Are Women Instinctively Monogamous?

Question

A lot of women like to tell me nowadays that women are just like men in that neither are instinctively monogamous. I don't understand the basis for this other than another attempt by modern-day women to present themselves as equal to men in EVERY aspect. Of course women are equal in many aspects and stronger in some, but they are also lesser in some areas.

Assuming that we are descended from animals-which I do not believe-then it would seem that the role of every male of a species is to plant their seed in every suitable female womb: i.e.-multiple partners.

Females, it seems, could propagate with the same male for the span of their lives...or at least long enough until instinct tells them it would be more productive to move on to another male.

Bottom line: I don't believe women had the same drive to have multiple partners as out early men.

I would like to debate this issue, so intelligent responses will be noted and responded to, so check back.

Answer 1

Debatable, although women have the one egg, logically, they would get as many men as needed until it's fertilized.

Perhaps less, but you only need two to be not considered monogamous after all.

Answer 2

Womens cycle.

The want s*x in the middle of the month.

So there egg is fertilised because that is when it is released.

Hormones cause us to want s*x.

You know, just as a side note we've been eating meat since 10,000 year ago and our bodies changed to adapt to that kind of diet because we needed the meat.

Our society changed back then (around the same time) too towards monogamy.

...

Its more of a social evouloution and animals do it too, a few mammals are socially monogamous. These species did not inherit social monogamy from a common ancestor. Instead, social monogamy has evolved independently in different species.

Saying that we are all supposed to be polgyamous is like saying we are all primivate and should go backwards.

We dont have a programme in our heads telling us to be polygamous but if it seems like the most logical and best choice for the time most animals and people will.

Answer 3

No. Humans of both genders are polygamous by nature, monogamous by choice (or moral values, etc.).

Don't  go and use that as an excuse to cheat though.

Answer 4

In my opinion we are monogamous by nature, polygamous by choice.  Our intellectual capacity and ability to chose in free-will allow us to analyze situation and learn from experience... and ultimately to overcome instinct.  Polygamy is a learned social trait that everyone knows but not everyone choses to perform.  

There are many species of animal, many closely related to humans, that live monogamous lives.  Our closest related primates are monogamous.

Answer 5

To Wendy G:  Your argument doesn't prove that women actively seek out multiple partners, it only proves that women have s*x with multiple partners.  The obvious, and I can't believe I missed this, is that if men have s*x with multiple partners then women must in turn have multiple partners in order for the former to be true.  The "sperm killer" gene only supports that men seek out s*x with multiple women, not the other way around.  It would seem that a woman could stay in one place to her whole life while many different men moved through her territory, at which point she would select the fittest male.  The only logical reason for a woman actively seeking out other partners would be if no others were available around her.  

Though, I guess you can say that the mere fact that these women are having s*x with multiple partners constitutes polygamy, but my true point is that their motivations are different from that of the male.  Other thn the absence of suitable partners, women have no reason to seek out other possibilities if they are always presented to them.  I've never seen a female walk up to a male on the nature channel and try to start having s*x with them.  All I see are the females waiting while the men actively pursue the female and, should he fit the bill, she lets him mate with her.

Answer 6

IF the argument is that men are instinctively monogamous because it is not "practical" in an evolutionary sense, then it can easily be argued that the same is true for women, and there is actually much evidence to support this.

For women, childbirth is "expensive," biologically speaking, so it would make sense that they would be biologically driven to find the "fittest" males to mate with. Now, much of fitness can be determined by looks and chemical exchanges (i.e. during kissing, enzymes are transmitted through saliva that send signals to the females brain indicating that her partner is genetically compatible...this is true) BUT there is a lot that cannot be determined through physical cues of fitness and enzyme exchange (so romantic). It is not evolutionarily beneficial for a female to "put all of her eggs in one basket," (as it were) because the male could be infertile, or have "slow swimmers" etc. Thus, it makes as much sense for the female of the species to "spread it around" as it does the male. This is further supported by the fact that some males have a chemical property in their sperm that actually KILLS other sperm...why (and how) would this trait have developed if the biological imperative for all females was monogamy? It would not have.

EDIT-No, my point was that there is no way of telling if a man is TRULY "fit" (genetic compatibility and "fitness" are not the same), SO, a female must seek to mate with as many "fit" males as possible to make sure that she is getting the best genes possible. Again, a woman cannot "afford" to birth a males "so-so" genes...the more mates she has, the more likely she is to get the "best" genes, right? And if men have evolved to "dispense" sperm that destroys other sperm, then this can only mean that women were having A LOT of s*x with A LOT of men for this trait to be necessary. Sperm can live in the v****a for up to three days...if another male comes along, and has the evolutionarily beneficial "killer" sperm, HE wins out. It has nothing to do with the other guy being "unfit," the second guy was just MORE fit because he had the "killer sperm" trait. BOTH men and women are biologically driven to seek multiple partners in the name of evolution.

EDIT-jackietrayde--The question (and point) is whether or not women are "instinctively monogamous." Women may not actively seek sexual partners (they let the potential mates come to them) BUT that does not mean they are monogamous. They would choose a few of the best candidates to make sure that they were getting viable sperm, etc. And HOW would the "killer sperm" gene mean that only men were having s*x with multiple partners? The WOMEN have to be the ones with multiple partners for the gene to be beneficial. How do you not get that? If women are monogamous, the sperm killing gene would not have been selected. there would have no need.

EDIT-No offense meant, it was obviously a communication glitch.

Answer 7

Nope

In the past they could be trown out to fend for herself so they had fear of being unfaithful.

Now, they are as unfaithful as men. Except that they are better at hiding it.

Answer 8

I remember how horrified scientists were a few years ago when they discovered that most female songbirds were not monogamous but actually mated with many other males other than their mates...there are other species where the females are not monogamous-such as different types of monkeys so I think it is fair to assume that there could be a wide variety of sexual behavior among human beings (including women).

Why do you think they had chastity belts and why there's been such an obession with women's purity and virginity? Either men were really paranoid or some women liked to fool around with more than one man. I've definitely met my share of women who don't want to be tied down to one mate...not all women are saints just like not all men fool around-many men are very monogamous. Stereotypes just don't work when it comes to human beings-we're too diverse.