Humans get bored --> Lonely.. That can be a general observation. Most of the time we prefer to be around others. Sex feels good. We like to feel we have strong connections to others. Everything else is up for grabs as far as I can tell. Monogamy seems to work best in terms of equality though. Getting lost as one of many seems a bit asymmetrical. Unless both parties are equally getting benefits, one party is losing (out) by circumstances.

It's probably the most stable form of relationship as well.

Because we somehow show we can be different from all mammals... and we are able to connect with people spiritually to such a degree as to set our desires and inclinations under the control of our brains (which often are socially/ethically oriented). — Eros1982

This is why the topic intrigues me. The fact that males and females are dimorphic reminds us of our basic earthly makeup. Our ideas about monogamy are opposed to this, attempting to leave the earth behind in some ways. — Tate

Many bird species are monogamous, as are some mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. I think that casts doubt on any spiritual interpretation of monogamy.

Likewise the fact that the eyes of white men of a certain age tend to be spaced apart just so that they provide improved long distance depth perception, — Tate

Now, Tate... we've already talked about this.

We like to feel we have strong connections to others — schopenhauer1

And this is another Homo Sapiens anomaly. Studies show that we look directly into one another's eyes more than other primates do. I don't want to read too much into that, but it stands to reason that this is a sign of a deeper drive to connect intimately with others in a way that isn't necessarily sexual.

It may be that the ground for monogamy has more than one source.

You are wrong to believe that those mammals (only meerkats I know to be monogamous, snakes and birds do not count) have other choices.

We humans know that we were not always monogamous, we know we have choices as well. Nonetheless we may come to disdain many things which make us look like other animals (dogs, cows, and so on).

It is not only about sex. There are so many things which make us nauseous just because they show some animalistic qualities in our eyes. We know we are animals, but to a certain degree we refuse to behave as such.

That's something different from snakes and birds which may not know at all that they have a polygamy option.

birds do not count — Eros1982

That undermines your argument. You wrote:

we are able to connect with people spiritually to such a degree as to set our desires and inclinations under the control of our brains — Eros1982

You claim humans have monogamy because we can connect with people spiritually, but then you say other animals are monogamous for other reasons. I don't find this very convincing. Do you have any evidence.

Read it again and you will find it.

Two people may do the same thing for two different reasons. What's wrong with that argument?

By the way, birds are not mammals. I don't know how they feel about sex... when I see a naked woman I am closer to a dog than to a bird, I guess. And polygamous men and women (especially orgies) to many of us bring in mind dogs in the parks, not seagulls.

The more you search world literature the more you find animal names used with offensive meaning for human behavior.

The more you search world literature the more you find animal names used with offensive meaning for human behavior. — Eros1982

Bird brain?

But birds do so much with their brains!

I don't know how they feel about sex... — Eros1982

Apparently they like it; it has kept them going for 150,000,000 years.

I agree with you, but T Clark was complaining why I said that birds do not count. I said birds do not count because in my previous post I mentioned mammals, not all possible animals.

Let it be clear here also that stating: 1) we turn monogamy into ideal because we are not mammals and 2) we turn monogamy into ideal because we want to show that we can differ from other mammals, are two different things.

I was arguing for 2, not for 1. I don't know what T Clark understood.

I also believe that at the core of Abrahamic religions and those moral codes I've heard about (Kantian ethics included) the idea of making humans different from animals was very important. This might be one explanation why Abraham saved Isaac, but not the ram.

People who in our eyes (depending on how we are taught to see) look or behave like animals are really repulsive to this day.

I agree with you, but T Clark was complaining why I said that birds do not count. I said birds do not count because in my previous post I mentioned mammals, not all possible animals. — Eros1982

we turn monogamy into ideal because we want to show that we can differ from other mammals, are two different things. — Eros1982

Many non-human animals; whether they're mammals, birds, or something else, are monogamous. That undermines your argument that human monogamy is somehow exceptional. We're animals too.

That undermines your argument that human monogamy is somehow exceptional. We're animals too. — T Clark

I think you didn't read what I was saying.

We may want to be monogamous because we aim to be exceptional, birds may not have that goal at all.

When I am loyal to a woman for my whole life I make a choice. I don't know what's the purpose of monogamy in birds or whether it is a free choice.

Many non-human animals; whether they're mammals, birds, or something else, are monogamous. That undermines your argument that human monogamy is somehow exceptional. We're animals too. — T Clark

Monogamous animals are usually sexually monomorphic. We're dimorphic, so our monogamy is unusual. This is explained in the OP.

