At least that's the way we hear it every day. Everyone from psychologists to televangelists to, frankly, the entire Baby Boomer generation loves to repeat this refrain. We're bombarded with news about how the traditional family of one man and one woman is being undermined by modern social pressure. There's just one problem.
"One-man-one-woman" isn't traditional at all.
It's contrary to history, psychology, and even Human biology. “I don’t know how long monogamy has been with us,” Ewen Callaway quotes biologist Michael Hammer in an article for New Scientist. “It seems it hasn’t been around long, evolutionarily.” As Robert VerBruggen of the Institute of Family Studies puts it, "nature does seem to push things in the direction of polygyny on our branch of the evolutionary tree."
It's not even a secret that for most of Human history, polygyny has been the norm. Biologist David P. Barash explains it in an interview with Libby Copeland of Pacific Standard.
We see a dramatic disparity, with males being particularly violent toward other males, and, again, that's entirely consistent with our harem-keeping heritage...
..It's a matter of the individuals of the harem-keeping sex competing among each other for access to those that are going to be kept.
In other words, most of history has been Human males doing what males in most other mammalian species do: competing with each other to win the most mates. Males would fight to the death, and the winner got to keep all the females as his prize. The result is that Human DNA shows a pattern of a few men (the victorious ones) passing on their genes to multiple female partners (Lippold et al.).
The rationale behind this is simple: survival of the fittest. For our ancestors, life was a struggle for survival (of the individual and the species both) against a wild, harsh, untamed world, and the best way to guarantee the next generation could fight off the lions and tigers and bears (oh my) was to make sure only the strongest would get to impregnate the females. Now I'm not saying I want to see a return to the bloodbaths of the Sumerian days. There's no need to kill the men who lose; just relegate them to a permanent beta-status like the Eunuchs of old. But only the most successful Men deserve to have women.
Why do you think a pride of lions only has one Alpha Male? Same principle.
Having given the evidence from history, and the examples of other mammal species who evolve through the same practice, the common rebuttal is "but Humans are different." Well, that's a delightful fairy tale but that pesky little imp called "science" says otherwise. By the numbers, monogamy doesn't suit the Human life cycle very well. Biologist Eric Odour explains.
“Put differently, men are able to sire children for over seven decades. Contrast this with the women who, in their late teens, are advised not to be in a hurry to get children. In today’s world where most women go to school and get employed, it means that they have to wait until they are at least 25 years old to start a family- assuming they have a man,” he says.
He goes on to add that by the time they go past their mid-30s given lifestyle diseases, career advancement and work-related stress, many are advised not to conceive anymore for health reasons.
“Then menopause sets in, meaning that in essence, a 21st Century woman has about 15 years of reproductive health- translating, at best, to about five children,” he argues.
So, why would nature equip a man with more than twice the number of reproductive years as that of a woman if the intention were for a man to stay with one woman for his entire life?...
...In an individualistic world where divorce is easier to get, Edwin contends that a man who has married two or three times is no different from his ancestor who had three wives. This practice of having just one mate at a time or ‘serial monogamy’, where you marry, divorce and remarry is a more common practice.
-The Standard
Even if men were not meant to have more than one partner at a time, the simple mathematics presented her imply at best "serial monogamy." Biology seems to tell men "when she can't have kids any more, you need to make sure you still do."
Another detail pointing toward the Polygynous nature of our species is that we are psychologically hardwired for it. Studies have shown that women find a man more attractive if he is in a relationship with another woman (Alex (1)). Now we should ask, "why is that?" Simply because something in our DNA makes Human females recognize "if he's already got a woman, he must be a more successful mating partner than that guy over there who doesn't have a woman."
Few have been willing to do more with this knowledge other than bite their lips nervously and say "well that's awkward." A few fringers, such as the Islamic televangelist Podcast The Deen Show and A youtube channel belonging to TVC News Nigeria have been bold enough to point out what is made obvious by these findings, but not many people in the developed world take such sources seriously.
Unfortunately, it's hard to find sources in the West that are willing to acknowledge this plain and simple Human predisposition to one-man-many-women dynamics, largely because it's not considered socially or politically acceptable. E.E. Smith puts the question perfectly in Psychology Today.
[W]hy does modern society, especially in the Western world, advocate monogamy, which goes against our predilection for multiple sexual partners?
The answer basically boils down to two words.
Humans are a diverse lot, but before Western imperialism, 83 percent of indigenous societies were polygynous, 16 percent monogamous, and 1 percent polyandrous (where women have multiple husbands).
-Robert VerBruggen, IFS
This is fairly cut and dry. Most of the world was polygynous until the West came along and said "no, every man should only have one woman." And why did the West believe so strongly that this was the way life should be? Two reasons. Roman Law, and the New Testament.
