- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,122
- Reaction score
- 10,882
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Does it? Even most of the bird species that we think of as the most devoted pair bonders are actually gettin' some strange on the side.
Biologist here, so I've read a lot about reproductive biology. Some do, most especially the ones that produce more than a single clutch in a season. There are good reasons for both genders not to put all their eggs in one genetic basket when it comes to breeding. But there's no real point in a pair of animals that only mate once per season and produce a single offspring or clutch/litter getting some on the side, obviously. A lot of it depends on how much each of the parents invest in their young and what the genetic benefits of cheating would be.
One of my favorite reproductive biology stories involves side-blotched lizards. There are three male morphs, that could be loosely analogized as "alphas, betas, and gamma/girly man lizards" or something. They're locked in a game of scissors, paper, stone (the alphas beat the betas but lose to the gammas, the betas beat the gammas but lose the the alphas, and the gammas beat the alphas but lose to the betas) when it comes to reproductive advantages and appeal to female lizards. Turns out that when one kind of male becomes too common, a different one can type can gain an edge. So in terms of mating behavior, variability within a species may be preserved by mechanisms that are like the one that produced these lizards (if not so conveniently tagged with distinct colors).
Interesting side note--males in monogamous species tend to have higher oxytocin levels than males in related species where a bond isn't formed. A question is whether individuals within a species vary in this hormone and if it might drive differences (and also be something selection could shape over generations, depending on which strategy works best in a given situation).
Natural versus cultural is always a complex issue in humans, as social institutions evolve for purposes too, but some do outlive their original function. Still, humans exhibit pretty much every mating system found in nature, so we appear to be quite flexible. Changing social situations can shift behaviors that people assumed were hard wired too, like women always preferring older, wealthier males and men always preferring younger, prettier women (turns out that this difference becomes less pronounced as income gaps between the genders shrink).
I think we all agree that people can choose to go against things that feel natural to them, though, and even be happy doing so when they don't feel forced or coerced.
And to Bunny-gypsy, don't worry about whether or not the way you are is the most common way of being or not. Many couples find long-term happiness in monogamous bonds, including many F/F couples. And couples break up for reasons that have nothing to do with cheating too, of course, and some find more happiness in subsequent relationships.
Anecdotally, most of the couples I know socially have been together for years and are remarkably free of extramarital affairs and other kinds of drama. My parents had been together 40 years when my dad passed away, and they had some hard times over the years, but neither of them had any affairs (my mom says that this is something she's really positive about with my dad, as have other friends and family members separately).
Maybe us unnatural (I prefer to think of it as less common phenotypes, though, because it's natural for members of a species to vary too) types tend to hang out with others like us, so we're often surprised to find out that we're in the minority.
Last edited: