On Monogamy and Marriage

The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife — otherwise known as marriage, matrimony, and getting hitched (amongst other names) — is a very popular type of rela­tionship that many American adults look forward to. When a man loves a woman, and she loves him back, doing “the right thing” often involves getting married. She “makes an honest man” of him, and he “makes an honest woman” of her. They promise each other ever­lasting love. To many folks, marriage just “feels right”. A lot of people think that matrimony “is natural”. But just how many people really think about marriage, the reasons for its exis­tence, and its profound implications?

As was discussed in a new book exam­ining the prehis­toric origins of human sexu­ality entitled Sex at Dawn[1], author Dr. Ryan posits that monogamy is arguably not a natural part of the human animal. There are those who would tear down the insti­tution of marriage using just that argument. They point at the many failed marriages and the high divorce rate, the animal nature of man, and rampant infi­delity in the face of severe conse­quences, otherwise making a mockery of the futility of such an arrangement.

The book claims that fewer and fewer people are getting married. If so, it certainly makes sense. In modern day America, men and women are having more and more freedom of choice in the config­u­ration of their rela­tion­ships. Friends with benefits, swinging spouses, open marriages, cohab­i­tation: these types of uncon­ven­tional rela­tion­ships are gaining traction and, although we are far from the day where they are openly accepted or even encouraged, the trajectory of our society certainly seems to be pointing in that direction. As much as said state of affairs is off in the seem­ingly distant future, the lamen­table death of the monog­amous marriage as the status quo appears to be inevitable as more and more of the younger gener­a­tions chal­lenge the tradi­tions of marital union, a slow death that I will grieve for greatly.

After some deep thinking, I came to form some insights on the nature of man as it relates to marriage. Even before reading Sex at Dawn, I had noticed that while conven­tional evolu­tionary theory contains notions that humans are wired for pair bonding (i.e. monog­amous lifelong marriage), there was evidence that sexual infi­delity (used in the modern sense of the word) is evolu­tion­arily productive in the sense that genetic diversity is good for the human race. That is to say that being sexually promis­cuous is a good tactic for women trying to pass on to the next gener­ation the best genes available.

Being unable to reconcile the two differ­ences within the same paradigm, I came to believe that monogamy was in fact a social construct, and that pair bonding may not neces­sarily be embedded into our prehis­toric evolu­tionary programming. That is to say that the insti­tution of marriage is strictly a creation of man and could not inher­ently be explained as natural in the evolu­tionary narrative of our ancient ancestors. This estab­lishes that monogamy is a limi­tation set by society. The insti­tution of marriage is a man-made construct that defines a particular type of rela­tionship, prescribing and proscribing a certain set of behaviors. It is not inher­ently explainable by the evolu­tionary narrative of our prehis­toric ancestors. Sex at Dawn certainly can attest to this. So if marriage and monogamy is not natural to our biology, then what purpose does such a config­u­ration serve?

It is beyond the scope of this piece to discuss the true purpose and nature of marriage. However, one view­point comes to mind. Many femi­nists argue that marriage was essen­tially a system of legalized pros­ti­tution, one in which the female offers exclusive sexual oppor­tunity to a male in order for access to his resources. In other words, it’s an arrangement where women have sex for money, albeit with one man.

A very cursory look at history seems to support this view. However, I find such a belief to be not only incredibly pessimistic and naïve, but quite unre­al­istic. Perhaps that was the reality of women before the indus­trial age, but in the modern day, I imagine that marriages are more or less based on the ideal of monog­amous romance. Nowadays, women can choose to marry for love rather than money.

Let us consider the impact of such a choice. Assuming the two partners (no longer is it even constrained to a man and a woman) consid­ering marriage are of sound mind and body, love is presumably at the very least a large part of the moti­vation for two people to get together and make vows to spend the rest of their lives together. This makes romantic love the basis of such an arrangement. As such, marriage is ideally the most serious decla­ration of love between two people. It is the promise to spend the rest of their lives together, ever faithful to each other even through the worst of times. In an ideal marriage, a husband and wife become every­thing to each other. They become best friends, lovers, confi­dants. They promise to take care of each other and to be faithful, to be there for each other through thick and thin, through health and sickness.

Such a promise is not made from the loins but from the heart. Therefore it is inher­ently a romantic’s ideal. It is so serious a union that in Western cultures, matrimony is overseen by God Himself. In fact, marriage holds the promise of such blissful heights of exis­tence that some reli­gions consider it to be a gift from God. This ideal is some­thing that people aspire to for its almost mythical status. Is it not an aspi­ration to perfection in trying to become the sole man or woman your partner will ever need? It is an immensely ideal­istic role. It is a remarkable, life changing expe­rience, rife with rewards. But it is also extremely difficult to fill that role.