All of Western society is basically dynastic outgrowths of Roman society, and Roman law forbade a man from having multiple wives (Betzig). Concubines were tolerated, but frowned upon. Ergo, since the Romans were monogamous, so too is all of the West. Judeo-Christian religious influence is another reason, but here too, we find that it is not as simple as we thought. In the Old Testament, polygyny was VERY much allowed, and even encouraged so women did not bear the shame of dying childless in an age where motherhood was the highest status to which they could aspire. The Pauline Epistles of the New Testament forbade Christians (in contrast to their Jewish forebears) from having multiple wives, not because of any Divine Revelation but simply because Paul abjured the Church to comply with... oh, look at that: Roman, Law.
Monogamy was imposed upon the world by the West, who cling to it simply because "well, if the Romans did it then it must be good." Monogamy is a Greco-Roman social construct.
So the next question is "if monogamy is a social construct, then why? What did we gain from it?" The answer is, "nothing good."
“A surprising fact about humans today is that our brains are smaller compared to the brains of our Pleistocene ancestors. Why our brains have reduced in size has been a big mystery for anthropologists."
-Dr. Jeremy DeSilva, Dartmouth College
Until 10,000 years ago, a small percentage of Human males were the ones impregnating most of the female population, according to recent research (Le Page & Battacharya). What was the result of this tendency for the few (probably most successful) males to keep all the women to themselves? Two words: evolutionary dominance. As a result of only the strongest and most successful males passing along genetic material to the next generation, Homo Sapiens rose to the top of the food chain and built everything that we have ever called "civilization."
And what happened then?
Well, as stronger men subdued the world and made their species the masters of all within it, the world became safe, and soft. As a result, eventually this idea set in that even weaker, less successful men were entitled to mate and produce offspring. "A woman for every man," the softer, tamer, modern Human seems to have cried out. And what has the result been? Two more words: evolutionary decay.
Not only has the Human brain been shrinking for the past few millennia (Alex (2), Burgelman), but it has now been proven that modern Humans are weaker as well (VOA News). We are witnessing Darwinism in reverse. The Human race is DE-evolving. And why? Well, simply put, because males do not have to compete for mating rights with females anymore. In a one-woman-one-man society, every woman who wants to get married has to settle for whatever loser comes along without some other bitch's claws already in him. It doesn't matter if he's the cream of the genetic crop. He's all there is, so if we plan to reproduce, we have to live with it.
But what if we didn't?
“In those days, people worked on their misunderstandings, so walking away from your spouse was almost unheard of. Marriage appealed to higher social ideals, not the selfish ‘soap opera’ kind of unrealistic love that we regard so highly. If you fancied a girl you brought her home to be your second wife, so long as you could provide for the entire household,” he offers.
That ability to provide is the cornerstone of marriage. It would be foolhardy to have two wives if you cannot provide for one.
-Mswati, The Standard
In short, polygyny is a system whereby the most capable (and most desirable) men are not "off the market" just because they are married. See that handsome, rugged looking guy in the tailored suit, with an IQ of 164 and a ten-inch dick, driving a Ferrari back home to his 84-room mansion? Imagine what it would be like to be his girl. Too bad he's already taken.
...Well why should that be a problem? Just because he has a wife, doesn't mean he can't have another. At least, not if he is capable of keeping another.
Monica, a fresh graduate who says she will never get married, herself points out that she sees nothing wrong with polygamy so long as the man in question is a ‘real’ man.
“The problem is, most of these jokers jumping from one wife to another cannot even provide for or satisfy one woman. You surely cannot expect your wife to be okay with you getting a second wife when you do not meet her physical, emotional and material needs,” she says.
-Mswati, The Standard
I think a common theme that is appearing in these comparisons between modern society and the polygynous past is that only successful men had harems. Simply put, if monogamy is removed from the equation, then men are suddenly in competition not only for the most desirable women, but for all the women. In a group of five men and five women, the man who wins three women gets three women, the man who wins two gets two, and the other three men... well, they get to spend their nights with Mrs. Palmer and her five daughters.
That billionaire playboy genius philanthropist who looks like Robert Downey Jr. will have as many women as he damned well wants, and every one of us will be glad to be one of his. The middle-manager who lives in Suburbia? He's good for about five. Maybe more if he's a good lay. The guy with twin Masters Degrees who is running a faltering start-up company and has been all over the world? Two or three. If he can get his finances together and make his company work so he can support stay-at-home wives, then he can have more. The rest of you?...
Sorry guys, but in a polygynous world, it's "winner take all." There's a reason Genghis Khan's DNA is in a quarter of the Human Race but the short guy with glasses driving a Prius hasn't got kids. Take it from an honest woman: we like conquerors.
Harem cannot be explained simply through the mirror of history. Harem is a unique archetype of the collective unconscious - matriarchy incubating in the cradle of patriarchy. It is an unsolved enigma, a haunting mystery, and undeniably a source of intuitive intelligence.
-Alev Lytle Croutier, Harem - The World Behind the Veil, p. 206
The common perception of polygyny is that it is an egotistical male fantasy, wherein a man relaxes in ease while hapless, lonely women must compete for his attention in ever-increasing displays of base and wanton lewdness, desperate for what little pleasure can be had by his attention and having no other pleasures in life.
