Now that we have a working definition of monogamy (a dyadic and sexually exclusive relationship), we can determine if this state is natural for human beings. The word natural means "in accordance with or determined by nature."[1] So, as this definition suggests, when we ask if monogamy is natural, we are inquiring as to whether the state of having exclusive sexual relations with one other person is consistent with our human biology and inherent impulses. This chapter will seek to resolve whether monogamy is an innate condition for humans or whether it is a constructed social convention.
Oh gosh. I meant to add that even though only like 10% of sexually dysmorphic species are monogamous and what 3to 5 percent of mammals is in no way evidence that humans are not. We are also the minority of social mammals, and the absolute minority of sapient species. We are the only truely bipedal mammals. The overwhelming mammals moving on all fours doesn't change that fact. Argueing we aren't monogamous because most mammals aren't isn't diasimilar from argueing we aren't bipedal because most mammals aren't.
There is no doubt you cherry picked your infedelity data imo. But it is not worth countering it while typing on a phone.
Let me tell you a story instead.
Once there was a small rocky island in the middle of the ocean. On the island lived a colony of birds that survived by fishing. Everyone fished and raised thier brood in harmony as there were plenty of fish in the sea. One day one of the birds realized it was easier to steal fish from its fellow birds than fish itself. As such this bird was able to get a surplus of fish to feed its brood and his brood survived better than the fishing birds.
So its offspring adopted its parents behaviour and also had more successful offspring. Over generations the cheaters grew in number. Eventually there were not enough fishers to support the cheaters. And the fishers started learning counter measures against the cheaters tactics. Soon the cheaters population dwindled. Many still cheated but only occassionally.
An equilibrium was achieved. Very little cheating, mostly fishing.
Although cheating provides an advantage at the individual's level, at the population level it can wipe out the species or cause a divergence into two seperate species or cause the species to abandon its social nature (the peaceful colony).
What we see in most species (even non-social ones) is a small amount of behaviour that could threaten the species as a whole. Predatory canabilism is rare, MvM competion is heavily ritualized, territories are mostly respected etc etc.
In monogamous species cheating is covert and not the norm. Sneaky fucking does happen and is "natural" but rape is also a form of "sneaky fucking" and natural. Natural doesn't mean moral. That's a whole other discussion I'm happy to have from an evolutionary perspective. Hint: humans are very social animals and stealing fish is an antisocial activity. In a social species MvM competion must be suppressed to a significant degree. FvF as well.
Jealousy (fear of losing the fish you caught) is a natural responce to attempted thievery.
Another mistake you made several times is to draw a distinct line between "socially constructed" behaviours and "natural" behaviours.
All social constructions are bounded by objective truths even when those truths are obscure.
Additionally, human culture (the sum of our constructions) is part of our evolutionary story..
Just as fishing is and stealing fish to the colony of birds. You can not simply dismiss almost 100% socially monogamous behaviour as "just a social construction". We've had culture for millions of years . It has affected our biology and our biology effects our culture. Much hay is made over bonobos who diverged from chimpanzees 0.86mya (most hay being cow paddies), but we have strong eviedence that social monogamy played a significant role on human evolution at least as long ago as 2.0mya. One is celebrated by NM advocates while the other is dismissed as "just" a social construct.
A final quick note on covert ovulation. There is another just so story one can tell about it.
In a socially monogamous species that uses sex as a bonding agent, there is no need to advertise ovulation. In addition advertising ovation in such a species would encourage rapists and MvM competition.
Isn't it weird to claim that both advertising ovation and "hiding" ovulation (a very loaded phrase btw) are both proof of Non-monogamy?
Although most cultures do in fact allow for polygamy if you add up all the members of those societies who are members of a polygamist household (men, women and children) it is only 16%. And of course most of those are women and children. So 1 or 2 percent of men in those societies have multiple wives. I.e. they are the elite.
If you ask these men why they have so many wives it is not for love, not even for lust. Rather thier primary concern is having workers to tend thier livestock and tend thier fields, etc. In other words it is economic.
Furthermore the rest of thier society isn't necessarily looking on approvingly. It is common for these men to be shamed or killed if they take (buy) too many wives.
So the truth is the majority of all humans are practicing social monogamy contrary to your claim.
Only a very small amount of cultures allow the practice of polyandry....one handed single digits. The only one I have read about the practice was rare and limited to brothers marrying the same woman so as to not have to divide the land. Once agian economic concerns rather than some high minded polyamory.
