Do humans pair-bond naturally, or is that a learned societal behavior?

[Lex]

.
I am not advocating any particular position on the topic, but I am wondering if my fellow DU'ers have pondered this.

Whether heterosexual or homosexual, most humans gravitate toward pair-bonding--is that pre-programmed biologically?

[mopinko]

1. there is NOTHING more hard wired in our brains

than reproduction strategies.

[Worst Username Ever]

2. I believe it is learned.

There is no way the male human body is designed for monogamy. I'm not saying the female body is either (although, from an anthropological standpoint, it does make more sense), but it is blatantly obvious to my by the sheer rate of sperm production in the male that it is not meant for monogamous relationships.

Having said that, I do support monogamy, and am a one-woman man :)

[Aiptasia]

3. Pair bonding isn't a natural human attribute

but social bonding is. It's a survival instinct to socially bond together into groups. Pair bonding is a sex driven instinct, and humans (specifically males) aren't naturally pair bond driven.

Societal factors and religious influence have a lot to do with how people behave. However, with a divorce factor over 60% worldwide and widespread polygamy and "cheating" by both sexes, you'll soon see that family bonds come in all types of social groups.

[Lex]

5. I have noticed how religion tends to try to strictly enforce pair-bonding

so that makes me wonder if it would be natural to humans without some sort of constant outside influence.

[Ravenseye]

4. I don't think so

When you look at animals and humans there is an interesting correlation between monogomy and sexual differentiation of size...I forget the precise terminology.

Basically animals where the female is bigger, the females have many male partners. Where the males are bigger they have many female partners. Where they are the same size, they are monogomous.

Human males tend to be larger than human females so it looks like we're biologically more polygomous.

There are even some societies where there really isn't much form of monogomy at all. A woman's children are considered the children of her brother, not the man she had sex with, etc...

so I don't think we're preprogrammed for that.

[Lex]

6. I hadn't heard of that about sexual differentiation of size.

Interesting.

Thanks for posting about that.

[Worst Username Ever]

7. That would make sense. Ducks, for example.

They are monogamous. As are swans. They are roughly the same size, male-to-female.

[Skinner]

11. sexual dimorphism

that's the phrase you're looking for.

We're in the middle on the sexual dimorphism/monogamy continuum. So were kinda monogamous, but not strictly so.

[Ravenseye]

18. Yup thats it

Been about 10 years since we covered that in one of my anthro classes...

"Species that are typically polygynous tend to have high SSDI ratios, while species that are typically polyandrous tend to have low ratios."

You're right about where we are. We have a higher than average SSDI ratio which means we definately lean towards the polygynous end of the spectrum, but we're nowhere near the extreme end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Still this makes it sound like we have some minor pre-programing for not being monogomous. I remember one line of thought was that we were programmed for serial monogomy.

I still stand by we're programmed to be polygynous, but not so much that we can't overcome that through social programming which happens in nearly every culture.

[LynzM]

8. I don't think we are

I think we are naturally 'social' but not monagamous. In societies where polygamy is accepted and normal, you don't see people choosing to go against the norm and pair up exclusively, as far as I know. But you do see plenty of cheating/divorce/remarrying/polygamy, even in a society where pairing is the 'norm'. It also makes more sense from a reproductive standpoint. More couplings means more change for more kids, and a better variety of traits passed on, so that the best combinations survive.

[Skinner]

9. I believe pair bonding is hard-wired.

Mind you -- that does not mean we are always monogamous. We most certainly are not. Nor does it mean that every human will be in a pair-bonding relationshiop, or even want to be in a pair-bonding relationship. But it does seem that pair bonding is very strongly ingrained, to the point where an inclination to pair-bond could well be hard-wired.

The theory is that pair-bonding is an adaptation for raising big-brained children. Humans require lots and lots of nurture, so in our evolutionary environment, the more successful humans were the ones where both parents were around to teach them.

[Lex]

12. Hmmmm . . .

That would make sense because the father would feel a special sense of affinity & willingness to protect & feed those children he felt were most probably his offspring due to the monogamous pair-bonding.

[Skinner]

13. Ravenseye actually brought up a good point about sexual dimorphism.

We are not strictly monogamous. We we fall somewhere between Gorillas (polygamous) on one extreme and gibbons (monogamous) on the other. I could be wrong on this, but I think it is certainly possible that monogamy could be an extremely successful cultural adaptation which overlays our more polygamous genes.

But I think the fact that it is so widespread suggests that there is a genetic component.

Until and unless they find a monogamy gene, the old nature v. nurture argument will continue.

[Ravenseye]

22. Thanks, and I think the argument will continue.

There is no definitive evidence one way or the other, but I definately fall into the 'cultural adaptation' camp.



There are anthropologists who like to slap a genetic label on things, and say the few exceptions are because of the social/cultural rules overriding our 'programing'. There are others that say that if there is an execption then there is no 'rule' at all. Then there is the third camp that says that cultural/social adaptation will always overcome the genetic, and that the exceptions are the origianl programing, and the rest is the adaptation.

I'm somewhere between the second and third camp, though I like to keep my mind open and never join one or the other for any length of time.

