Tags

, , , , , , ,

There has long been some evo/psych science that suggests men are not, by nature, monogamous. Whether such science is accurate or not, the idea has become a bit of a cultural narrative, a legend passed around. The idea being that we were designed to diversify our genes and so men especially are biologically driven to well, diversify. I’ve never really bought into it because I’ve observed the significance of relationships to so many men, the amount of grief and loss they experience when going through divorce or death, they way they care for wives who are elderly or disabled.

Also, if men are biologically driven to not be monogamous so as to guarantee their reproductive success, how do we explain all the animals who do mate for life? What of the wolves, beavers, termites, swans, owls, and eagles? How in the world do they diversify?Nevermind…

So recently another bit of Pseudo Science, registered trademark, came out that suggest women are not, by nature, monogamous either. Nope, in the name of biological equality, apparently monogamy is not natural to women either, in fact we may be even worse. Far worse. Or better, depending on your perspective. I’m not certain how that works in the real world because as far as I know, we can really only reproduce once every nine months, so what’s the point of all this female diversification? How in the world did that evolve? Nevermind…

I’m not going to link to either of  these studies because frankly I just don’t care, but the question as to what is natural to men and women on a biological level made me a laugh. Whether intentional or not, Science, registered trademark, is implying that our nature should be accepted and that our morality should be tempered by the  way we are ruled by our instinctual biological nature. Monogamy is alleged to be unnatural, therefore perhaps we shouldn’t be aiming for monogamy at all. It’s simply unnatural.

I was rather amused to discover that women are not by nature monogamous, that in fact it is unnatural to us, which then sent me down this path of pondering all the other things I notice are unnatural. For example, not being able to taser blast that woman in the grocery store aisle who stops right in front of you and then proceeds to phone home. Seriously, there is simply no excuse for blocking the entire aisle while you giggle foolishly on you phone as if you were the center of the entire universe. It is totally unnatural that I cannot simply blast her with phaser and watch her pixalate into a billion tiny atoms.

I assure you, my response is totally innate and biological. Natural. Instinctual. Organic. Organic is good, right? I have several other natural biological responses to life situations but I’m not going to confess them all on account of the fact that I’m not quite sure if the statute of limitations has run out on them all yet.

It’s somewhat funny, I remember a two-year old little boy who had this terrible habit of simply biting people who annoyed him. I had a heck of a time teaching him that was not okay. He’d look at me with these innocent  brown eyes as if to say, “what’s your problem? This is innate, biological, natural. The kid grabbed my toy, so I bit him and now I have my toy back. Problem solved.”

You do know that only a fool tries to reason with a two-year old, right? They tend to lack the irrationality of adults with all our strange and bizarre ideas about civilized behavior.

victorian

Advertisements