top of page
Dec 30, 2018

Love transcends



Charlien, a twenty-three-year-old woman, passionately recounts the story of her encounter with her soulmate at the tender age of seventeen to her close friend Francesca. Despite feeling an instant connection and an intuition that he was "the one," Charlien believed that allowing their relationship to prematurely blossom at such a young age would hinder their individual growth. She made the difficult decision to let him go and opted for a friendship, seeing him only once a year. In her heart, Charlien knew that this unconventional approach would allow them to discover the true meaning of "real love" when the time was right.


In the animal kingdom, excluding humans, the concept of love may hold different meanings or even appear incongruous. While humans associate true love with monogamy and soulmates, for many monogamous animals, love simply serves as a mating strategy. Take birds, for instance, where social monogamy is prevalent in nearly ninety percent of species. In these cases, both male and female birds actively participate in raising their offspring, as it is a mutually beneficial strategy for maximizing reproductive success. The origins of monogamy in birds are believed to be intertwined with the evolution of parental care and partner availability. For certain bird species in America, where the male-to-female sex ratio is uneven, monogamy emerged as a means for males to guard and secure a single female. Over time, male birds developed various captivating characteristics and behaviors to attract mates, such as beautiful plumage and enchanting songs.


In humans, the realm of mating strategies becomes more intricate. Unlike most mammals, humans lean slightly towards monogamy in their mating behavior. Whether this inclination evolved biologically, culturally, or through a combination of both remains a topic of debate. Among primates, such as gibbons, monogamous behaviors co-evolved with mating relationships. In these instances, male primates began guarding their mates and offspring to prevent infanticide by competing males. However, it's worth noting that only a small percentage of mammals developed a monogamous mating strategy due to a predominantly female-biased sex ratio. Other primate species, like chimpanzees, adopted promiscuous and polygamous mating systems. Humans, however, evolved a more bird-like mating strategy, likely due to the scarcity of sexually reproductive females. These observations strongly suggest that mating strategies are intricately linked to mate availability.


When it comes to selecting a mate, individuals must carefully weigh the costs and benefits associated with different strategies. With the availability of contraceptives, polygamy offers the allure of prolonged sexual gratification and the opportunity to experience multiple partners. However, polygamous relationships can also lead to increased competition for mates, higher risks of sexually transmitted diseases, and socio-cultural and economic crises, particularly in the case of polygyny. Conversely, pair bonding or monogamy often brings numerous benefits to both offspring and partners across various species. In butterflyfish, for example, pair bonding promotes cooperative behaviors that enhance resource acquisition and energy conservation. Other advantages of pair bonding include extended mate-guarding, bi-parental care, and increased mating success.


Regardless of the mating strategy one chooses, the impact of a chosen partner on an individual's life is profound and transformative. Sexual selection encompasses the realms of evolution, behavior, psychology, physiology, biology, and even anthropology. Over time, the evolution of animal species has led to fascinating and sometimes bizarre morphological features of reproductive organs. Animal penises exhibit an astonishing diversity of structures, including spikes, coils, and claspers, each tailored to ensure maximum penetration and efficient reproduction. Humans, however, have "tuned down" these genetic traits in favor of developing a complex brain. As a result, the human penis has evolved into a simpler copulatory organ with features seemingly designed for monogamous mating. Reduction of penile spines, for instance, has increased penetration and mating duration, while other morphological changes have accompanied the transition to socially monogamous behavior.


The evolution of human sexuality is also significantly influenced by culture. In societies where female sexual preference is weak, it is hypothesized that there is greater variation in penis size. Studies suggest that female choice has played a role in shaping penis size, with women given more freedom to select partners who possess traits that satisfy their sexual preferences. However, it's important to note that studies also indicate that penis size does not ultimately determine sexual satisfaction in women, contributing to the variation observed in penis sizes.


In summary, the intricacies of mating strategies in humans and the animal kingdom are vast and multifaceted. Humans have the unique ability to choose their own paths, guided by a blend of biological and cultural influences. Whether it's the allure of true love, the pursuit of multiple partners, or the stability of monogamy, individuals must carefully consider the costs and benefits associated with their choices. Love, in all its complexity, is a reflection of our evolutionary journey and the incredible capacity of our minds and hearts.


Clips from "Nostalgic Love" by Joscha Bongard

The notion that monogamy represents the ultimate and optimal mating strategy for humans needs to be continuously challenged. While there are undoubtedly benefits associated with monogamous relationships, it is crucial to recognize that humans, regardless of their sexual orientation, possess inherent sexuality. Sexuality serves as a universal language that demands open and honest discussions in public forums. In the complexities of our world, scientific theories and evidence should never be viewed in simplistic black-and-white terms. By empowering both women and men to transcend their biological predispositions, humanity can tap into the remarkable potential and versatility of nature.


Humanity has moved beyond the confines of rigid mating systems and evolved into beings capable of experiencing profound love. Through love, individuals can forge connections with partners who expand their horizons and enrich their lives. Love enables humans to choose to be in pair-bonded relationships without necessarily pursuing parenthood, while still experiencing sexual fulfillment and a heightened quality of life. Love empowers both modern men and women to embrace sexual freedom while pursuing personal passions and interests. Love liberates women from the mental and social domination inflicted upon them by patriarchal systems, elevating them from mere objects to equal, capable beings. Love provides an avenue for men and women to explore their true potential beyond the limitations imposed by traditional gender roles. In love, humanity can cultivate a society populated by intellectually evolved beings.


It is through embracing the transformative power of love that we can transcend the boundaries that restrict us and unlock our fullest potentials as human beings. Love allows us to celebrate our sexuality, form meaningful connections, and break free from the limitations that bind us.


