Are men meant to be monogamous?

By: Hugh Wilson

New research suggests we are, but the wider evidence is mixed

There are two schools of thought when it comes to men and monogamy. One says men are meant to stay with a single partner for life, and the other says that men are biologically predetermined to spread their seed as widely as possible. George Clooney, for example, is a famously eligible bachelor with no shortage of women interested in spending time with him, but as yet he remains unmarried.

Followers of the second theory explain the predominance of monogamous relationships - marriage, cohabiting, settling down and so on - in modern society as a consequence of religion and social convention rather than evolution. Men aren’t meant to be monogamous, they say, but are forced to be so by prevailing societal norms.

Now new research challenges that view, and suggests monogamy may have been part of human evolution after all. But can it really answer that thorny old question: are men meant to stay with the same partner for life?

The new research

The new research, conducted by scientists at the Universities of London, Oxford, Manchester and Auckland, found that the macabre practice of infanticide (the killing of children) may have driven the evolution of monogamy.

It discovered that, in non-monogamous monkeys, infants of other males are often killed by males wanting to mate with females more quickly. Female monkeys typically delay mating when nurturing young children.

But the research, which looked at the mating habits of 230 primate species, found that multi-mate societies often evolved into monogamous ones to stop males killing infants that weren’t their own.

Instead, males settled with one partner and stayed to protect the children from attack, before further evolving to take some part in childcare. By having two parents to protect and nurture it, a child is more likely to survive, prosper and even develop a bigger brain. Our complex, intelligent brains may be the direct result of monogamy, the researchers say.

This evolutionary trait in primates can also be assigned to humans. Dr Susanne Shultz, from the University of Manchester, said: “What makes this study so exciting is that it allows us to peer back into our evolutionary past to understand the factors that were important in making us human.

“Once fathers decide to stick around and care for young, mothers can then change their reproductive decisions and have more, brainy offspring.”

So why all the infidelity?

So according to the new research, monogamy has given us survival advantages, and maybe even the mental wherewithal to become the primary species on the planet.

And yet monogamy is not always the popular choice, even in our advanced society. In fact, studies suggest that anywhere between 10% and 30% of people in western societies - and more men than women - pay lip service to monogamy while also seeking extramarital relations on the side.

It’s also known that monogamy is not the norm in the animal kingdom. Only 3-5% of mammal species form lifelong monogamous bonds.

Taken together, facts like these suggest to some experts that humans, and human males in particular, are not naturally monogamous.

Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle, has pointed out that compared to geese - which bond for life and never mate again even if a mate is killed - humans are hardly monogamous at all.

According to Schwartz: “Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it's 'natural’.”

Christopher Ryan, PhD, co-author of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, is blunter still. He writes:

“Human beings are clearly evolved for sex lives featuring multiple simultaneous sexual relationships.

“Men, especially, are designed by evolution to be attracted to sexual novelty and to gradually lose sexual attraction to the same partner in the absence of such novelty.”

Monogamy without fidelity

So on one side, men have evolved to hang around and protect the children, and even lend a hand in bringing them up. That way we stop other males killing them, and we produce strong, intelligent kids who are more likely to pass on our genes to the next generation successfully. In a nutshell, monogamy does us a great big evolutionary favour.

But on the other, that pesky testosterone means we soon get bored with the sexual menu on offer from one partner, and yearn for sexual novelty. The urge is sometimes so strong that it brings into question the idea that men are naturally monogamous at all.

So which side wins out? Are we meant to be monogamous or not?

To square the circle, experts talk of social and sexual monogamy. Social monogamy means that we stay with one partner and help to bring up the kids. Sexual monogamy means we never sleep with anyone but that partner. Far more of us do the first than the second.

The splitting of monogamy into two coexisting parts helps explain everything from the prevalence of infidelity and pornography to lap dancing clubs and prostitution. Men hang around in committed relationships, but seek sexual novelty on the side.

At the same time, the majority of men in committed relationships don’t have affairs. Is that reticence to philander among a large group of men just down to social pressure, convention, religion, or what have you? Or is it simply a lack of opportunity.

