Introduction
For most of my adult life, I have been searching for the perfect relationship. My goal has always been acquiring and maintaining a long-term monogamous relationship. Growing up in a conservative Catholic family, my options were very limited in the type of relationship in which I would feel comfortable. Open relationships and infidelity were never an option for me. Even today, the notion of going outside of the relationship for sex has a tremendous amount of negative connotations. Perhaps my parents, my religion, or my environment has influenced my goals.
Seven months ago, I began dating and fell in love. As our relationship continues to change I feel a sense of insecurity about our future. I wonder if two people are able to remain in a committed monogamous relationship or if I am just fantasizing about impossibility. I truly want to believe that monogamous relationships are possible; however, history, statistics, and my own experiences have not supported this ideal. Our history is loaded with stories of infidelity. Novels, plays, poems, and short stories about failed relationships involving infidelity date back to the first written manuscripts. Statistics also illustrate the small percentage of couples who are committed to a monogamous relationship. I have found an enormous amount of statistical information going against my hopes and dreams. Finally, my experience in relationships could definitely support the notion that true monogamy is impossible. So what are the correct answers to these difficult questions? Where did the idea of monogamy come from? How has it shaped our society? Why is monogamy so important to many and yet so unattained? Can couples be faithful and remain content? Before answering these questions, one must have a full understanding of monogamy, the terms and conditions surrounding it, and the methodology for gathering research materials.
Monogamy and Methodology
One must have a clear understanding about monogamy before the debate begins. Monogamy is the sexual exclusivity of one sexual partner to another. Nonmonogamy is having more than one sexual partner (Byer, 2002). For the sake of clarity, I will focus on absolute heterosexual monogamy between two committed heterosexual adults. Although many of these couples could be legally married, as one will see later, marriage is not a necessary component of a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, monogamy is not a necessary component of marriage. Bill Clinton publicly proved that point on national TV. After admitting to his affair with Monica Lewinsky, his wife Hilary Clinton remained publicly by his side. This brings up another point of defining sexual exclusivity.
Before one can commit to sexual exclusivity with a partner, one must first define sexual intercourse. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, sexual intercourse is “coitus between humans or the sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.” The dictionary also defines coitus as the “sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.” Therefore, any activity involving the genitals of another person shall be considered sexual intercourse and the Clintons would not meet these standards of a monogamous relationship. It is important to note that sexual monogamy in humans is an elected behavior. A person is physically and cognitively able to choose his or her sexual activity.
There is another term that is used by sociologists and social psychologist called serial monogamy. This occurs when a person participates in relatively short-term and frequent sexually exclusive relationships such as multi-marriages. "Most divorced people remarry only once, but a smaller number marry three or more times." (Schulz & Rodgers, 1980, p. 12) Elizabeth Taylor, Ronald Reagan, and many other celebrities appear monogamous to their partners until they decide to end the relationship.
Origins of Monogamy
Evolutionary psychologists have interesting perspectives on the origins of monogamous relationships. One perspective involves the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) in a sexually promiscuous society. STD’s have been a part of human reproduction since the beginning of homo-sapiens. “The thesis that humans have been vulnerable to STDs for a long time can be inferred from the specificity of the pathogens: whether the pathogen is a virus, a bacterium, or a metazoan. For example, herpes simplex virus (HSV) Type 2 (HSV-2) is transferred sexually and has specialized in the genital area. Sakaoka et al. (1994) have suggested that the split between HSV-1, usually transmitted non-venereally, and HSV-2, usually transmitted venereally, occurred several million years ago.” (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 50) If STD’s were affecting the reproductive viability of early homo-sapiens, the number of sexual partners would increase the risk of infection, infertility, sterility, and even death.