It is far more likely that the rates of NM family structures compared to M ones indicates that NM family structures are a result of socially constructed patriarchal institutions meant to benefit an elite rather than socially monogamous institutions.
Argueing that because less than 1% of elite men have multiple wives is evidence that everyone else is mistaken is just bad reasoning.
Oh gosh. I meant to add that even though only like 10% of sexually dysmorphic species are monogamous and what 3to 5 percent of mammals is in no way evidence that humans are not. We are also the minority of social mammals, and the absolute minority of sapient species. We are the only truely bipedal mammals. The overwhelming mammals moving on all fours doesn't change that fact. Argueing we aren't monogamous because most mammals aren't isn't diasimilar from argueing we aren't bipedal because most mammals aren't.
There is no doubt you cherry picked your infedelity data imo. But it is not worth countering it while typing on a phone.
Let me tell you a story instead.
Once there was a small rocky island in the middle of the ocean. On the island lived a colony of birds that survived by fishing. Everyone fished and raised thier brood in harmony as there were plenty of fish in the sea. One day one of the birds realized it was easier to steal fish from its fellow birds than fish itself. As such this bird was able to get a surplus of fish to feed its brood and his brood survived better than the fishing birds.
So its offspring adopted its parents behaviour and also had more successful offspring. Over generations the cheaters grew in number. Eventually there were not enough fishers to support the cheaters. And the fishers started learning counter measures against the cheaters tactics. Soon the cheaters population dwindled. Many still cheated but only occassionally.
An equilibrium was achieved. Very little cheating, mostly fishing.
Although cheating provides an advantage at the individual's level, at the population level it can wipe out the species or cause a divergence into two seperate species or cause the species to abandon its social nature (the peaceful colony).
What we see in most species (even non-social ones) is a small amount of behaviour that could threaten the species as a whole. Predatory canabilism is rare, MvM competion is heavily ritualized, territories are mostly respected etc etc.
In monogamous species cheating is covert and not the norm. Sneaky fucking does happen and is "natural" but rape is also a form of "sneaky fucking" and natural. Natural doesn't mean moral. That's a whole other discussion I'm happy to have from an evolutionary perspective. Hint: humans are very social animals and stealing fish is an antisocial activity. In a social species MvM competion must be suppressed to a significant degree. FvF as well.
Jealousy (fear of losing the fish you caught) is a natural responce to attempted thievery.
Another mistake you made several times is to draw a distinct line between "socially constructed" behaviours and "natural" behaviours.
All social constructions are bounded by objective truths even when those truths are obscure.
Additionally, human culture (the sum of our constructions) is part of our evolutionary story..
Just as fishing is and stealing fish to the colony of birds. You can not simply dismiss almost 100% socially monogamous behaviour as "just a social construction". We've had culture for millions of years . It has affected our biology and our biology effects our culture. Much hay is made over bonobos who diverged from chimpanzees 0.86mya (most hay being cow paddies), but we have strong eviedence that social monogamy played a significant role on human evolution at least as long ago as 2.0mya. One is celebrated by NM advocates while the other is dismissed as "just" a social construct.
A final quick note on covert ovulation. There is another just so story one can tell about it.
In a socially monogamous species that uses sex as a bonding agent, there is no need to advertise ovulation. In addition advertising ovation in such a species would encourage rapists and MvM competition.
Isn't it weird to claim that both advertising ovation and "hiding" ovulation (a very loaded phrase btw) are both proof of Non-monogamy?
Although most cultures do in fact allow for polygamy if you add up all the members of those societies who are members of a polygamist household (men, women and children) it is only 16%. And of course most of those are women and children. So 1 or 2 percent of men in those societies have multiple wives. I.e. they are the elite.
If you ask these men why they have so many wives it is not for love, not even for lust. Rather thier primary concern is having workers to tend thier livestock and tend thier fields, etc. In other words it is economic.
Furthermore the rest of thier society isn't necessarily looking on approvingly. It is common for these men to be shamed or killed if they take (buy) too many wives.
So the truth is the majority of all humans are practicing social monogamy contrary to your claim.
Only a very small amount of cultures allow the practice of polyandry....one handed single digits. The only one I have read about the practice was rare and limited to brothers marrying the same woman so as to not have to divide the land. Once agian economic concerns rather than some high minded polyamory.
It is far more likely that the rates of NM family structures compared to M ones indicates that NM family structures are a result of socially constructed patriarchal institutions meant to benefit an elite rather than socially monogamous institutions.
Argueing that because less than 1% of elite men have multiple wives is evidence that everyone else is mistaken is just bad reasoning.