UPTOWN

(I thought this article was quite interesting- what do you think)

BY DAVID BARASH, THE PROVINCENOVEMBER 25, 2009

 
Right-wing pro-marriage advocates are correct: Monogamy is definitely under siege. But not from uncloseted polyamorists, adolescent "hook-up" advocates, radical feminists, Godless communists or some vast homosexual conspiracy. The culprit is our own biology.

Researchers in animal behaviour have long known that monogamy is uncommon in the natural world. But only with the advent of DNA "fingerprinting" have we come to appreciate how truly rare it is.

Genetic testing has recently shown that even among many bird species -- long touted as the epitome of monogamous fidelity -- it is not uncommon for six to 60 per cent of the young to be fathered by someone other than the mother's social partner.

As a result, we now know scientifically what most people have long known privately -- that social monogamy does not necessarily imply sexual monogamy.

In the movie Heartburn, the lead character complains about her husband's philandering and gets this response: "You want monogamy? Marry a swan!" But now, scientists have found that even swans aren't monogamous.

For some, findings of this sort may mitigate a bit of the outrage visited on the current and future crop of adulterers du jour, recently including but assuredly not limited to Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, John Ensign and John Edwards.

For others, it simply shows that men are clueless, irresponsible oafs.

The scientific reality, however, is more nuanced, and more interesting, especially for those looking to their own matrimonial future.

First, there can be no serious debate about whether monogamy is natural for human beings. It isn't.

A Martian zoologist visiting Earth would have no doubt: Homo sapiens carry all the evolutionary stigmata of a mildly polygamous mammal in which both sexes have a penchant for occasional "extra-pair copulations." But natural isn't necessarily good. Think about earthquakes, tsunamis, gangrene or pneumonia. Nor is unnatural bad or beyond human potential. Consider writing a poem, learning a second language or mastering a musical instrument.

Few people would argue that learning to play the violin is natural. After all, it takes years of dedication and hard work.

A case can be made, in fact, that people are being maximally human when they do things that contradict their biology.

"Doing what comes naturally" is easy. It's what non-human animals do. Perhaps only human beings can will themselves to do things that go against their "nature." And finally, even though anyone aspiring to genuine monogamy will, on balance, have to swim upstream against the current of his or her evolutionarily bequeathed inclinations, there are also considerable biological forces supporting such efforts.

Some animals manage to be monogamous. Beavers establish lasting pair-bonds that enable them to co-operate in building a valuable, complex home site.

And among pygmy marmosets, monogamy gives males unconscious confidence of their paternity, which in turn supports their inclination to be unusually paternal.

And human beings? Our species benefits greatly from bi-parental care. We can profit from shared, reciprocated effort, especially when we're confident both partners will be around for the long term.

Add to this the fact that people have big brains and hence an ability to rescue monogamy from monotony, as well as the capacity to imagine the future and a visceral dislike of dishonesty. And the effect of biology on monogamy becomes complex indeed. Not to mention the adaptive significance of that thing called love.

To be sure, monogamy isn't easy, nor is it for everyone. But anyone who claims that he or she simply isn't cut out for monogamy misses the point: No one is.

At the same time, no one's biology precludes monogamy either. As Jean-Paul Sartre famously advised, albeit in a different context: "You are free; choose." Barash, an evolutionary biologist, is a professor of psychology at the University of Washington.