Marriages are difficult because they are essen­tially an aspi­ration to perfection. A man must become the husband who satisfies his wife in every way imag­inable: emotionally, spir­i­tually, and sexually. And a woman must do the same for her husband. On top of that, one must remain faithful in both mind and body. It is not real­istic, but it is precisely the type of ideal that romantics aspire to. Romantics are the ones full of passion and creativity. Some­times I wonder if perhaps marriage is for romantics who believe in true and undying love rather than your average person. After all, look at the divorce rate. Look at how many failed marriages there are.

There are many theories on why there are so many divorces and sepa­ra­tions, why so many people report low levels of marital satis­faction. In the light of these new books on evolu­tionary theory, some may begin to point to the fact that humans were not wired for such an insti­tution. If humans are not evolu­tion­arily built for marriage, and if marriage is just some­thing created by humans, then one might ask, why should we bother with marriage at all?

Personally, I posit that humans are crea­tures that are capable of wonderful things. I do not believe that our biology would dictate that we have the propensity for landing a man on the moon or inventing the micro­processor. I do not believe that the human animal would be capable of writing romantic sonnets or painting beau­tiful sunsets. I do believe that evolu­tionary theory and a study of the biology of humans can tell us very important things, things vital to under­standing ourselves. But is it not a fine cause to tran­scend the bondage of prehis­toric chains?

The devel­opment of the homo sapien into the modern man — the modern man who is capable of education, imag­i­nation, science, tech­nology, romance and beauty — was only capable because of disci­pline. The ability to delay grat­i­fi­cation, to suppress our urges, is why we are able to travel across the country in just six hours, why we are able to send messages to each other instantly even if we are on the other side of the world. Disci­pline is what allows us to make choices. Without disci­pline, we are slaves to our impulses.

How many of us have had the urge to launch our fist into someone’s nose for one reason or another? How about to kill someone? If we had no disci­pline, the world would be a very different place. It would be a savage place. Self-control and disci­pline is what accounts for being civi­lized. Violent urges are not so different from sexual urges. Suppression of one’s urges is what allows civi­lization to advance. Without such suppression, I doubt there would be very much time for anything but eating, sleeping, and fucking.

Marriage is a lifelong exercise in disci­pline. While it may come easy to those whose will is strong, the reality is that most people are not in possession of such impressive faculties. It is easy to do what comes natu­rally and impul­sively, and very difficult to do what one imagines he should instead of what he wants. A man whose basic instinct causes him to seek out an extra­marital affair is not a man, but an animal, the human animal. Perhaps marriage is based on the ascetic ideal of self-denial (while promising the rewards of marital bliss). It takes a man of strength and integrity to deny his imme­diate grat­i­fi­cation out of respect and reverence for the vows he made to his wife.

Mind you, these vows may not be for everybody. While I am a staunch proponent of the romantic ideal of monog­amous marriage, I am well aware that most people are ill equipped for such a life. In fact, I myself point to the divorce rate as evidence. Perhaps the majority of people does not have the strength, disci­pline, and willpower to overcome the diffi­culties of sustaining a lifelong monog­amous marriage.

Some feel that marriage is a libido killer, the beginning of the end of passionate love and sex. To these people, I say that they must be doing some­thing wrong. Sure, our biology dictates that we will find ourselves seeking out sexual novelty. But I again point back at the marvel of the human spirit, at the resilience and resource­fulness of human kind. There are things that can be achieved beyond what our biology and prehistory would dictate.

I am extremely confident that there is at least one couple in the history of mankind who, at the end of their lives, could honestly say that despite some inevitable rough patches, they have lived an immensely satis­fying life full of love and passion. And if one couple can do it, then it certainly is within the realm of possi­bility. And if it is within the realm of possi­bility, then why should we not strive for those ideals? We try to get more money, get bigger houses, get more education; we try to get better cars, become more phys­i­cally fit, mentally fit; and gener­ation after gener­ation tries to give their children a better future. Why should we not continue to reach for this ideal of marital bliss?

Some anthro­po­logical liter­ature may imply that marriages are failing because of the inherent human impulse towards promis­cuous sex and sexual novelty. But what if were just the fact that people are getting married for the wrong reasons? Are Amer­icans marrying for the right reasons? Alas, such a question is also beyond the scope of this piece.