“It is suggested here that the counter pressure that was most effective in minimizing STDs within the group was pair bonding. Although pair bonding is often found with the lesser apes (e.g., gibbon and siamang), these animals are arboreal, are relatively small, and have little sexual dimorphism ( Jolly, 1985). Late australopithecine/early Homo was fully bipedal, increasingly terrestrial, and relatively large and had high sexual dimorphism. Models that presume universal mating within a tribe or troop that harbors an STD indicate that nearly all females become infected, and fairly quickly so.” (See Immerman ∧ Mackey, 1999, for examples.) (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 52)
However, early homo-sapien females could have used sexual exclusivity as a form of currency in exchange for food, safety, and the protection of her children. Early homo-sapien males would have also used a steady supply of food as an assurance of easily accessible sexual contact. Pair bonding could have gained momentum if STD’s were to increase. Infected females would be less desirable because of the symptoms related to STD’s and would be less willing to mate. A woman who forms a pair bond with a man has reduced chances of (a) ectopic pregnancy, (b) infertility caused by PID, and (c) infirm offspring. In addition, both the man and the woman have reduced chances of being harmed by the negative consequences of STDs. (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 53)
Another perspective on the origin of monogamy involves the use of evolved mechanisms such as jealousy. "Mechanisms that solve adaptive problems are like keys that fit particular locks. The efficiency, detail, and complex structure of the key must mesh precisely with the inner 'problem' posed by the lock.“ (Buss, 1995, p.12) Evolutionary psychologists try to uncover these keys for better understanding. Monogamy could have evolved because of the learned behavior of jealousy or visa versa. Jealousy is found in every part of human behavior. "Because both men and women over human evolutionary history have been damaged by relationship loss, both sexes have faced adaptive problems to which jealousy may have evolved as a solution.” (Buss, 1995, p. 14)
Evolutionary psychologists also link our behavior to the presence or absence of a father figure. There is some evidence that father absence during childhood shunts individuals toward a more promiscuous mating strategy, whereas the presence of an investing father during childhood shunts individuals toward a more monogamous mating strategy (Buss, 1995, p. 11) But where evolution ended, cultural practices continued.
Culture of Monogamy
If monogamous pair bonding was a characteristic of homo-sapiens, then monogamy would be the norm instead of the exception and infidelity would be limited. Instead, the condoning of premarital and extramarital sexual intercourse has been a norm rather than an exception. But why was sexual monogamy introduced into early homo-sapien lifestyles? One answer might simply be trial and error.
Although STD’s had an enormous impact on sexual viability of early homo-sapiens, so did the restrictions placed on the number of sexual partners. But reducing the number of sexual partners would have different outcomes. "Unfortunately, both our phylogenetic heritage as terrestrial primates and the ethnographic archives suggest that reciprocal monogamous mating has little chance of success." (Immerman & Mackey, 1997, p. 447) This is evident in the woman’s fertility, which is much more vulnerable than the man’s. Also STD’s are spread more efficiently from male to female than from female to male. If trial and error were used as a tool for establishing norms, repeated sexual trials of STD’s would have suggested that female monogamy would be more advantageous to the survival of early homo-sapiens. Females, easier to restrain physically, would be the more practical choice for cloistering. Thus, any preexisting tendency toward a double standard of sexual restraints would be reinforced, to minimize the level of STDs within a community. And such, of course, is the ethnographic reality: Sexual constraints, across cultures, are more severe on wives than on husbands. (Immerman & Mackey, 1997, p. 447)
Cultural norms were established because of underlying psychological mechanisms that had positive outcomes. As mentioned earlier, jealousy proved to be useful in protecting one’s investment by fighting off potential threats. Trial and error could reinforce cultural norms to prohibit potential threats and promote jealousy. Eventually, these cultural norms became implanted in the teachings of early religions.
In a journal article entitled “The Suspected Adulteress: A Study of Textual Embodiment”, Bonna Devora attempts to clarify theological references to sexual monogamy and “purity.” In Judaism, the goal is to achieve “purity” by becoming closer in proximity to the God’s temple. This proximity could be thought of as a marriage, which is a holy union. The laws of purity are expressed in terms of one's being permitted to have access to a house, a place, the holy territory of the Temple. In the code of conduct in marriage, the laws of purity are expressed in terms of being permitted to have intimate relations with one's partner. (Haberman, 2000, p. 30)
References
Borgmann, A. (1999). Gender, Nature, and Fidelity. Ethics and the Environment , 4(2), 131-142.
Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary Psychology: a New Paradigm for Psychological Science. Psychological Inquiry , 6(1), 1-30.
