Men are animals!

There are many, many things wrong with this pseudo-intellectual "argument" against gay marriage. I do not want to dwell on the utter lack of persuasiveness of this article, since others have already gone there. (Although, as a philosopher, I would like to point out the silliness of the author's claim that his four properties of marriage -- including the protection of female sexuality and the mark of the end of childhood -- are "marriage's 'a priori' because marriage is a part of the kinship system, and kinship depends on the protection, organization, and often the exploitation of female sexuality vis-à-vis males." If they were part of "marriage's a priori" we would be able to deduce them from the very concept of marriage. Clearly, we cannot, since we can imagine a case of marriage without such properties, as when two elderly widowed people marry. Also, if these were a priori deducible properties of marriage, he would not need to look to empirical evidence to make the case, yet he makes his case using historical examples.)

My main beef is a point he makes that I see not only among right-wing religious types, but also in supporters of evolutionary psychology of all political stripes. He claims (as do many others) that males, by nature, are not monogamous. It is culture which imposes an unnatural monogamy on the unwilling male of the species.

I am not at all opposed to evolutionary psychology or the idea that there is much about the way people are that is innate. Indeed, I'm sympathetic to this, and think EP can provide valuable insights. What I am opposed to is using EP to make silly blanket statements about human nature that do not fit the evidence. I am (full disclosure) not a male. As Freud didn't know what women want (and boy, I could tell him a thing or two), I don't really know what men want. I only have their words for it. I am also married, and have something of an interest in believing that my husband is not miserably trapped, chafing at the bit.

It certainly seems to me from what men do (as opposed to what men say) that they really really like sex a whole lot. Really really. It seems that men, even ones in committed relationships, frequently fantasize about sex with a large variety of women. It seems they frequently do very very stupid things in order to get sex, or even simply to be near someone attractive. It seems that quite often they violate their vows of monogamy. When divorce is permitted in a culture, it is relatively frequent. When polygamy is permitted, it is frequent. Where adultery is permitted, it is frequent. All this would seem to lend credence to the contention that men are naturally unmonogamous.

But there also seems to be evidence that males desire to marry, and not just because of cultural constrictions. 1) marriage of one form or another has been around in almost every culture, even though the vast majority of cultures are male-dominated. Why have males chosen to bond themselves to females again and again? They may bond to more than one woman, and they may cheat, but they still choose to bind themselves in this way, taking responsibility for another person. Why? 2) Male jealousy of the women with whom they bond seems just as primal and cross-cultural as a sex-drive. Why be jealous if you don't even want a bond? 3) In our culture, there is no real downside to remaining unmarried. One can usually still hold a job, have friends, get sex, have children, have familial acceptance if one is unmarried. If marriage is an unnatural state undesired by all men, and there is little social upside to marriage (besides the marriage itself) why would the vast majority get married (especially in a culture such as ours, which is less tolerant of males cheating than some other cultures have been)? It's unclear how many men in our culture cheat on their partners. I've heard anywhere from 22% to 60%. Let's say it's even higher, at 75%. That still means that there are a much greater number of men who marry and remain loyal to their wives than who choose a life of sexual freedom.

What it seems to me is that men have a primal, indeed a natural desire both to create a relationship bond, and to sleep with many, many people. I don't see why we should assume that the urge to marry is cultural (and therefore "unnatural") to men, given the points above. Male jealousy, we seem to be agreed, is to prevent men from spending resources on another man's child. But if your only concern is spreading your seed to as many people as possible, you don't seem all that vested in the care of your own children. If you are jealous of your mate, it means that paternal care matters, and then that the innate desire to marry makes sense - because you should insure the care of your children. Plenty of animals without our cultural constraints pair bond.

The two such urges men have, i.e., to bond and to mate widely, seem to be in conflict. Maybe we are imperfectly adapted, or perhaps men's schizophrenic views on relationships have proven to advance fitness, if not human happiness. But to simply state flat out that monogamy is unnatural, cultural hemming in of men's real desires, seems hasty.