The Truth About Monogamy in Humans

     There are plus or minus 10 animals that are inherently monogamous-- humans are not of them. We grow up being told that one of the main goals of life is to find a "soul mate" or "the one" and spend our life with that person making babies and sharing in an exclusive partnership together. But why? It used to make a lot of sense for survival purposes, but in today's society, how much sense does it really make? Think about it.
     In ancient times, monogamy was created among humans to ensure survival. A pregnant woman was not able to hunt very efficiently, and when her baby arrived, she had to stay behind to care for and breastfeed the child-- the man was not able to do this (no breast milk). The man wanted his bloodline to continue, so he would hunt for and protect the woman he impregnated and their baby. It started off like a basic trade off-- you enter into an agreement with a healthy, dependable person so you could procreate, grow your gene pool, and have protection for you and your family. The man and the woman needed each other for these reasons and it just made sense to stay with the same person to avoid complications. The idea of romantic love being apart of marriage did not come into play until much later.
     Today, women and men are both capable of raising children on their own. We have resources available to us that make this possible. So we do not NEED marriage like we have needed it in the past. Marriage does offer security and stability, which is not to be overlooked, and of course there are many successful marriages filled with love and work wonderfully. But it is not for everyone, and that's okay. We are humans and we are not naturally monogamous-- we enjoy experiencing different partners throughout our lifetime. Think about people who cheat in relationships-- I am NOT condoning cheating, and I do believe that anyone who has made a commitment to another person should honor that commitment. However, why do so many people have tendencies to cheat? As a society, we mentally mark them with a scarlet "A" and call them selfish. Which they very well may be. But if monogamy was so innate to humans, would we be slipping up this much? Would we continue to have these high divorce rates or be unphased to news of people cheating on one another?
     This idea also can be relative to slut shaming. Single people who sleep around or have promiscuous tendencies are largely looked down on by society. But why? Humans have polygamous tendencies, as do a majority of animals, and that also means we have the urge to have sex. If you're not in a relationship, you still have those urges and there is nothing wrong with fulfilling those urges. It is healthy to explore your sexuality as long as you are being safe and not harming anyone.
     I realize that much of what I have discussed can be argued with religious beliefs. I respect all religions, however, I am coming from a place of biology and my own subjective thoughts, so take it with a grain of salt. Just something to think about.

Categories

     Good, bad. Gay, straight. Right, wrong. Conservative, liberal. Categories. Our society is always looking for ways to squeeze us into these categories; some of which are impossible for us to fully embody. And even though we each become aware of how complex our personalities and minds are, we submit to this idea that you need to choose one. Are you good, or are you bad? Are you gay, or are you straight? Were you right, or were you wrong? Are you a conservative, or are you a liberal? Most people have an answer prepared for each of these questions and gladly let themselves be confined by the boundaries of their categories. We think, for example, "If I am good, I can't be bad... how can I rationalize this 'bad' decision or action to keep within my identity?"
     This type of psychological dilemma is called cognitive dissonance. This occurs when you have conflicting ideas, feelings, or thoughts. I like to refer to it as, "The battle between the head and the heart," because oftentimes, you are struggling to rationalize between what you logically think is correct (based on prior knowledge) and your emotions. I believe that these categories are a huge contributor to cognitive dissonance. Think about it. When we are young, the people who raise us tell us what categories we "belong" in-- religion, gender, sexuality, political views-- and anything that threatens that makes us defensive, as if counteracting ideologies will personally threaten ourselves and our families. I personally do not identify myself as a Catholic or a republican, however, those ideologies are apart of how I was raised. And even though I know it is completely okay and wonderful for people to be able to express negative or opposing opinions about Catholicism and the republican party, it still makes me feel defensive.
     So, why do we have to choose one? Why does it matter? I believe that categories and stereotypes of these categories do have benefits. They help to quickly distinguish if you have commonalities with people you first meet. Can you imagine going on a first date and having to explain your complex feelings, ideas, or personality traits with someone new? It is easier and probably more efficient to use these categories to help describe ourselves. On the other hand, how much should we let them define us? That is what we need to be thinking about. Question everything. And not in an annoying, over-the-top, overly-analytical type of way, but in a way that helps you to figure our who you are outside of and beyond the categories.
     Everything is on a spectrum. Traits, gender, sexuality, spirituality-- no one is 100% one thing. You are limiting yourself if you buy into the idea that you are. You have heard that everything is not black and white; there is gray. With each trait you have, every category you have ever put yourself into, you are closer to one side or the other, or most likely floating somewhere in between. And that is okay. That is beautiful. We are all so different and complex-- that is what gives us the drama in life. I encourage everyone to embrace their fluctuations in these categories. Yes, the patterns help to guide us and the people around us. But it is like anything; take it with a grain of salt and don't let yourself be hindered by the categories you put yourself in. You don't have to be gay, straight, or even bisexual, for example. You have your preferences, sure, and a lot of people are comfortable, or even take pride in labeling themselves as one thing. And that is fine, but you don't have to. Be brave enough to explore outside of your comfort zone and embrace your contradicting feelings before your immediately dismiss them. You are not a hypocrite; you are being true to yourself. As long as you believe in what you are doing, regardless of if it is looked down on by society or your peers, you are being real. Real is beautiful. Think about it.

