From an evolutionary position , every know thing has two basic goals : hold up and reproduce , in that edict . It ’s helpful to keep these finish in mind when believe how human demeanour develops over time . This powerful drive to insure that ourgenesmake it into the next generation offer brainstorm into such complex number as monogamy .
We ’ve all heard the formal wisdom that women prefermonogamy(only one mate at a time ) , while men gravitate toward sleeping around ( as many mates as you could get ) . But is there evidence to back this up ? And , if lawful , why would the optimal mating organization of one sexual practice be unlike from that of the other ? To answer these doubt , let ’s consider the benefit of a monogamous relationship .
scientist have been studying mating patterns in animals for centuries , and monogamousness is definitely uncommon ; only 3 to 5 percent of Earth ’s mammal practise some material body of monogamy [ source : National Science Foundation ] . Recent brainstorm into the doubtfulness of monogamy in human being come from Dr. Aaron E. Carroll and Dr. Rachel C. Vreeman of the Indiana University Medical Center . Carroll and Vreeman reason that being in a long - term monogamous relationship go to a steep decay inlibidoamong both Man and fair sex , but that the decline is more grave in women [ source : Carroll and Vreeman ] . They point out that expiration of interest in sexual urge among women can extend to the death of a sex life , which is n’t safe for anyone from an evolutionary gunpoint of aspect .
There is also late grounds to plump for the notion that men are more inclined to promiscuousness , while women fall slightly more on the monogamous side of thing [ source : Wlodarski ] . An significant point in this study is that it takes into account societal and cultural factors that inevitably influence the demeanor of both man and women to show that humans operate on a sexual continuum , with monogamy on one end and promiscuity on the other . All it takes is the right circle of environmental ( or social or cultural ) conditions to push us in one focus or the other [ seed : Wlodarski ] .
Each deterrent example of monogamousness in animals may have evolved for specific reasons , but the general scientific consensus is that animals mould more permanent relationships when it ameliorate their chances of having more successful materialisation . Humans provide a perfect case study . Having both parent cooperate in the care of a newborn — presumably within the context of a blissful and exclusive relationship — realize sense when you consider the utter helplessness of human baby .
However , if stronger young is the driving power behind monogamy in humanity , it does n’t make sense that only female would be " hardwired " for it . Not astonishingly , there is evidence to support the call that monogamousness in human males is advantageous too , perhaps to see to it the safety of his offspring or only because making a commitment is the only agency he ’s going to get any generative action [ sources : Opie;Lukas and Clutton - Brock ] .
The full point is that , for both sexes , these mating behaviors may change based on environmental factor to reach our ultimate finish of get our genes into the next generation . Men and women are both hardwired for this flexibleness , though our circuits may not always watch the same path .
