u/ROMtheory

Sometimes I wonder if there is a certain predisposition to promiscuous behavior in humans. For example, prarie voles are notoriously socially monogamous (nonmonogamous by human cultural standards), but vary in behavior between strict non-monogamy to strict genetic and social monogamy. These critters happen to have a strong association between a lower V1aR expression in the venttal palladium and a significantly impaired ability to form a bond with a mate, unlike voles with a high V1aR expression which are also most likely to practice even genetic monogamy.

I'm also reminded of grey wolves, who are largely socially and genetically monogamous, yet there are almost always several "casanova" (typically male) wolves within a population at any given point, who refuse to settle down, and repeatedly invade territories to mate with (typically female, and young enough to have not left their parental packs yet) wolves, before quickly abandoning the territory to pursue more quick, "one-night-stand" copulations. Casanova wolves are, in fact, largely responsible for the presence of genetic dissimilarity between pack siblings, unlike the older belief that wolves were not fidelitous by nature, because the parents of the pregnant wolf will typically help raise their daughter's pack as well. I digress...

Obviously, humans are not voles nor wolves, and we are vastly more complex both behaviorally and socially, but this does go to show that there is likely some form of biologically-driven affinity for pair bonding, and some statistically-inevitable variability in mating behaviors, even in largely behaviorally-homologous animals. And, to be quite frank, I have known people who repeatedly choose to cheat on their monogamous partners, because "it's natural", " they can't help it". At that point, if they are genuinely incapable of forming a long term pair bond with someone... why press them about it? Then, they'll feel shame, attempt to change, then once again find some poor, genuinely monogamous person only to crush them 2 years later because that person is not mentally capable of forming love to a monogamous degree. I've known the feeling...

I get that it's primarily a choice, as humans we have exceptionally complex agency after all. Even if we extrapolate from the voles study, we can argue that it's most likely a spectrum of neurophysiology with variations of inclinations, and very likely, many people are almost equally capable of choosing either. But I honestly believe at this point, when they argue that "polyamory is natural", they're describing their literal neurophysiological incapacity to pair bond, because then of course polyamory would feel natural to them. At least if we acknowledge our neurophysiological differences, we can argue that polyamory truly is for shallow love, and monogamy for profound love. That's my interpretation anyways as an evolutionary biology enthusiast and wolf autist, thoughts?