This morning, a biologist on the radio is talking about “monkey love”. Apparently, animals generally fall into two categories: the monogamous, mate-for-life category and the polygamous, multiple partner category. These categories, apparently, are represented not only by observable behaviour, but down to the level of genetics…the length of their canine teeth, for example. Now this, I guess, is interesting enough. But here’s the kicker. Humans (because really it’s all about us) display a certifiable confusion about which of the two categories we belong in. Are we really looking for that perfect life partner with whom to build a house and multiply? Or are we happier being with someone (or someones) in a particular moment and then moving on to the next when our needs are met? I guess this explains why so many of our stories are either infested with shining armor or overrun with “promiscuity”. Although it doesn’t explain why it is we limit our guilt to the latter. What about feeling remorse for focusing so much on one person at the expense of other possible romances? What about support groups for monogamists? Why do we not have a derogatory term for “married”? (Although, of course, some might argue that’s it)
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting observation that we are the only species, scientifically speaking, that has not evolved towards any particular mating certainty. This is, in a way, kind of reassuring – it’s no wonder we can’t figure things out when even our molars are confused…
No comments:
Post a Comment