, feel free to pick any of my argument to pieces and then dance around the burning foundations. I’d be happy to know if anyone thinks I’m talking utter garbage, just to see other people’s opinions, and maybe the error of my ways.
All very interesting stuff- have you considered starting a blog of your own? I like your point about contraception: I actually considered including such a discussion in the original argument, but figured it might become a little too unwieldy given all of the other themes I was already handling. As for the hypothetical raising of kids, I do happen to agree that the traditional two parent structure is probably the best one- I say probably because the alternatives have not really been truly explored, to my mind: what about a society which encouraged full communal raising of children, for example? If everyone looked after everyone’s children, it might counteract the problems we so often face when parents fall out of love with each other but still want the best for their children. Just a thought, and an unlikely one at that, but my essential point- and I would extend this as a caveat to my views on monogamy- is that we so often only see the one path, the path laid out by our mainstream religio-socio-cultural structure. I’m not saying it’s not the best path- it might well be- but I don’t think enough people look into enough alternatives.
As to your question about the origin of religion, it’s an interesting one, which really deserves a blog of it’s own: I see what you mean about a reflection of human values, but personally I see the genesis of religion in more of an explanatory capacity: “why are things the way they are? Well, someone must have made them that way. That someone is God” A simplistic analysis, I know, but one, I think, which has merit and also provides a good explanation for the rise of modern atheism- once a better explanation comes along, you don’t need the old ways. Probably the truth encompasses both points of view: like I say, it is a subject that bears much further discussion.
Well, nearly Slick. You got most of what I meant, but not all of it – well, I know you understood it but seem to have forgotten it. I will happily defend the point of view displayed here (it is, afterall, my own) in person – I find keyboards are restrictive of the intellect (hah, yes – thats why my summative grades arn’t quite all 1st’s..) – and the biological principles associated with it. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why humans act like we do, it would be very interesting. And the answer to a question that we all ask at times.. “how did it not work? Why did he/she leave me? Am I fundamentally unworthy of love” (thank you slick..)”?”
I said the blog stemmed from our conversation: not that it recreated it exactly. Besides, I’m sure, given that you are assenting to the point of view displayed here, that any detail I have ommitted is some sort of silly and obscure biologist detail of little or no relevance. I’ll let you know when I come up with some answers to your deeper questions…
In the Victorian era in England, possibly the time at which our sexual confusion was greatest in history until now, both sexes were expected to mate for life at a young age but it was widely accepted as healthy and expected for men to have sex before marriage, bad for women to refuse a young man sex, and bad and unhealthy for women to have or to want to have sex before marriage (although doctors of that exclusively female ‘disorder’, hysteria, had vibrators to treat their married patients as well). You touch upon the social aspect of what is expected and desired in this blog, but I think a further blog post on exploring alternatives is merited- I liked your suggestion of communal raising of children, which reminds me of another “alternative”, that of polyamory- and of course the unwieldy contraception might merit a further blog post too.