More Monogamy Musings

Sharon M. Scott responds in the Los Angeles Times to David P. Barash's take on monogamy, which I blogged about in this entry.

She starts out making the point that human beings are not like other animals, before going on to point out...

Unlike any other creature on Earth, raising a human child requires an exceptional amount of time and attention.

That is the heart of the matter, isn't it?

Few would argue with the fact that the long-term participation of both mother and father is essential to the development of the young human. Monogamy in humans, rather than being the unnatural behavior Barash describes, seems to be a naturally occurring virtue that helps our children grow and our complex species evolve.

There are some who argue with this. But I agree that children are better off being raised by a mother and father who are monogamous with each other. (By the way - if they aren't haven't sex with each other, that's not monogamy.) Monogamy reduces the possibilities of conflicts of interests between the parents and between parent and child, keeps loyalties and resources within the family, avoids paternity fraud and "illegitimate" half-siblings causing situational instability, and avoids STIs. It promotes bonding between the parents and keeps the parents focused on each other and in-tune with each other.

[Much more after the jump.]

As we Americans watch the high-profile marriages of Tiger Woods and David Letterman crumble, let us not forget to look in amazement at couples such as Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, and Oprah Winfrey and Stedman Graham, who have preserved their dedication to one another despite all of the world's temptations.

And despite (some would say "because of") not being legally married, too. Actually, although both couples have been together for a long time, we have no idea if they have actually been monogamous during those times. Russell, Hawn, and Winfrey all have had publicly noted past sexual relationships, as well, so they're not an example of lifelong monogamy, even if they are an example of long-term monogamy. But I don't think the writer is defending lifelong monogamy to begin with.

It is an understatement for Barash to say that "monogamy isn't easy."

It is easier for some than others.

Love is a battlefield.

It is a battlefield where people are supposed to work together in defense of each other and the family, not act like immature rival sibling children. Love battles evil such as neglect and inappropriate self-centeredness.

Monogamy is not for everyone; it is certainly not for the weak of heart.

For some, "non"ogamy is best - they are better off abstaining.

My husband and I get into arguments that make the Gosselins' look like the Cleavers'.

Just for the record – marriage isn't like that for everyone.

As rebuttal to Barash's statement that no one is "cut out for monogamy," I proudly assert, "I am."

Good.

I'm disappointed there wasn't a better response printed. You can offer comments on her response be clicking through and scrolling down. Here’s the first comment:

"Jianku" wrote 12/08/2009, 6:46 AM:

You make his point. If you were "cut out" for monogamy, it would be effortless.

There are fish that swim upstream, up waterfalls. That can't be easy, but they are cut out for it. Oops. That's an animal example. Giving birth isn't easy or effortless, but women are cut out for it.