Monogamy and Plural Marriage

I’ve always wondered why monogamy is portrayed as being so absolutely crucial for a marriage. You see, we as a species are not naturally monogamous. For example, it has long been known that there is a “7 year itch” in marriages. When we pair-bond, it seems that it is strong for about 5 or 6 years and then begins to wane. This is classically explained as an adaptation needed to have a child and raise him until he is old enough to take care of himself. After that, the procreation imperative kicks in again and we start looking around at the next person. This allows us to spread our genes around and perhaps be more successful in that respect.

Studies of blood antigens in humans and primates also support the fact that we are not particularly monogamous. Species that are promiscuous have a lot of antigens and species that are monogamous have relatively few. Humans fall in the middle. This can be interpreted as meaning that we are neither monogamous not promiscuous. We are somewhat both.

Behavioural studies have revealed that over 80% of married men and over 50% of married women admit to having at least one extramarital affair – and the percentage of women is growing. With such an overwhelming majority of people actually engaging in this behaviour, what does that mean for the value or reasonableness of monogamy?

Genetic studies have also demonstrated that there are a significant percentage of children who have unrelated fathers. This seems to indicate that women are marrying one man, presumable for stability and protection and then having a child by someone else who may be more sexually attractive but less stable. I forget the exact percentage but it strikes me that it was something like one child in three fell into this category.

So it seems that we are really not all that monogamous so where did this obsession come from? If we look into the past, it is apparent that it is a relatively recent phenomenon. For most of our history, plural marriages, sex with slaves, mistresses and lovers were commonplace. As late as the middle of the last century, it was still accepted in Europe that a married man might have a mistress.

It seems that a combination of religious intolerance and Victorian prudery is to blame for imposing this unnatural state on marriage. As someone who has no inclination towards religion or its views on marriage, the only thing that really matters is our societal attitude towards it. We’ve been condition through the exaggerated situations in movies, reinforcement from peers who really haven’t thought deeply about it and some very outdated laws.

Why should plural marriage not be legal? Homosexual marriage is legal now. If three or more people want to be married, live together and like it then who does the government think it is to deny their happiness? Once again, the government is out of the loop. Maybe it would satisfy our biological urge to have a variety of partners to allow this so we don’t need to be promiscuous. Maybe it would relieve the stress of raising a child by supplying a support group. Maybe it would allow for more than one income in a household while still providing round-the-clock child care. Maybe it would help to prevent domestic violence. It seems to me there are a lot more positives about plural marriage than there is about monogamy.