Al99
Well-known member
Are we hardwired for polyamory? Or is it a lifestyle choice? Does the answer vary by individual? I realize that the topic has been discussed here extensively - but thought I might revisit it again.
First, I would suggest that it is inaccurate to say that one is hardwired for polyamory per se, as polyamory is not only about a preference or capacity for multiple partners, but is also defined by an ethical system, which at its most basic minimum includes the tenet: "with the knowledge and consent of all involved". I think one would be hard pressed to argue that one is born with an innate ethical system built in. Along the same vein, one might be equally hard pressed to say that we are born with an innate ethic for marital fidelity. The practice of polyamory is always a lifestyle choice - although the preference for multiple partners might not be a choice, just as a sexual preference is most often not a choice.
I would suggest that the more accurate question would be - are we hardwired for monogamy or non-monogamy? Or is a lifestyle choice? It would almost certainly seem to be a choice as to whether to one practices consensual non-monogamy or non-consensual non-monogamy. But is our desire for a pair bond or a desire for multiple partners a choice, or is either one part of our genetic imprint?
A couple of years back, my wife asked me to open our marriage so that she could ethically explore her resurgent feelings for an old college boyfriend. I promised her that I would give her request a thorough and fair hearing - and I spent a great deal of time and energy doing just that (lots of reading, many hours of long talks, sleepless nights, some meditation, a few tears, a couple bottles of Crown....) There were many pros, cons, points of consideration, and the like - but one of the most important thoughts that came to me was the question, "If I had born and raised in a society where non-monogamy was the societal norm, would I still have the same strong belief in monogamy". The honest answer had to be "no", and thus the conclusion was that my preference for monogamy was largely (if not completely) due to cultural conditioning.
And I set about to make a deliberate effort to de-condition my cultural conditioning for monogamy, immersing myself in the study of poly. And over the last couple of years, I've read 20 or so books on poly or books directly relating to poly, dozens of web articles and podcasts, probably thousands of forum posts. The effort was successful and I now self identify as poly, have a kitchen-table-ish poly relationship with my wife's (Becky's) boyfriend (Ben), and a ldr with my poly girl friend, Betty (and my visit to her home town was all kitchen table with her partners, metamours, etc).
Now that I have moved beyond my initial struggles and reorientation, I have begun to look at the bigger picture. And I wonder if our species is actually primarily non-monogamous in biological orientation, but pushed into a mono mode by a few thousand years of cultural bias and religious indoctrination. And that the vast majority of our species might have formed non-monogamous cultures under different variables, with perhaps some pair bonding that did not include sexual exclusivity.
The anecdotal evidence would certainly suggest this - not only all those who actually cheat (a number I suspect is far greater than the polls suggest), practice serial monogamy, date and have sex with numerous partners while single - but all those who are tempted and look and lust vicariously while remaining faithful because that is the "right" thing to do, and yet might still give into temptation if the right "safe" opportunity came along An objective observer would have to wonder if sexual exclusivity is in the nature our species at all, even if we do often pair bond.
Early in my study of poly, I came across the book title, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. & Cacilda Jethá, M.D. I saw this title referenced a few times as important read relating to polyamory. I did take a look at the blurb, but at the time I was still just trying to figure out the basics of polyamory, so didn't put it on my reading list - especially since it didn't seem to be directly about poly. Also, as one who has read a lot of hard science over the years, my first impression of the blurb was that his was just another pseudo-science book.
However, as I began to give some thought to the subject, I decided to give it a second look - read a few of the reviews, and decided do give it a shot. And, I'm glad I did. In fact, I wish that I had read it early on in my study as it would have been quite helpful in processing my thoughts about the nature of monogamy and non-monogamy. The authors' premise and conclusions coincided with what I had concluded from my anecdotal observations, but from a much more scientific evaluation. Instead of being pseudo-science, I found the book to be one of the books that "explain science to the layman" (think Hawking's books on esoteric physics). The book presents a solid, even if not completely definitive, argument that our species in actually non-monogamous by nature (or at least, non sexually exclusive). There is more to say about this book and the attendant criticisms, but I will save that for another post as time permits.
So - are we hardwired for non-monogamy? My guess is yes, but society as a whole is so culturally and religiously conditioned that monogamy seems to be the "right and moral choice" for most people. So, even though not truly wired for monogamy, most make that lifestyle choice and make some attempt to live that way - but most often not very successfully (especially if we include those who stray vicariously).