The modern event of widespread resistance to organized religion

20 February 2010

Throughout history, generations have been separated by many variables, and the Millennial generation (ages 18-29) is no different (Philadelphia Inquirer). Earlier this month, two new studies have been released, magnifying one particular variable distinguishing the Millennials from their elders-- affiliation with organized religion. These studies, conducted by the Pew Research Center and the Knights of Columbus/Marist College, give proof that the Millennials are increasingly turning away from organized religion (Philadelphia Inquirer). This being said, one must question the causes for this growing gap, and why it can be a productive and progressive change.

As a Millennial, I have observed this shift among my peers and understand many of its causes. One of these causes lies in the church, particularly the Catholic Church. Modern society has changed a great deal with little accommodation or understanding from the Catholic Church. Although we have been taught that women and men are equal, sharing the same human rights, the Church still will not allow a female to become a priest. There does not seem to be any legitimate reason to deny women priesthood except for the sake of tradition. It was also tradition for liturgies to be held in Latin and the priest to have his back to the assembly, until Vatican II, when the council decided to make some progressive changes, yet still preserving their tradition in faith. God is said to be both man and woman, but only a man may preach for Him? Some sects of Catholicism, such as the Marianists, hold Mother Mary even closer to their hearts and prayers than the mainstream Catholic, yet a woman is not an acceptable candidate to preach.

Another overshadowing issue with the Church has to do with marriage. Fewer and fewer men are becoming priests because of the solitary and chaste life they would be required to live. Many devout Catholics would commit to priesthood if they did not have to compromise having a family. The common family man (or woman) can better relate to the struggles and needs of their listeners, therefore, being able to cater to them accordingly. A big break from the Church, and most organized religions, is due to the prohibition of gay marriage. In today’s world, homosexuality is far more accepted than the generations before us. The Millennials have learned about the battles for human rights that took place in our parents’ and grandparents’ time, and many of us are ready to push through the rights of homosexuals. Many homosexuals and their supporters tend to turn away from organized religion because of this issue, even though studies have shown how natural it is. It is common for animals engage in homosexual behaviors, and historically, the ancients embraced and accepted homosexuality.

The wars in the Middle East have also had a great affect on this turn from organized religion. Nine-Eleven struck our generation at a crucial time in our lives: adolescence. Being told at this age that a group of religious fanatics terrorized our nation, killing mass amounts of people, because of a difference in religious beliefs, it shakes one’s perspective of what religion really stands for. Organized religion begins to look different from what our parents taught us, taking on a political and dividing shape.

A large part of this different perspective is also due to technological advances. With the help of computers and Internet, we can read about anything in about five seconds. More and more people are becoming aware and informed about religious organizations all over the globe, as well as blogging and interacting with people across the world from all different backgrounds. The growing knowledge about world religions will make one challenge their own beliefs, resulting in either a strengthening or change in faith. One may notice the striking similarities in world religions, concluding that they all essentially share the same foundation with cultural differences that developed to better suit each society over time, whereas another would become well rooted in their beliefs and gain a better understanding of other belief systems.

This spiritual approach to religion has become more appealing to Millennials, most likely, in part, to a sort of phobia of organized religions. Many people do not want to commit to one religion because of the war and corruption that has been seen over our lifespan thus far. Although war and corruption are not new, the publicity is. At a younger age, people are becoming much more informed and opinionated than ever before. The general public has access to the details of religious scandals that were easily hidden in the past.

I feel that here are two sides to this “anti-religion” phenomenon: one portion of Millennial have turned completely from any religious affiliation, and the other portion is still spiritual or religious, but chooses not to participate in an organized form of worship. In general, the first group tend to be very logical, scientific, and believe that religion is a type of superstition, while the second group seem to pray, meditate, and even follow some sort of religious texts, but stay away from any material religious organization. The word material is vital, because I have heard this word used to describe many modern religious organizations. Religious organizations constantly ask their parishioners for donations, and often times, their money is not used for religious purposes. This contributes to the corruption and turns many people off to religion. However, one must realize that people are running the religious organizations, not the God(s) that inspire them, and therefore, these organizations are prone to all of the same shortcomings that people are prone to. For example, Allah is not the one who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, people, who misinterpreted and corrupted their religion did. This is why it has become popular for people to create a direct relationship with God, forming their own opinions on sacred texts or spirituality.

All of these elements that have impacted modern religious views are capable of producing great things for all sides of the religious spectrum. For the religious person, some positive changes may be made to reduce the corruption and draw more people back to organized religion. The nonreligious person can gain a greater sense of public support and more openly express their thoughts and beliefs. Most importantly, this challenge to religion will make people stronger in their own beliefs, by questioning them, and may even open one up to new ideas and perspectives. Some people live their whole lives being faithful to a religion they know little about or do not understand just because their parents and social circles condone it. Perhaps the Millennials will help encourage people to further explore their faith, and others, minimizing the ignorance and prejudice that circles religion.