Conventional explanations are conventional
Between beavers and meerkats — how humans score on monogamy rating
People rank near the top of a new multi-species fidelity league table. We aren’t as faithful as some mammals, but we are far less promiscuous than chimps
Why would our species rank so high? We cannot know for sure, but Dyble points to the effort required to raise a human infant. Our children are demanding creatures, born helpless, slow to mature and equipped with energy-hungry brains that take years to develop to a point where they can fend for themselves. Pair-bonding encourages paternal investment, helping to meet these demands.
Overall, the data may help correct both romantic idealism and cynical tropes about “natural” infidelity. Humans are not perfectly faithful, nor are they wired for sexual anarchy. By mammalian standards, we are remarkably monogamous — most of the time.
The conventional explanation uses this to describe tits, concealed ovulation, the female orgasm and why mothers in law always insist the baby looks just like the putative father and much else. Even, why the human economic unit is the household, not the individual.
We can even extend this to a description of why the shagadelic communes tend not to work out…..
Fun stuff, conventional wisdom, right?
