Monogamy Runs Afoul of Human Nature

Like Itchy running afoul of an Irishman, the monogamy ideal is in contravention of human nature. This is not just a guy talking smack in order to justify “the game”, this is an empirical and demonstrable fact based in biology and psychological grounds.

Let me begin by asserting that the monogamy ideal in general and marriage in particular do serve a useful purpose in human society. We are not, after all, dirty hippies operating on pure id without regard to social order. Marriage is a key element to family which is the building block upon which the societal structure is founded. Monogamy as such, however, is a goal which is almost impossible for the individual to realize because man’s very essense compels him to act otherwise (by “man” I don’t mean just males I mean bitches too).

I will further assert that when I speak about the operations of biological reductionism it is not my contention that people are acting with the conscious knowledge that they are acting for the propagation of the bloodline. When a man sees a woman with the optimal childbearing figure (waist 67% the measurement of the hips), he is not thinking “Hey, there is a woman with whom I can procreate with health and hormonal indicators which give a high likelihood of her ability to carry a child to term”, he is rather thinking “Ooooeeee, I want to tap that ass!” The proximate cause of his actions is what Freud termed The Pleasure Principle or, more precisely the idea that all human action is predicated on the goal of ultimate self interest (a corollary of the anti-altruism idea). People who seek pleasure in things that are less than biologically optimal are more likely to weed themselves out of the gene pool which is why so many of the things we enjoy tend to propogate our genes. This is where monogamy takes a hit.

Guys who bang a multitude of sluts are more likely to spread their genes into future generations than guys who are monogamous. Women who cheat on their less than optimal marital partners in order to have sex with a biologically superior guy are more likely to pass their genes through to further generations because if they actually get pregnant by the more physically fit/more intelligent dude (rather than their monobrow peasant spouse) the children produced will be of a better quality and therefore will be more likely to survive and breed successfully. These are facts that argue against monogamy in human nature. Ergo, The Game.

If you are inclined to feel sorry for the wife of the promiscuous guy or the deceived monobrow peasant in these examples you should know that they are running their own version of the game as well. If this sounds like the basis for blues and country songs the world over you are right. So biological reductionism gives us not only optimal instincts and bloodlines, it also gives us cool music to listen to when we’re shooting pool as well. Where social conventions would trip us up and cause us to behave non-optimally, biology helps nudge us back in the right direction.

To be sure people can behave monogamous if they so choose just as a hungry person can turn down a double olive burger with cheese. But let us not confuse that with that person actually being a better person than the one who acts true to his own nature. What is my point today? Oh yes, it is this. When a point guard is left open at the top of the key he’s supposed to take the shot. This isn’t even a question of morality, it just is.

Obey your thirst. Sprite!

4 Responses to “Monogamy Runs Afoul of Human Nature”

  1. Phelps says:

    Actually, the female drive to cheat is more complex than that. She wants an optimal mate and optimal genes for her offspring. That means that she wants a mate who can secure a proper upbringing (someone mature/older, has money, influence in society, able to provide physical security, dependable to not desert the family, generally risk averse) while she wants a semen donor who will give her the best chance of concieving offspring that will spread thier genes (young/virile, ambitious, self-centered, risk-taking.) It just so happens that the guy the woman has the natural drive to cheat with also happens to be an asshole who will hurt her emotionally and would never make a good father.

    If you haven’t seen it, you should try to check our Desmond Morris’ The Human Animal. The documentary — I haven’t read the book.

  2. guy in the UNLV Jacket says:

    It wasn’t my fault that I used to be a ho

  3. Citizen Quasar says:

    Ayn Rand was not monogamous. That, in itself, says a great deal.

  4. Phelps says:

    Yeah, it says that Ayn Rand was a dirty slut.

Leave a Response