Are Women Naturally Monogamous?

Gaugin--300x184[1]Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary biology, was skeptical of evolutionary psychology, which sees women as monogamous and men as polygamous, due to genetics. Let’s take a closer look.

Children have the best shot at surviving if their mothers mate with only one man, who sticks around to provide support and resources. Thus, women prefer men who are older and richer. Moms put a lot into their kids because they have a small number of eggs compared with the millions of sperm that men produce. And all this is genetic, so says evolutionary psychology.

On the other hand, men will have more children (and reproduce their genes) if they are promiscuous because of their large sperm count. Again, the behavior is in the genes.

This premise seems to contradict the prior point that children are more likely to survive if their fathers are around to support them. Maybe more survive than don’t. Or perhaps it’s a survival of the fittest worldview: Babies who can survive without resources improve the gene pool?

The bigger dilemma: How do men manage to enjoy many partners when women are monogamous?

Men also value beauty above all else because attractiveness indicates health and an ability to reproduce. Oddly, supermodels are the most sought-out, yet they’re often so thin that they no longer menstruate. And I hadn’t known that so-called unattractive women were infertile. But never mind.

Returning to Darwin’s concern – and it doesn’t take a genius like him to make this observation – while evolutionary psychology had fit nicely with British middle-class behavior, where women sought resources and men sought beauty, Darwin pointed out that the theory did not fit with the British upper class. There, men were more concerned with wealth than good looks.

Now that Western women are able to make their own money, they have become more concerned with looks than in the past. And men now like to marry women who can earn some money – it’s a plus.

Other cultures don’t fit the theory so well, either.

Gauguin’s infatuation with Tahiti likely came in part from the women’s desire for many sex partners (prior to European influence).

Meanwhile, Europeans who were among the first to arrive in the Americas were shocked by similar behavior among the native women.

In these Tahitian and Native American societies the entire community cared for children, and property passed through women, so men’s resources weren’t an issue. These women weren’t called sluts, either.

Once Europeans transformed the cultures, things quickly turned around.

It appears that social structure and culture trump biology in explaining women’s monogamy.

There is more to discuss, but I’ll leave that for later.

For now I must ask: Are evolutionary psychologists unfamiliar with this information, or do they simply ignore it because the theory so well justifies a status quo in which women are told to stay monogamous, but understand men’s need for many partners, aka the double standard?

After all, it’s in men’s genes – or was that jeans?

Popular posts on BroadBlogs
Men Finding Fewer Women “Porn-Worthy”
Orgasm: It’s All in the Mind
Men Aren’t Hard Wired To Find Breasts Attractive

About BroadBlogs

I have a Ph.D. from UCLA in sociology (emphasis: gender, social psych, women's psych). I currently teach sociology and women's studies at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, CA. I have also lectured at San Jose State University. And I have blogged for Ms. Magazine, The Good Men Project and Daily Kos.

Posted on December 20, 2010, in feminism, gender, men, psychology, race/ethnicity, sex, sexism, women and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Monogomy all depends on the person and their culture. In some cultures they don’t care about sex and it’s okay for women to be “loose”. and in others such as the american cultures it’s not okay for people to have multiple women. In the muslim culture it’s okay for a man to marry multiple women. But in others that is looked down upon. I feel that the more women are oppressed to this idea the more women will want to explore. I don’t feel that because you are a women you are suppose to be manogomous. Thats is something that society tells you that you should be and i don’t feel thats right. Their is to many lables when it comes to peoples cultures esecially in the American culture.

  2. I had gotten into a skirmish with a co-worker of mine who told me that “women can’t have casual sex like men because when they get older they ovulate like crazy and get clingy emotionally”. That sounded like it made sense considering that women only have a certain number of eggs and when they reach the age of thirty-five it becomes harder for women to conceive. The older they get past that age the harder it becomes. So it would make sense that women would become more emotionally attached.

    I wanted to argue by using the article I read where men fall in love faster than women, and how men believe in love at first sight. So men actually get clingy. But I didn’t think that would hold my argument up. How should I retort to him?

  3. this isn’t much related to this topic but it has to do though with nurture-nature subject and gender roles. Are we socially constructed the way we behave or is it natural.
    Have you hear about Kibbutz ?

    “The Israeli kibbutz system has proved to be a large natural experiment in the persistence of sex roles. Men and women were initially encouraged to drop all sex roles in kibbutzim: Haircuts and clothes were unisex; boys were encouraged to be peaceful and sensitive, while girls were treated like tomboys; men did household chores and women went out to work: Yet three generations later, the attempt has largely been abandoned, and kibbutz life is actually
    more sexist than life in the rest of Israel. People have returned to stereotypes. Men politick, while women tend the home; boys study physics and become engineers, while girls study sociology and become teachers and nurses: Women manage the morale, health, and education of the kibbutz, while men manage the finances, security, and business: To some this is easily explicable: People have simply rebelled against the eccentric pattern set by their parents: Yet that explanation is more condescending than one that treats them as agents of their own choice, choosing according to their natures: Women clean house in a kibbutz because, like women everywhere, they complain that men would not do it properly. Men
    do not clean house in a kibbutz because, like men everywhere, they complain that if they did, their wives would say it had not been done properly.”

    • I responded to someone else about this before. Just because you change of social structure doesn’t mean the culture changes.

      For instance, American Indians before contact with Europeans (and just after -– Which is why we know this) were open to people having sex with whomever they wanted. 1960s open love communes didn’t work as expected. People tended to pair up. The difference? Culture.

      Culture gets unconsciously embedded in our brains. So even if social structures change they don’t necessarily affect the culture. You have to make people aware of the unconscious, taken for granted, notions that they have so that they can consciously critique them and change over time. Change still might not come. I have worked harder than most to become less racist and less sexist. When I take tests of unconscious bias I do better than most Americans. But even with all of the work that I put in I am not without bias.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: