An article entitled "
Face
it: Monogamy is unnatural" was featured yesterday on the CNN site.
Written by Meghan Laslocky, her thesis is that "a greater tolerance toward the
human impulse to experience sexual variety is needed."
[1]
Laslocky bases this on the fact that "Biologically, we humans are animals. So it
makes sense to look to the animal kingdom for clues as to what we are built
for." She then throws out examples from the animal kingdom of how monogamy is a
sham. "The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5%
of all the mammal species on Earth 'practice any form of monogamy.' In fact, no
mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous."
She culminates her argument with a look at the biology of pair-bonding in prairie voles, a small
rodent native to North America. Stating that hormones and receptors are the
cause for such behavior, Laslocky concludes:
"Among humans, here's the rub:
we have the chemicals and the receptors, but it varies from person to person how
much we have. Based on brain wiring alone, inclination toward fidelity can vary
dramatically from one individual to another. In other words, 'once a cheater,
always a cheater,' might have as much to do with brain wiring as with a person's
moral compass, upbringing or culture. "
I'm sure everyone who has walked in
on their spouse in the act of infidelity is comforted by that fact.
Arguments
like the one Laslocky proposes are not new. Many times I hear from homosexual
advocates that homosexuality must be natural because zoologists have observed
animals performing homosexual behavior in the wild. This type of reasoning is as
preposterous as it is inconsistent. No one would say, "Chimps fling their
feces and we are so close genetically we should, too." Or to take a more mundane example, it isn't uncommon for a
host to be horrified when his or her pet dog mounts the leg of a guest. Even in
the article, one image of elephant seals is accompanied with the note that males
"protect harems of more than 100 females from other males thinking of moving
into their territories." I'm sure such a "natural" relationship model will be not considered acceptable by women!
No, these appeals to the animal kingdom as a way to understand our sexual actions make one
of two egregious errors. The first is they assume humans are slaves to our
biology. While prairie voles may not be able to rise above their responses to
chemical hormones, part of what it means to be human is to NOT react to our base
stimuli. We don't want a man threatening to kill at the mere presence of another male. We
don't want a person to simply take whomever he or she desires. We have this capacity
for reason that makes us--let's choose this word wisely--
civilized.
In fact,
that's the argument that women's groups have relied on when talking about rape
and provocative dress. It doesn't matter how it makes you feel, you don't have
to act on it. So, to dismiss infidelity as people who are victims of biology
opens up a much larger issue and gives sexual predators an out.
The second
way these kinds of arguments err is by blurring actions and assuming animal
motivations are the same as in humans. This anthropomorphizing animal behavior
is a common plague in animal behavioral research. The case of Koko is a perfect example.
Koko is a famous gorilla
who supposedly mastered over 1,000 signs and uses American Sign Language to
communicate in complex sentences. However, as Steven Pinker in his book
The
Language Instinct documents, the handlers were interpreting actions as signs,
interpreting one sign to mean something else, and basically superimposing what
they wanted Koko's behavior to mean onto the ape's actions.
[2]
Similarly, no animals form homosexual relationships for pair-bonding. They
auto-stimulate themselves with whatever they may find. That's why the dog
mounts the guest's leg.
One thing not mentioned by proponents who liken
human sexuality with animal behavior is acts of sexual gratification between
species. Peter Singer
writes that
while visiting an orangutan refuge in Africa with a group, one of the women "was
suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his
erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas
(the refuge's director) called to her companion not to be concerned, because the
orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that ‘they
have a very small penis.' As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before
penetration took place."
[3] Such a scenario is scary, but not as scary as Singer's conclusion. He says such an action is an example of why sex
across species should "cease to be an offence to our status and dignity as human
beings."
[4]
Regardless of which error is committed, you
can see how judging sexual actions by observing animal sexual behavior leads to
dangerous consequences. Human beings are not merely animals. We have minds and
we have a moral compass. Bestiality is wrong. Rape is wrong. And excusing
infidelity on the basis of biology is itself inexcusable.
References