In this case though I see enough, albeit 'minor', cultures with such a staggering variety of sexual patterns that I can't imagine what our 'programming' is. Perhaps it's all culturally written at this point, and any underlying programming is millions of years into our past abandoned. I don't know. There certainly are few true monogomous societies. Even our own isn't one. We're mostly serial monogomists, we don't bond for life. We bond...then perhaps move on to another pair bonding...then another...this would really classifiy us as polygamous and having more than one partner.

In fact there are probably no true monogomous socieities on this planet when you take 'cheating' into account.

I think that every structure that exists is a cultural invention in order to provide greater group stability. Polygamous societies of the 'chimpanzee' have sex with anything mentality are probably not as advantagous as one with social rules, whether or not they are followed.

It's a really great topic. I wish we were outside drinking coffee talking about this for hours.

[Ellen Forradalom]

15. Pair-bonding and sexual monogamy are not synonymous

There is more to pair bonding than sex. People may engage in sex outside their primary relationships, but still experience a strong pair bond to their partners.

[Skinner]

16. That's a good point.

I think you are correct.

[LynzM]

23. Ellen, good point

One I certainly agree with. Maybe this is really two separate questions, then. Are we sexually wired to be with one person? Are we emotionally wired to be with one person? I'd probably argue that the answers to that are 'no' and 'yes', and that our society is generally unaccepting of that as acceptable.

[hfojvt]

17. except that they were probably raised by the village

the "nuclear family" being an 18th century invention, that is, more wealth, allows us to get our own space.

[Ravenseye]

20. We're gregarious

The whole 'it takes a village' thing encompasses that. We are programmed to group together. Grouping allows us to better protect our offspring, and pass along those genes to future generations, making this grouping beneficient.

Look at the smallest level that we know about by first hand experience in hunter gatherer groups. Mostly gone now, but still a few groups remained long enough to be studied.

The smallest bands were maybe three or four families raising children. They were generally monogomous, but married between bands. This has to be an adaptation. If you had multiple small bands they would share their offspring. Those that didn't woudl have more genetic diseases and inbreeding and die out eventually. So you'd send the male, or the female, to another group to marry and better your survival.

So the gregarious nature of humans matched with the need for new genes led to social pair bonding. Maybe.

[ihaveaquestion]

10. Look at our closest genetic relative...

Chimpanzees don't pair-bond and sex is usually between the strongest/most agressive males and receptive females. The dominent males enforce their sexual priveleges by intimidating the other males. Cheating does occur on the sly and weaker males who are attractive to females and have a sneaky streak do manage to have sex with willing females.

Sound familiar?

[ashmanonar]

14. not genetically hardwired.

at least, from what i've seen/read/experienced, no. human males are "preprogrammed" to spread our genes as far as possible, and that isn't possible in a monogamous relationship. in certain societies, men have more wives because of this preprogramming. in others, however, for whatever reason (i'm not real sure actually) the monogamous relationships were learned.

as an example: look at the older middle-eastern traditions...it wasn't uncommon for a man to have more than 3 wives (although his "harem" traditionally meant all the women a man is responsible for, not just his wives...ie mother, sisters, aunts)

in cultures where (due to war, or sickness, or whatever...) the ratio of male/female is disparate, monogamy is not successful. males have to impregnate more females to keep up numbers.

pair-bonding is very much learned (for humans...other species, not so much: most mammals choose one mate and stay with that mate. foxes spring to mind.) primate troops usually have smaller numbers of males and larger numbers of females, or transient males and a set group of females.

[SarahB]

19. That's a tough one.

I think there's something to be said for serial monogamy anyway- being monogamous until it becomes clear that one's need are in some way not being met. There can be emotional ramifications of dealing with the complexities of individual issues surrounding multiple people though. Things are never simple or cut and dry in terms of human emotions. We are complex and unique and just as much a product of our experiences as any biological hardwiring.

[Squeech]

21. Enlightened self-interest

As noted previously, our kids take longer than just about any other species to mature-- especially to where we can defend ourselves. So our survival as a species depends on our having social structures to take care of children, so they can grow up to join the breeding population. And, as a noted contemporary philosopher once said, it takes a village.

Now, given that, the village can enforce whatever mores it chooses. I believe (without evidence) that monogamy is just the religiously imposed choice of Western society, not the biologically-ordained solution. Polygamy seems to work equally well, given that as a practical matter men only get to keep harems if they're rich enough to support and defend them. My favorite social structure from the animal kingdom is that practiced by coatimundis: the pack consists of females and children, and males are allowed to attach themselves to the pack-- and have sexual access to the females-- as long as they help with child care.

Nowadays the social sciences have this concept called sociobiology, which claims that the optimal breeding strategies are different for the two genders: females prefer to establish a stable pair bond, in the interest of retaining one male's attention and support for his children; while males prefer to screw around, in the interest of propagating their genetic endowment as widely as possible. AFAIK most serious anthropologists think it's hogwash.

[American Tragedy]

24. That sociobiological theory renders relationships inherently IMPOSSIBLE

due to diametrically opposed expectations. I hope it's hogwash.