Monogamous animals are usually sexually monomorphic. We're dimorphic, so our monogamy is unusual. — Tate

You have not provided any evidence for this claim.

You — T Clark

I provided it to those who are capable of searching Google Scholar. Those who can't are just screwed. :victory:

I also believe that at the core of Abrahamic religions and those moral codes I've heard about (Kantian ethics included) the idea of making humans different from animals was very important. This might be one explanation why Abraham saved Isaac, but not the ram. — Eros1982

Really, it's a horrible story. Abraham was being put to the test: would he obey the order to kill his son? He passed the test when he prepared to kill Isaac. The ram was made available at the last moment as the sacrificial alternative to Isaac (the proverbial 'ram in the thicket').

I don't think the Abraham/Isaac story has anything to do with the subject at hand. A better source would be the Genesis passage about humans having dominion.

Clearly humans are different in the same way that dogs are different than donkeys or whales are different than wallabies. Different, but related.

Can we agree that monogamy among humans is imposed rather than natural? Geese are pretty much monogamous because it is in their evolved nature to be monogamous. Primates are not evolved to be monogamous. Monogamy is imposed by institutions of our own creation to manage fertility and control potentially disruptive behavior. Because we have more freedom of choice than geese, we can elect to be monogamous. Sometimes choosing monogamy doesn't make us a monogamous species.

Depicting something as "the ideal" is bait to make it more attractive than it would otherwise be. We don't depict chocolate as "ideal" because it doesn't need any enhancement. Self-sacrifice in war is offered as an ideal because soldiers generally prefer to survive war.

I provided it to those who are capable of searching Google Scholar. Those who can't are just screwed. — Tate

I did search as you indicated. The first item I came across is the one I quoted in a previous post that contradicts your position. Here's a link to my post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13479/why-is-monogamy-an-ideal/p2

A lot of the people in Genesis practiced polygamy. Maybe because war killed the men?

I did search as you indicated. The first item I came across is the one I quoted in a previous post that contradicts your — T Clark

As I said, those who can't use Google Scholar are screwed, in a number of ways.

Monogamous animals are usually sexually monomorphic. We're dimorphic, so our monogamy is unusual. This is explained in the OP. — Tate

You know what else is unusual about our relationship dynamics in comparison with other animals? The fact that one could write a treatise on the myriad ways we have chosen to connect up together, from culture to culture, from individual to individual , from era to era. This discussion so far has de-emphasized the historically changing ways humans have thought about relationship. Is a term like monogamy really coherently understood without taking into account how significantly our social views of women, or of love , have changed in the past few thousand years?

What , for instance, is the link between modern thinking about monogamy and the appearance of the concept of romantic love? How have changing views of the role and capabilities of women altered the dynamics of marriages in terms of the sharing of responsibilities for child rearing, housekeeping and income generation? How do we make sense of the unraveling of the nuclear family in favor of all kinds of alternative family arrangements ( single parenting, the rise of non-married partnerships , and the single most significant trend today: the growing numbers of people living alone)?

The monogamous-nonmonogamous binary that you are importing from biological science wasn’t designed to address the infinitely malleable ways in which humans are capable of transforming the basis of their relationships with others.
Bringing all this back to the question of the OP, does human pairing behavior transcend the biological ‘mechanisms’ that make paring behavior in other species so predictable? I would put it this way: in creatures with our brain size, capacity and adaptability, the mechanism of cultural transmission produces a rate of behavioral transformation much more accelerated than that which the mechanism of genetic evolution can achieve.

I think the best way to understand pairing behavior in humans is not by comparing us to individual animal species, but comparing the shifting patterns of our paring behavior over the course of cultural history with the trajectory of diversifying pairing behaviors in general over the course of biological evolution.

I agree. The OP simply starts with the news that our biology suggests that we should have reduced monogamy. What's going on with us that we've made monogamy an ideal?

It's an invitation to speculate. I think so far the consensus is that it had to do with suppressing male-male competition for the sake of social stability along with a few other stray factors.

. I think so far the consensus is that it had to do with suppressing male-male competition for the sake of social stability along with a few other stray factors. — Tate

Do you think human males are ‘innately’ more competitive than females? What about gay monogamy?

Do you think human males are ‘innately’ more competitive than females? — Joshs

Among socializing mammals the norm is competition for social dominance between males and separately between females. The difference is that the among males, dominance conveys breeding rights if the species is sexually dimorphic, as we are.