But if not the “right” reasons, then what of the other reasons for marriage? They are quite irrel­evant as far as I am concerned. If someone is marrying for money, status, religion, sex, or any other reason than love, it stands to reason that they will inevitably find them­selves in a state of despair and desperate unhap­piness. While marriage started out as a business arrangement, modern day marriages are not pred­i­cated on such grounds consid­ering that the freedoms of women have since greatly increased. Or more accu­rately, modern day marriages should not be based on anything but romantic love. At least not if you want to stay happily married (and happily faithful) to one person to the rest of your life.

It is useful to question the value of monogamy in a marriage. The usual suspects are ever present: paternal certainty and other evolu­tionary theories try to explain our current faith in monog­amous marriage. But perhaps infi­delity, in spite of all the biological and anthro­po­logical evidence that monogamy is unnatural, is unac­ceptable because of our psychology. Infi­delity may in fact have nothing to do with the threat to paternal certainty or access to resources, but rather is an emotional and social concern. After all, marriage is not an evolu­tionary imper­ative but a social construct.

When infi­delity occurs in a marriage (i.e. one partner has sexual rela­tions with someone other his or her “second half”), it is considered “cheating”. While Dr. Ryan says that the word itself implies that someone is winning or losing, the word cheating could also be inter­preted to mean that the person is cheating the insti­tution of marriage. Perhaps the phrase “cheating on Mary” is merely a shortcut to saying that “John is cheating the insti­tution of marriage, which by extension means that he is being unfair to Mary by breaking the rules.”

However you interpret the semantics of infi­delity, infi­delity is ulti­mately considered a betrayal of trust. While some may say that it was “just a fling”, or that it was “purely a physical thing, just a physical release”, and that “it didn’t mean anything”, this view fails to account for the promise that was made, the premises on which the union was agreed upon. On a purely emotional level, infi­delity is indeed a betrayal. Promises were made, and promises are to be kept, biology be damned. Because promises are the mark of a developed man, breaking a promise is beneath him. Presumably, people get married in hopes that they will be able to keep their promises to each other. They trust each other to keep their word to remain faithful to each other. Infi­delity is arguably more about the breaking of that trust, the deception that goes along with an affair, than it is about the actual physical acts performed in the commission of that infidelity.

Ulti­mately, marriage is a soci­etally imposed structure. It is a social union based on the culture in which it resides. Matrimony is not based on what makes biological or evolu­tionary sense but on the lofty ideals of human kind. I believe that romantic love and a sense of personal betterment is what drives us to get married. The monog­amous lifelong marriage is an aspi­ration, some­thing that we reach for. It is a calling to tran­scend the physical. It is a lifelong journey of growth and self-improvement. Marriage is not a mandate that springs from the thighs. No, it is the mandate of the heart, borne from romantic love and sustained by passion, creativity, respect, good conver­sation, amongst countless other things.

I believe that one should under­stand the impli­ca­tions of marriage, to under­stand the seri­ousness of such a union, before committing him or herself to another person for the rest of their lives. Perhaps it is an inher­ently American lack of reverence for most things that causes us to look at marriages as some­thing to be entered rela­tively casually, some­thing to be broken off when it becomes inconvenient.

In which case, it may not be so outlandish for churches and other insti­tu­tions to test a couple’s martial readiness as seen in comedy movie License to Wed [2]. In a society where single parent house­holds, divorced families, and broken homes are becoming more and more prevalent, it seems to me that the sanctity of the role of husband or wife is not being taken seri­ously by enough people. There are deep and under­lying impli­ca­tions of becoming a spouse and even more immensely important impact on their children if they choose to become parents. I believe that most people have particular defi­ciencies, some super­ficial and others more serious, that make them a poor fit as a spouse or parent. If we would educate people to help them to under­stand that a marriage lasts forever, that our actions live on through our children who may suffer for our sins and indis­cre­tions, that matrimony is not meant to be thought of lightly, if we would entertain the idea of putting people through mandatory child care classes and a couple of marriage seminars to help people gain valuable perspective and knowledge on the journey they are about to take, then perhaps we would be able to realize higher rates of marital satis­faction and more longevity. And although tangential to the topic at hand, perhaps with the improvement of the marital state of affairs in this country, we would see less broken families and therefore decrease the burden these people place on the government, what with all the social services that are created to help these families.

The tradition of marriage, an ideal that entails lifelong monogamy and mutual spousal support along with emotional, spir­itual, and sexual satis­faction, is largely a modern one when one takes historical uses of marriage into consid­er­ation. I believe that with the right infor­mation and a more well developed mindset, this ideal can live on in great pros­perity. But until we decide to look at the truth behind marriage, the reasons they fail or succeed will remain a mystery to us.