Cramer, R. E., & Manning-Ryan, B. (2000). Sex Differences in Subjective Distress to Violations of Trust: Extending an Evolutionary Perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 22(2), 101-109.
Engels, F. (1902). The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (Untermann, E., Trans.). Chicago: C.H. Kerr & Company.
Haberman, B. D. (2000). The Suspected Adulteress: A Study of Textual Embodiment. Prooftexts , 20(1,2), 12-42.
Immerman, R. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1997). Establishing a Link Between Cultural Evolution and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 123(4), 441-460.
Iversen, J. S. (1991). A Debate on the American Home: The Antipolygamy Controversy, 1880-1890. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 1(4), 585-602.
Jann, R. (1994). Darwin and the Anthropologists: Sexual Selection and Its Discontents. Victorian Studies , 37(2), 287-306.
Jochens, J. (1991). The Illicit Love Visit: An Archaeology of Old Norse Sexuality. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 1(3), 357-392.
LeMoncheck, L. (1997). Loose Women, Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex. New York: Oxford University Press US.
Mackey, W. C., & Immerman, R. S. (2000). Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Pair Bonding, Fathering, and Alliance Formation: Disease Avoidance Behaviors as a Proposed Element in Human Evolution. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 1(1), 49-61.
Mason, W. A. (1997). Award Address: Discovering Behavior. American Psychologist , 52(7), 713-720.
McLaren, A. (1992). Sex Radicalism in the Canadian Pacific Northwest, 1890-1920. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 2(4), 527-546.
Schulz, D. A., & Rodgers, S. F. (1980). Marriage, the Family, and Personal Fulfillment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, T. S. (1999). Teaching Who We Are Testing Limits of Tolerance in a Course on Religion and Sexual Diversity. College Teaching , 47(2), 55-61.
Tiryakian, E. A. (1981). Sexual Anomie, Social Structure, Societal Change. Social Forces , 59(4), 1025-1053.
Westermarck, E. (1921). The History of Human Marriage (5th ed.) (Vol. 3). London: Macmillan.
Westermarck, E. (1936). The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization. New York: The Macmillan Company.
For most of my adult life, I have been searching for the perfect relationship. My goal has always been acquiring and maintaining a long-term monogamous relationship. Growing up in a conservative Catholic family, my options were very limited in the type of relationship in which I would feel comfortable. Open relationships and infidelity were never an option for me. Even today, the notion of going outside of the relationship for sex has a tremendous amount of negative connotations. Perhaps my parents, my religion, or my environment has influenced my goals.
Seven months ago, I began dating and fell in love. As our relationship continues to change I feel a sense of insecurity about our future. I wonder if two people are able to remain in a committed monogamous relationship or if I am just fantasizing about impossibility. I truly want to believe that monogamous relationships are possible; however, history, statistics, and my own experiences have not supported this ideal. Our history is loaded with stories of infidelity. Novels, plays, poems, and short stories about failed relationships involving infidelity date back to the first written manuscripts. Statistics also illustrate the small percentage of couples who are committed to a monogamous relationship. I have found an enormous amount of statistical information going against my hopes and dreams. Finally, my experience in relationships could definitely support the notion that true monogamy is impossible. So what are the correct answers to these difficult questions? Where did the idea of monogamy come from? How has it shaped our society? Why is monogamy so important to many and yet so unattained? Can couples be faithful and remain content? Before answering these questions, one must have a full understanding of monogamy, the terms and conditions surrounding it, and the methodology for gathering research materials.
Monogamy and Methodology
One must have a clear understanding about monogamy before the debate begins. Monogamy is the sexual exclusivity of one sexual partner to another. Nonmonogamy is having more than one sexual partner (Byer, 2002). For the sake of clarity, I will focus on absolute heterosexual monogamy between two committed heterosexual adults. Although many of these couples could be legally married, as one will see later, marriage is not a necessary component of a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, monogamy is not a necessary component of marriage. Bill Clinton publicly proved that point on national TV. After admitting to his affair with Monica Lewinsky, his wife Hilary Clinton remained publicly by his side. This brings up another point of defining sexual exclusivity.