References

  1. Lack, D. Ecological Adaptations for Breeding Birds. (Methuen Ltd., 1968).

  2. Black, J. M. Partnerships in Birds: The Study of Monogamy. (Oxford University Press, 1996).

  3. Reichard, U. H. & Boesch, C. Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals. (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

  4. Tumulty J, Morales V & Summers K. The biparental care hypothesis for the evolution of monogamy: experimental evidence in an amphibian. Behavioral Ecology. 2014. 24(2): 262–270, doi: 10.1093/beheco/art116

  5. Emlen, S. T., and Oring, L. W. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 1977. 197: 215–223. doi: 10.1126/science.327542

  6. Székely, T., Liker, A., Freckleton, R. P., Fichtel, C. & Kappeler, P. M. Sex-biased survival predicts adult sex ratio variation in wild birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281, 2014. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.0342

  7. Liker A, Freckleton RP, Székely T. The evolution of sex roles in birds is related to adult sex ratio. Nat. Commun. 2013. 4, 1587 doi:10.1038/ncomms2600

  8. McNamara JM, Székely T, Webb JN, Houston AI. A dynamic game-theoretic model of parental care. J. Theor. Biol. 2000. 205: 605–623 doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2093

  9. Birkhead TR. Sperm competition in birds: mechanisms and function. In: Sperm competition and sexual selection (Birkhead TR, Møller AP, eds). San Diego: Academic Press; 1998. 579-622.

  10. Johnson AE, Price JJ & Pruett-Jones S. Different modes of evolution in males and females generate dichromatism in fairy‐wrens (Maluridae). Ecol. and Evol. 2013. 3(9): 3030–3046. doi: /10.1002/ece3.686

  11. Price JJ & Eaton MD. RECONSTRUCTING THE EVOLUTION OF SEXUAL DICHROMATISM: CURRENT COLOR DIVERSITY DOES NOT REFLECT PAST RATES OF MALE AND FEMALE CHANGE. Evolution. 2014. 68-7: 2026–2037 doi: 10.1111/evo.12417

  12. Opie C, Atkinson QD, Dunbar RIM, Shultz S. Male infanticide leads to social monogamy in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2013a;110:13328–13332.

  13. Opie C, Atkinson QD, Dunbar RIM, Shultz S. Reply to Dixson: Infanticide triggers primate monogamy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2013b;110:E4938–E4938. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1307903110

  14. Opie C, Atkinson QD, Dunbar RIM, Shultz S. Reply to Lukas and Clutton-Brock: Infanticide still drives primate monogamy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2014;111:E1675–E1675. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403165111

  15. Marlowe F. W. & Berbesque J. C. The human operational sex ratio: Effects of marriage, concealed ovulation, and menopause on mate competition. Journal of Human Evolution. 2012. 63: 834–842, doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.09.004

  16. Arthi V & Fenske J. Polygamy and child mortality: Historical and modern evidence from Nigeria’s Igbo. Review of Economics of the Household. 2018. 16 (1): 97–141 doi: 10.1007/s11150-016-9353-x

  17. Al-Krenawi A. Mental health and polygamy: The Syrian case. World J Psychiatry. 2013, 3(1): 1–7. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v3.i1.1

  18. Ashby B & Gupta S. Sexually transmitted infections in polygamous mating systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013; 368(1613): 20120048.doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0048

  19. Nowicki JP, Walker SPW, Coker DJ, Hoey AS, Nicolet KJ & Pratchett MS. Pair bond endurance promotes cooperative food defense and inhibits conflict in coral reef butterflyfish. Scientific Reports. 2018. 8(6295) doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-24412-0

  20. Fricke, H. W. Pair swimming and mutual partner guarding in monogamous butterflyfish (pisces, chaetodontidae) - a joint advertisement for territory. Ethology. 1986. 73: 307–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1986.tb00812.x

  21. Lukas, D. & Clutton-Brock, T. H. The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science. 2013. 341: 526–530, doi: 10.1126/science.1238677

  22. Wittenberger, J. F. & Tilson, R. L. The evolution of monogamy: hypotheses and evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1980. 11: 197–232. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001213

  23. Rutberg, A. T. The evolution of monogamy in primates. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1983. 104: 93–112. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(83)90403-4

  24. Eduard, V. K. & Linsenmair, C. Pair formation and pair maintenance in the monogamous desert wood louse Hemilepistus reaumuri (Crustacea, Isopoda, Oniscoidea). Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie. 1971. 29: 134–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1971.tb01728.x.

  25. Dowling HG, Savage JM. A guide to the snake hemipenis: a survey of basic structure and systematic characteristics. Zoologica. 1960. 45: 17–28.

  26. McCracken, K. G., Wilson, R. E., McCracken, P. J., & Johnson, K. P. Sexual selection: Are ducks impressed by drakes’ display? Nature. 2001. 413(6852): 128–128. doi:10.1038/35093160

  27. Darwin, C. The Balanidae (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. London, UK: The Ray Society. 1854

  28. Cunha GR et al. Development of the External Genitalia: Perspectives from the Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocuta). Differentiation. 2014, 87(0): 4–22. doi: 10.1016/j.diff.2013.12.003

  29. McLean LY et al. Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and theevolution of human-specific traits. Nature. 2011, 471: 216-19. doi: 10.1038/nature09774

  30. Dixson, A. F. Primate Sexuality (Oxford University Press, 1998).

  31. Apostolou M. Size did not matter: An evolutionary account of thevariation in penis size and size anxiety. Cogent Psychology. 2016, 3: 1147933 doi: 10.1080/23311908.2016.1147933

  32. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. Human sexual response. Boston, MA: Little Brown. 1966

  33. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. Human sexual inadequacy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 1970

.

bottom of page