As one who lives in a harem, I challenge this nonsensical notion.
Spare me the mythos of a cold and bitter collection of scheming and cackling hens all fighting with each other for his attention. The truth (and we all know this) is any community of women has less conflict than a community with both genders in it. I see my harem-sisters as just that: sisters. I'm not alone either. Audrey Chapman's 1986 book, "Man Sharing," was a collection of interviews with women who live in polygamous households and they both agreed that the sense of community and sisterhood within the harem was a very positive and nurturing aspect of the household.
For example, remember earlier, when I pointed out that a man is capable of fathering children for more years than a woman is? So if a man and woman who are 18 get married, he's still able to sire children when she no longer is. But does that mean a woman should be "discarded" when she is past her child-bearing years? How cold! It is much kinder for a man to simply take an additional wife who is younger and at the beginning of her years of her fertility. The new wife gets the advantages of a husband, and an older female mentor. From experience, I can tell you that this kind of "big sister" role, fulfilled by the older woman who has been with him for years and knows how to guide a younger wife through his moods, is such a God-send. In the household I live in, there is no "rivalry" in the harem. I can't imagine living without my harem-sisters.
The idea of monogamy came about because failed men who were jealous of successful men felt that they too were entitled to procreate. The result has been the deterioration of society and, indeed, of the Human genome itself. I choose to reject this notion. I am part of a harem; the harem of a charming, sexy, brilliant, incredibly masculine (and heart-stoppingly dominant) Man, and I could not be happy living any other way. And if anyone is listening, most women who live in harems will say the same thing (Mbadayee).
Alex, Bridget (1). "Evolution Could Explain Why Having a Girlfriend Makes Men More Attractive." Discover Magazine. 1 Oct, 2019. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/evolution-could-explain-why-having-a-girlfriend-makes-men-more-attractive
Alex, Bridget (2). "The Human Brain Has Been Getting Smaller Since the Stone Age." Discover Magazine. 9 Apr, 2019. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-has-been-getting-smaller-since-the-stone-age
Betzig, Laura. "Roman polygyny." Science Direct - Ethology and Sociobiology. Vol. 13, issues 5 & 6, Sep-Nov 1992, pp. 309 - 349. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016230959290008R . Accessed. 29 Jan, 2022
Burgelman, Susan. "When and why did human brains decrease in size 3,000 years ago? New study may have found clues within ants." Frontiers Science News. 22 Oct, 2021. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://blog.frontiersin.org/2021/10/22/when-and-why-did-human-brains-decrease-in-size-3000-years-ago-new-study-may-have-found-clues-within-ants/
Callaway, Ewen. "Polygamy left its mark on the human genome." New Scientist. 26 Sep, 2008. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14817-polygamy-left-its-mark-on-the-human-genome/
Chapman, Audrey. B. Man Sharing - Dilemma or Choice. London, 1986. William and Morrow Publishers.
ISBN 978-0688044558
Copeland, Libby. "IS POLYGAMY A NATURAL IMPULSE?" Pacific Standard. 14 June, 2017. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://psmag.com/social-justice/is-polygamy-a-natural-impulse
Croutier, Alev Lytle. Harem - The World Behind the Veil. New York, 1989. Abbeville Press.
ISBN 978-0-7892-1206-1
Le Page, Micheal & Battacharya, Shaoni. "A few prehistoric men had all the children." New Scientist. 5 Sep, 2003. Web. 29 Jan, 2002. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17924111-900-a-few-prehistoric-men-had-all-the-children/
Lippold, S., Xu, H., Ko, A. et al. Human paternal and maternal demographic histories: insights from high-resolution Y chromosome and mtDNA sequences. Investig Genet 5, 13 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-5-13 Accessed 29 June, 2022.
Mbadayee. "The Key To Successful polygamy." Peakd. 30 May, 2018. Web. 30 Jan, 2022. @mbadayee/the-key-to-successful-polygamy
Mswati, Mike. "Randy male world: Are all men polygamous by nature?." The Standard. 2020. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/crazy-monday/2001336814/randy-male-world-are-all-men-polygamous-by-nature
Smith, E.E. "Monogamy Is Not "Natural" For Human Beings." Psychology Today. 20 May, 2016. Web. 29 June, 2022. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/not-born-yesterday/201605/monogamy-is-not-natural-human-beings
The Deen Show. Wordpress.com. Accessed 29 Ja, 2022. https://thedeenshow.com/why-are-men-polygamous-by-nature-power-of-the-visual/
TVC News Nigeria. "Big Issue : Are Men Naturally Polygamous?" Youtube. 14 Dec, 2017. Web. 29 Jan, 2022.
VerBruggen, Robert. "Is Monogamy Unnatural?."
Institute for Family Studies. 29 March, 2016. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-monogamy-unnatural/
VOA News Staff. "Study: Modern Humans Are Weaker Than Ancestors." VOA News. 29 Apr, 2014. Web. 29 Jan, 2022. https://www.voanews.com/a/modern-human-weaker-than-ancestors/1903847.html