Before one can commit to sexual exclusivity with a partner, one must first define sexual intercourse. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, sexual intercourse is “coitus between humans or the sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.” The dictionary also defines coitus as the “sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.” Therefore, any activity involving the genitals of another person shall be considered sexual intercourse and the Clintons would not meet these standards of a monogamous relationship. It is important to note that sexual monogamy in humans is an elected behavior. A person is physically and cognitively able to choose his or her sexual activity.
There is another term that is used by sociologists and social psychologist called serial monogamy. This occurs when a person participates in relatively short-term and frequent sexually exclusive relationships such as multi-marriages. "Most divorced people remarry only once, but a smaller number marry three or more times." (Schulz & Rodgers, 1980, p. 12) Elizabeth Taylor, Ronald Reagan, and many other celebrities appear monogamous to their partners until they decide to end the relationship.
Origins of Monogamy
Evolutionary psychologists have interesting perspectives on the origins of monogamous relationships. One perspective involves the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) in a sexually promiscuous society. STD’s have been a part of human reproduction since the beginning of homo-sapiens. “The thesis that humans have been vulnerable to STDs for a long time can be inferred from the specificity of the pathogens: whether the pathogen is a virus, a bacterium, or a metazoan. For example, herpes simplex virus (HSV) Type 2 (HSV-2) is transferred sexually and has specialized in the genital area. Sakaoka et al. (1994) have suggested that the split between HSV-1, usually transmitted non-venereally, and HSV-2, usually transmitted venereally, occurred several million years ago.” (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 50) If STD’s were affecting the reproductive viability of early homo-sapiens, the number of sexual partners would increase the risk of infection, infertility, sterility, and even death.
“It is suggested here that the counter pressure that was most effective in minimizing STDs within the group was pair bonding. Although pair bonding is often found with the lesser apes (e.g., gibbon and siamang), these animals are arboreal, are relatively small, and have little sexual dimorphism ( Jolly, 1985). Late australopithecine/early Homo was fully bipedal, increasingly terrestrial, and relatively large and had high sexual dimorphism. Models that presume universal mating within a tribe or troop that harbors an STD indicate that nearly all females become infected, and fairly quickly so.” (See Immerman ∧ Mackey, 1999, for examples.) (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 52)
However, early homo-sapien females could have used sexual exclusivity as a form of currency in exchange for food, safety, and the protection of her children. Early homo-sapien males would have also used a steady supply of food as an assurance of easily accessible sexual contact. Pair bonding could have gained momentum if STD’s were to increase. Infected females would be less desirable because of the symptoms related to STD’s and would be less willing to mate. A woman who forms a pair bond with a man has reduced chances of (a) ectopic pregnancy, (b) infertility caused by PID, and (c) infirm offspring. In addition, both the man and the woman have reduced chances of being harmed by the negative consequences of STDs. (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 53)
Another perspective on the origin of monogamy involves the use of evolved mechanisms such as jealousy. "Mechanisms that solve adaptive problems are like keys that fit particular locks. The efficiency, detail, and complex structure of the key must mesh precisely with the inner 'problem' posed by the lock.“ (Buss, 1995, p.12) Evolutionary psychologists try to uncover these keys for better understanding. Monogamy could have evolved because of the learned behavior of jealousy or visa versa. Jealousy is found in every part of human behavior. "Because both men and women over human evolutionary history have been damaged by relationship loss, both sexes have faced adaptive problems to which jealousy may have evolved as a solution.” (Buss, 1995, p. 14)
Evolutionary psychologists also link our behavior to the presence or absence of a father figure. There is some evidence that father absence during childhood shunts individuals toward a more promiscuous mating strategy, whereas the presence of an investing father during childhood shunts individuals toward a more monogamous mating strategy (Buss, 1995, p. 11) But where evolution ended, cultural practices continued.
Culture of Monogamy
If monogamous pair bonding was a characteristic of homo-sapiens, then monogamy would be the norm instead of the exception and infidelity would be limited. Instead, the condoning of premarital and extramarital sexual intercourse has been a norm rather than an exception. But why was sexual monogamy introduced into early homo-sapien lifestyles? One answer might simply be trial and error.
