I think the purpose of monogamy is to create stable family units in society and, to some degree, to protect women from being left alone with their offspring.
Human beings are animals, and just like any other creatures on this earth, we feel drives to certain behaviors. Monogamy is therefore not something that comes totally naturally to us. Through all species, there is a certain unbalance between the mate that invests more time with offspring (the female for humans) and the mate that is really only necessary for a brief period of time in the grand scheme of reproduction. For this reason, males may be constantly pulled away from monogamy and towards the instinct to proliferate their own genealogy. And well, if the Mrs. is at home, already pregnant, there’s not much she can do for that urge now is there? But if monogamy is stayed true to, then there’s not much a male can do to act on that desire. He will, instead, stick around and take care of his woman and their children.
This is not to say that the only partner who feels the need to stray form monogamy is the male. Women are just as guilty of violating—or wanting to violate—the rules of monogamy. But I don’t really have the time or proper info to explicate why this is true.
For the reasons above, I also think that monogamy works to effectively reinforce gender roles and stereotypes. If the purpose truly is to create stability ad security, then the two participants are, in society’s view, supposed to be a feminine female and masculine male—someone to birth the babies and someone to protect and provide for them.
PS: here’s a little something from PostSecret’s Sunday Secrets:
I think your argument is valid, but you never really mention other kinds of relationships other than heterosexual ones. What about those between gay, lesbian, or even transgender partners? As many of these relationships are unable to produce offspring naturally, then does this mean that they are doomed to a future of polygamy without an offspring to hold them together? I know you're definitely not against these relationships, but I think it is interesting because they have completely different reasons for monogamy than purely child-rearing purposes. :)
ReplyDeleteWow that post secret is kinda intense...
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think you're view on monogamy is interesting because there is an attempt to incorporate biology into your argument (I LOVE BIOLOGY). So playing the biology game, you mention males are more likely to want to break monogamy because of animalistic drives to propagate. It is risky to have this as the premise of your argument. For some species, male investment in monogamy increases the survival rate of offspring so, in some cases depending on the reproductive strategy of the species, there is a biological incentive for males in engage in monogamy. Additionally, some species (such as beavers and bald eagles and, for the most part, humans) do mate for life and will only take a new mate if their original one dies. What does your argument make of this?