I think the answer to your question is no. The weight of millions of years of evolution is behind competitiveness in both sexes.

The weight of millions of years of evolution is behind competitiveness in both sexes. — Tate

Keep in mind that the ‘weight of evolution’ refers to the fact that patterns of mating behaviors barely changed for millions of years among species of primates. This ‘weight’ of unchanging patterns was due not only to fixed genetic coding but also to unchanging primate ‘cultural’ behavior in general over millions of years. Perhaps we could say that, given the profound changeability of human cultural behavior over the course of mere centuries , we have thrown off the weight of those millions of years of unchanging behavior. In other words , competition need not be thought of genetically inbred in humans. We now see anti-competition messages being spread in the schools and other areas of culture , for instance. We may eventually arrive at a time when competition is overwhelmingly rejected as a desirable and useful value. Will this be an overthrow of our biological heritage, or an overthrow of the myth that this was ever our heritage?

Perhaps we could say that, given the profound changeability of human cultural behavior over the course of mere centuries , we have thrown off the weight of those millions of years of unchanging behavior. — Joshs

I think it's apparent that we have done that to some extent. The question I got hooked on was: why? Why monogamy?

But you touched on some else I thought about. Humans are more flexible psychologically than other species. What if we end up being monomorphic psychologically? That is: what if males and females end up being almost interchangeable in terms of behavior? So the monogamy isn't really off course biologically unless we overlook the extent to which psyche is what we are, moreso than biology.

I don't know if I put that in a way that makes sense.

I don't think patriarchy answers the question, though. Patriarchy doesn't entail monogamy — Tate

Patriarchy is the enforced social rule of men as the head of the household who makes decisions with respect to household economic arrangements, at least with respect to this topic (it's much more than just this rule, but this is a simple enough beginning).

This balance of power has changed in parts of the world, but that tradition is still alive and well -- and I'd say that even if we choose to re-interpret monogamy in some other way, that this is where the ideal "comes from", so to speak -- its cultural genealogy comes from the fact that children are expensive, that it's harder to track who the father is, and monogamy makes tracking that economic responsibility much easier.



Oh, yes -- we're recently enlightened, you see. ;)

But, yeah, I believe human beings are creatures, more or less. Flesh, blood, bone, and brain, and related to all the life that we see before us through the evolutionary story.

This balance of power has changed in parts of the world, but that tradition is still alive and well -- and I'd say that even if we choose to re-interpret monogamy in some other way, that this is where the ideal "comes from", so to speak — Moliere

Historically patriarchs had multiple wives, so why do you say this is the source of monogamy? How did monogamy evolve out of polygamy?

Historically patriarchs had multiple wives — Tate

I think you're starting from a false notion of patriarch here -- it's a picture of a man with his harem. While that is an example of patriarchy, it's not a definition. Patriarchy as I set it out: the social rule where the penis-haver of a household makes economic decisions for said household. So, "historically speaking", monogomous relationships count insofar that the penis-haver is the one who holds the power of the wallet within the household.

Some patriarchs have multiple wives -- but I'd say that even most do not. Polygamy is just an extension of the logic taken to an extreme: if I can own one wife, then if I'm rich enough I should be able to own multiple wives. While we of modern, sensible tastes don't put it in terms of ownership, it wasn't so long ago that a man could have his wife put away for being "hysterical" in our purportedly modern world.

So, "historically speaking", monogomous relationships count insofar that the penis-haver is the one who holds the power of the wallet within the household. — Moliere

The definition of monogamy I've been using is scientific: it's a bonded pair.

If by scientific you just mean descriptive of human behavior, then human beings are simply not monogamous. There's nothing to explain because this is a false statement.

by scientific you just mean descriptive of human behavi — Moliere

By "scientific", I meant according to the way biologists use the word.

then human beings are simply not monogamous. There's nothing to explain because this is a false statement. — Moliere

Nevertheless, it's held up as an ideal on a large portion of the earth. The question was: why?

By "scientific", I meant according to the way biologists use the word. — Tate

I pulled a definition from this pdf claiming to be a post-secondary biology textbook: "mating system whereby one male and one female remain coupled for at least one mating season"

Given that human beings don't have a mating season, I'd say it's a hard sell on being useful to describe humans.

Nevertheless, it's held up as an ideal on a large portion of the earth. The question was: why? — Tate

I've supplied an answer, and answered your rebuttal: polygamy is an extension of monogamy, not a strike against monogamy as an ideal. The ideal is there because penis-havers make economic decisions over the household, and they don't want to be saddled with someone else's child.