Although STD’s had an enormous impact on sexual viability of early homo-sapiens, so did the restrictions placed on the number of sexual partners. But reducing the number of sexual partners would have different outcomes. "Unfortunately, both our phylogenetic heritage as terrestrial primates and the ethnographic archives suggest that reciprocal monogamous mating has little chance of success." (Immerman & Mackey, 1997, p. 447) This is evident in the woman’s fertility, which is much more vulnerable than the man’s. Also STD’s are spread more efficiently from male to female than from female to male. If trial and error were used as a tool for establishing norms, repeated sexual trials of STD’s would have suggested that female monogamy would be more advantageous to the survival of early homo-sapiens. Females, easier to restrain physically, would be the more practical choice for cloistering. Thus, any preexisting tendency toward a double standard of sexual restraints would be reinforced, to minimize the level of STDs within a community. And such, of course, is the ethnographic reality: Sexual constraints, across cultures, are more severe on wives than on husbands. (Immerman & Mackey, 1997, p. 447)
Cultural norms were established because of underlying psychological mechanisms that had positive outcomes. As mentioned earlier, jealousy proved to be useful in protecting one’s investment by fighting off potential threats. Trial and error could reinforce cultural norms to prohibit potential threats and promote jealousy. Eventually, these cultural norms became implanted in the teachings of early religions.
In a journal article entitled “The Suspected Adulteress: A Study of Textual Embodiment”, Bonna Devora attempts to clarify theological references to sexual monogamy and “purity.” In Judaism, the goal is to achieve “purity” by becoming closer in proximity to the God’s temple. This proximity could be thought of as a marriage, which is a holy union. The laws of purity are expressed in terms of one's being permitted to have access to a house, a place, the holy territory of the Temple. In the code of conduct in marriage, the laws of purity are expressed in terms of being permitted to have intimate relations with one's partner. (Haberman, 2000, p. 30)
References
Borgmann, A. (1999). Gender, Nature, and Fidelity. Ethics and the Environment , 4(2), 131-142.
Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary Psychology: a New Paradigm for Psychological Science. Psychological Inquiry , 6(1), 1-30.
Cramer, R. E., & Manning-Ryan, B. (2000). Sex Differences in Subjective Distress to Violations of Trust: Extending an Evolutionary Perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 22(2), 101-109.
Engels, F. (1902). The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (Untermann, E., Trans.). Chicago: C.H. Kerr & Company.
Haberman, B. D. (2000). The Suspected Adulteress: A Study of Textual Embodiment. Prooftexts , 20(1,2), 12-42.
Immerman, R. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1997). Establishing a Link Between Cultural Evolution and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 123(4), 441-460.
Iversen, J. S. (1991). A Debate on the American Home: The Antipolygamy Controversy, 1880-1890. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 1(4), 585-602.
Jann, R. (1994). Darwin and the Anthropologists: Sexual Selection and Its Discontents. Victorian Studies , 37(2), 287-306.
Jochens, J. (1991). The Illicit Love Visit: An Archaeology of Old Norse Sexuality. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 1(3), 357-392.
LeMoncheck, L. (1997). Loose Women, Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex. New York: Oxford University Press US.
Mackey, W. C., & Immerman, R. S. (2000). Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Pair Bonding, Fathering, and Alliance Formation: Disease Avoidance Behaviors as a Proposed Element in Human Evolution. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 1(1), 49-61.
Mason, W. A. (1997). Award Address: Discovering Behavior. American Psychologist , 52(7), 713-720.
McLaren, A. (1992). Sex Radicalism in the Canadian Pacific Northwest, 1890-1920. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 2(4), 527-546.
Schulz, D. A., & Rodgers, S. F. (1980). Marriage, the Family, and Personal Fulfillment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, T. S. (1999). Teaching Who We Are Testing Limits of Tolerance in a Course on Religion and Sexual Diversity. College Teaching , 47(2), 55-61.
Tiryakian, E. A. (1981). Sexual Anomie, Social Structure, Societal Change. Social Forces , 59(4), 1025-1053.
Westermarck, E. (1921). The History of Human Marriage (5th ed.) (Vol. 3). London: Macmillan.
Westermarck, E. (1936). The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization. New York: The Macmillan Company.
1 comment:
Good information thank you closely monitor your success.
Post a Comment