It seems that there is a lot of confusion about how natural it is to be with a partner with emotional and sexual exclusivity for the rest of our lives. Is marriage natural? Or is it simply a moral and religious obligation that the human being invented to make life bitter by going against his nature in his need to feel superior in the animal kingdom?
"All animals are polygamous, monogamy was invented by humans"
Although it is true that the vast majority of animals are polygamous, 3% of mammals and many of the birds are monogamous, for example killer whales, eagles, penguins, crows and parrots are animals that They get together and have children with a partner, they continue with that couple throughout their lives. So to suppose that monogamy is an invention of the human being or that it has exclusively religious, moral or cultural causes is something false.
"No animal should be monogamous, it is an act against the survival of the species"
Just as many species should be polygamous, we see in the animal kingdom that animals that are monogamous, such as penguins, orcas or prairie mice (which evidently do not do so for moral or religious reasons), end up sharing with a partner and not with several because:
Couple selection to increase survival. To reproduce is not enough that it is of the same species and the opposite sex, it is also important that it is healthy and strong. So choosing a couple guarantees more survival of their own and the offspring.
Young that need more attention. Curiously, monogamous species have in common that their offspring need greater accompaniment and care than the other species to become independent and defend themselves, that is, breeding. The accompaniment is severely affected in a polygamous species.
Regular reproduction. For a species to survive, it needs to regulate the level and conditions of reproduction. This allows resources to reach everyone and ensures the survival of the offspring. It does not help to have more children, if the lack of a good accompaniment affects the survival of the species.
Due to the above characteristics, these species in particular are evolutionarily suitable to be monogamous, since to do otherwise would directly attack their survival.
"Okay, not all animals are, nor is it convenient for them to be polygamous, but is the human being part of that group?"
There are currently two positions, a group of scientists says that the human being is polygamous by nature and another group of scientists defends that it is monogamous by nature. If we ask ourselves: How much does it apply to human beings, the selection of a couple, the need to accompany the breeding before independence and the regulation of the population, it is evident that we apply, but what calls into question our monogamy they are our behaviors of promiscuity and infidelity in the couple relationships that we establish. Currently the debate is ongoing.
However, in addition to the selection of partners, breeding and regulation of the population, humans with monogamous animals also share three brain systems that respond to three natural needs:
The different characteristics mentioned not only lead to a greater inclination for the position that monogamy is natural, but that the human being is part of that group.
"If human beings are monogamous, why are we unfaithful, we are attracted or even fall in love with several people at the same time?"
Human beings base our relationships in love, where we can experience three types of love: Passion (sexual attraction and "chemistry"), Intimacy (trust and friendship) and Commitment (Emotional freedom and altruism). Passion can be experienced with the couple and many people at the same time, on the other hand, intimacy is experienced only with the couple and close persons; and the commitment exclusively with the couple and the children. A mature and adaptive love is in which the three types of love are experienced with the same person.
While sexual attraction and "chemistry" can be experienced with other people than our partner, it is important that we do not confuse attraction with infidelity. Since to feel attraction for several people is not polygamy, because attraction is natural but infidelity is not. For example, a couple is going to walk to a shopping center, and in the place is a very attractive model promoting a new local swimwear. It is natural for man to feel sexual attraction for the model, but if that man asks for the phone, says a compliment or promotes an encounter with her it is not natural, it is a decision that man makes when he feels attracted.
"Feeling attracted is inevitable, but feeding that attraction is a decision."
Do not confuse polygamy with infidelity, that is, being unfaithful is not a natural "impulse" of the human being, it is a maladaptive decision that a person can make by choosing immediate pleasure (satisfying only a natural need) at the cost of risking losing one medium or long term relationship (which can satisfy the three natural needs). And when we talk about difficulties in the decision-making process, we are no longer talking about nature but emotional maturity.
"Why do some human beings have difficulty being faithful or emotionally mature if they are supposed to be natural?"
In addition to our natural needs for mating, reproduction and breeding; human beings have two needs of our species, which are recognition and self-realization. Recognition is associated with self-esteem and self-realization of personal growth. In the human being, these two needs are affected with a promiscuous behavior and protected with a monogamous behavior.
However, despite the fact that a stable relationship with fidelity allows us to satisfy our self-realization and recognition, a stable relationship has a price or better, needs the following conditions:
Consequential thinking.
It is simply the ability of all human beings to anticipate the possible consequences of our behavior, before issuing it. Thanks to our brain, just as we can decide not to move a chess piece because we would lose it, we can decide not to feed an attraction with another person so as not to risk a stable relationship. Consequential thinking is a skill of thought, and like all abilities, it is trainable.
Empathy. Empathy is the ability that human beings have to recognize emotions in other people and identify with them, and this ability we have also thanks to our brain. The majority of partner conflicts are not due to problems but because they do not understand the emotions that arise from the problems. It is also a trainable skill of thinking, that is, it can be practiced and improved.
marriage-all-lifePeople who do not take these conditions into account, unfortunately do not train or strengthen as they should the capacities they naturally have as human beings, which leads them to make maladaptive decisions such as infidelity, going against their nature and attempting against their survival and emotional well-being.
It is important not to label as "natural", what seems easy to do and as "unnatural" what costs us effort, since in the same nature we have the example of the lioness that has to hide its young so that the lion do not kill them; the penguin that must make a long trip to look for food while the male must be forced to stay still a very long time to take care of the egg, among many other examples. In conclusion, it could be said that the human being is monogamous by nature, and infidelity is better explained as a maladaptive behavior from the deficit in strengthening the skills necessary for survival.
Congratulations @steelatin! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
To support your work, I also upvoted your post!
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last announcement from @steemitboard!