Marriage, monogamy… and voles

[Scot C. Trypal]

That juggling guy, in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=44158) thread, said something to the effect that marriage should be abolished, as it doesn’t fit our natural inclination against monogamy. It reminded me of something I read in Nature a while back, about voles, about which I’d like to start a new thread.

Check out this full online journal article (I’ll summarize below):
Genetically engineered monogamy in voles lends credence to the modus operandi of behavioural ecology
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No2/jgaug2004-633.pdf



Or see the Nature papers on the topic (if you have access):
Increased affiliative response to vasopressin in mice expressing the V1a receptor from a monogamous vole
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v400/n6746/abs/400766a0_fs.html

A role for central vasopressin in pair bonding in monogamous prairie voles
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v365/n6446/abs/365545a0.html

Basically we have the kinky montane vole, and puritan prairie vole. One’s primarily promiscuous and the other monogamous and dedicated to their mate.

My emphasis:
In mammals, two neuropeptides, oxytocin and vasopressin, secreted by the hypothalamus, are being increasingly implicated in a vari-ety of socio-sexual behaviours. Oxytocin and vasopressin are peptides with nine amino acids each and differ from each other only in two amino acids. Oxytocin is associated with female behaviours while vasopresin is associated with those of the male. The monogamous prairie vole and the polygynous meadow/montane voles have strikingly differ-ent spatial patterns of expression of oxytocin and vasopressin receptors in their brains. (Pitkow et al. 2001). The clinching evidence however comes from the normally promiscuous male meadow voles receiving the V1a receptor gene from the monogamous prairie voles, who now show significantly higher partner preference, so reminiscent of the prairie vole males (Lim et al. 2004). These results, especially the last one which shows that the normally promiscuous meadow voles can be made to show greater partner preference, like the prairie voles from whom they have received a single gene, are undoubtedly of great

More convincing is the experimental result that transgenic mice that have received the prairie vole receptor gene acquire a neuroanatomical pattern of receptor binding reminiscent of the prairie vole itself. Moreover, transgenic mice which are otherwise hardly monogamous, now affiliate significantly more with their mated partners (Young et al. 1999).

Sure, these are squirmy little voles, not humans, and no one should be quick to extrapolate, but personally this rings so true. I can’t imagine living a non-monogamous life. Sure, I think monogamy is more pleasant for practical reasons--changing partners often upsets your family and friends, and if you have children you can really hurt them through a separation--but it just feels right and innate to me anyway, just like certain foods taste good. I feel literally addicted to my family and see myself as a working cog in that larger machine; the thought of risking jealousy of my “mate� ;) or falling in love with someone else makes intimacy with anyone else an upsetting idea. But that is just how I feel, how I experience a relationship, and other don’t experience it the same way. In the end, could it primarily be for the sake of nine amino acids? What would that mean?

That brings me to marriage and a 50% divorce rate. Are humans, on average, truly just not built for monogamy; are we a bunch of montane voles, with a few anomalous prairie voles here and there? I think dissolution of a marriage, when there are children involved, should have negative consequences for the one doing the leaving, V1a or no, but does anyone think finding such a mechanism in humans would diminish that responsibility?

Also, if we could do what was done to the mice in that second reference, and make humans faithful to their mate by genetic manipulation, would you your take daily pill of monogamin TM if you had a wondering eye? I think I would.

Would it be something the religion should encourage or government should offer (certainly not force) to “protect marriage�?

edited for link

[Z]

I have six kids and two step-kids. I love all 8 children equally well.

I have a number of good friends that I consider on an equal par.

Why, then, in the intimate/sexual arena, should I be limited to one partner? How do you tell yourself NOT to love someone? NOT to be attracted to someone?

I think monogamy serves its purposes, but at the same time, the excessively high divorce rate and the rather large statistical figures on extramarital affairs points toward monogamy being a lip-service concept at best.

Frankly, I think people should nose out of other people's bedroom business. Religion and especially government has no place peeking into the bedroom.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Why, then, in the intimate/sexual arena, should I be limited to one partner? How do you tell yourself NOT to love someone? NOT to be attracted to someone?

I agree that you don’t have much control over what you’re attracted to, be it sex or food. That’s kind of what I’m getting at; for the vole, it’s mainly a matter of nine amino acids that cause him to wonder. For me, I like monogamy. Why? I can give reasons, but I really just plane do. It could be for the similarly volish reasons.

I think monogamy serves its purposes, but at the same time, the excessively high divorce rate and the rather large statistical figures on extramarital affairs points toward monogamy being a lip-service concept at best.

That’s kind of what I was thinking; we’re mainly the frisky montane vole. But there is this strong social pressure for everyone to be the prairie vole.

Frankly, I think people should nose out of other people's bedroom business. Religion and especially government has no place peeking into the bedroom.

Bedroom business, yes. Where I get nervous is in public business. How does a split affect the divorced couple’s kids, property rights, financial obligations? Government can’t get out of that business, and infidelity, being a major cause of divorce, often brings the need for governmental attention to that private relationship, to make a split just. Maybe infidelity won’t cause a rupture in your domestic relationship, but you’d be a more tolerant spouse than most. Most unions I know of contain the promise to be monogamous, as a lot of spouses claim to prefer monogamy (at least when it’s a property of their partner :) ) and, for most people, their love, effort, and emotion will be split between lovers if there be more than one.

Do you think the divorce rate is even a problem, or are you saying people should just be upfront with whatever their nature is and enter into something like a marriage without the promise of monogamy?

[Z]

I've said this elsewhere, but basically I think people should enter into 'social contracts' as it suits their needs. Sharing income? Come up with a contract delineating rights and responsibilities of each and every party. Want to share medical benefits? Contract. Childrearing? Contract.

Granted, this paves the way for incestual marriage, gay marriage, polygamy, and just about any other mixture of adult relationships on the one hand - but, on the other, it would be enormously practical in many ways.

Of course, these contracts would have certain minimum obligations - like, requiring shared tax or legal status for a length of time, etc. And they'd be expensive, I'd bet, and not recognized by most churches.

(I'm tired of the whole 'gay marriage' issue - I'm against marriage in general)

My 2 cents worth

[Eleatic Stranger]

I'm not entirely sure that the high divorce rates are any indication that human beings are not naturally monogamous. After all, serial monogamy is still monogamy.

[Scot C. Trypal]

I’m a poor thread starter, sure.

What I was primarily trying to get at was basically: Would you take a pill to make you content with monogamy? Gays get this sort of question all the time, about magic pills to set them straight, and I wondered how it would play out in other sexual issues.

On the larger moral issue I was thinking about altering human biology to make us more moral; would you do it? Should the option be there? It may already be there with some of our pharmaceuticals. I see now the example of monogamy is a minefield as it is seen as desirable for some unions and not for others, but it stood out in my head because of the voles (Is no one else amazed by how tiny an alteration is needed to change such a complex behavior?).