Thoughts are welcome.
First, I would suggest that it is inaccurate to say that one is hardwired for polyamory per se, as polyamory is not only about a preference or capacity for multiple partners, but is also defined by an ethical system, which at its most basic minimum includes the tenet: "with the knowledge and consent of all involved". I think one would be hard pressed to argue that one is born with an innate ethical system built in. Along the same vein, one might be equally hard pressed to say that we are born with an innate ethic for marital fidelity. The practice of polyamory is always a lifestyle choice - although the preference for multiple partners might not be a choice, just as a sexual preference is most often not a choice.
I would suggest that the more accurate question would be - are we hardwired for monogamy or non-monogamy? Or is a lifestyle choice? It would almost certainly seem to be a choice as to whether to one practices consensual non-monogamy or non-consensual non-monogamy. But is our desire for a pair bond or a desire for multiple partners a choice, or is either one part of our genetic imprint?
A couple of years back, my wife asked me to open our marriage so that she could ethically explore her resurgent feelings for an old college boyfriend. I promised her that I would give her request a thorough and fair hearing - and I spent a great deal of time and energy doing just that (lots of reading, many hours of long talks, sleepless nights, some meditation, a few tears, a couple bottles of Crown....) There were many pros, cons, points of consideration, and the like - but one of the most important thoughts that came to me was the question, "If I had born and raised in a society where non-monogamy was the societal norm, would I still have the same strong belief in monogamy". The honest answer had to be "no", and thus the conclusion was that my preference for monogamy was largely (if not completely) due to cultural conditioning.
And I set about to make a deliberate effort to de-condition my cultural conditioning for monogamy, immersing myself in the study of poly. And over the last couple of years, I've read 20 or so books on poly or books directly relating to poly, dozens of web articles and podcasts, probably thousands of forum posts. The effort was successful and I now self identify as poly, have a kitchen-table-ish poly relationship with my wife's (Becky's) boyfriend (Ben), and a ldr with my poly girl friend, Betty (and my visit to her home town was all kitchen table with her partners, metamours, etc).
Now that I have moved beyond my initial struggles and reorientation, I have begun to look at the bigger picture. And I wonder if our species is actually primarily non-monogamous in biological orientation, but pushed into a mono mode by a few thousand years of cultural bias and religious indoctrination. And that the vast majority of our species might have formed non-monogamous cultures under different variables, with perhaps some pair bonding that did not include sexual exclusivity.
The anecdotal evidence would certainly suggest this - not only all those who actually cheat (a number I suspect is far greater than the polls suggest), practice serial monogamy, date and have sex with numerous partners while single - but all those who are tempted and look and lust vicariously while remaining faithful because that is the "right" thing to do, and yet might still give into temptation if the right "safe" opportunity came along An objective observer would have to wonder if sexual exclusivity is in the nature our species at all, even if we do often pair bond.
Early in my study of poly, I came across the book title, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality by Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. & Cacilda Jethá, M.D. I saw this title referenced a few times as important read relating to polyamory. I did take a look at the blurb, but at the time I was still just trying to figure out the basics of polyamory, so didn't put it on my reading list - especially since it didn't seem to be directly about poly. Also, as one who has read a lot of hard science over the years, my first impression of the blurb was that his was just another pseudo-science book.
However, as I began to give some thought to the subject, I decided to give it a second look - read a few of the reviews, and decided do give it a shot. And, I'm glad I did. In fact, I wish that I had read it early on in my study as it would have been quite helpful in processing my thoughts about the nature of monogamy and non-monogamy. The authors' premise and conclusions coincided with what I had concluded from my anecdotal observations, but from a much more scientific evaluation. Instead of being pseudo-science, I found the book to be one of the books that "explain science to the layman" (think Hawking's books on esoteric physics). The book presents a solid, even if not completely definitive, argument that our species in actually non-monogamous by nature (or at least, non sexually exclusive). There is more to say about this book and the attendant criticisms, but I will save that for another post as time permits.
So - are we hardwired for non-monogamy? My guess is yes, but society as a whole is so culturally and religiously conditioned that monogamy seems to be the "right and moral choice" for most people. So, even though not truly wired for monogamy, most make that lifestyle choice and make some attempt to live that way - but most often not very successfully (especially if we include those who stray vicariously).
Thoughts are welcome.
Last edited:
. 
which of course, increases the strength of the species.