Evolutionary biologists say it may be down to something else. They say that both men and women have a flexible mating strategy, which they can modify depending on circumstance. Men in particular are more likely to embrace both social and sexual monogamy if they have what’s called 'paternity certainty', which means they can say without much doubt that the mother of what they assume to be their children or future children has been and is likely to remain faithful to them.

Or we could put it more simply. If men feel they’ve met the right woman, they may well mate with her for life.

So are men meant to be monogamous? It seems the only sensible answer on current evidence is a bit of a fudge: sometimes we are, and sometime we are not. Both evolution and social convention seem to accept the possibility of both.

Do men like women who flash the flesh?

By: Hugh Wilson

Most people think so, but there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary...

Hot pants, mini skirts, exposed midriffs, side boobs...Mmmm.

Erm, ahem, splutter. Apologies. No, you haven’t interrupted one of our regular afternoon naps.

No, we’ve been pondering this male fantasy list of female fashions for perfectly sound scientific reasons.

Because the latest study says men don’t go for flesh baring females at all.

Can it be true? We spend longer than strictly necessary searching for an answer.

Men like demure

According to the new research which polled 2,205 single British men, each aged 18 or over, poor old Rihanna wouldn’t have much of a chance with the average British bloke (we bet she’s gutted). And if Kylie approached us in the kind of mini skirt that showed her famously pert bottom to best effect many of us would compliment her on a fine body of work but suggest she keep her other body more modestly under wraps.

At least, that’s what you might conclude from a study by VoucherCodesPro.co.uk, which found that while 31% of British men liked a revealing dresser, 54% of us preferred a woman in “classy” attire.

And what do they mean by classy? Well, according to the poll, 45% of us prefer a woman in the sort of styles popularised by the demure Duchess of Cambridge (though not in those French magazine photos).

In other words, we like women to leave, well, pretty much everything to our imaginations. Who on earth would have thought that?!

It’s all about respect

Apparently, and here the study wanders onto slightly dodgy ground, it’s all about respect.

More than half of those polled said they’d respect a woman more if she dressed in a reserved way, while just a quarter said it depended on the woman in question. Just 22% said they’d respect a woman who wore revealing outfits.

That might be because women who flash acres of flesh make us a little bit nervous. The poll also revealed that 38% of men admitted to feeling intimidated by women in overly revealing clothes.

George Charles of VoucherCodesPro.co.uk said: 'We were interested in discovering whether or not men were more likely to approach women who wore a specific style of clothing and whether this impacted their decisions to give out their number.

“Surprisingly, more men preferred to approach women who were wearing reserved and classy attire rather than a revealing outfit.”

The perfect (out)fit

Perhaps surprisingly, science has something to say about this too, and it backs up the prim and proper approach - well, a bit.

It was previously thought that men like to be able to see as much of a woman’s skin as possible, because the more flesh on show, the more accurately they could (subconsciously) judge her youth and therefore her fertility.

Long legs, a slim waist and large breasts can also be biological indicators of fertility, which may explain the mini skirt, crop top and push up bra.

But attraction is more complex than that, even among sexually driven young people, as a study by researchers from Leeds University discovered.

In the study, female researchers discreetly observed women from a balcony overlooking the dance floor of one of the city’s biggest nightclubs.

And what they found was that women baring quite a lot of flesh were approached most often by men. In fact, women who revealed around 40% of their bodies attracted twice as many men as those who covered up.

In other words, the study doesn’t back up the idea that long skirts and demure tops are what men like best, or at least it suggests they’re not what the young men who frequent northern nightclubs like best.

But nor did the study confirm the idea that the more revealing the better for women trying to find a boyfriend. Because the popularity of women (in terms of how often they were approached by men) began to fall off after the 40% mark. The more flesh they showed beyond that, the less popular they became.

So even among young men in a nightclub, there is such a thing as a too revealing outfit. It’s probably fair to say that the rest of the male population would be, if anything, more conservative.

Too much of a good thing

So why do men, who it’s generally thought can’t get enough naked female flesh, balk at real women who dress too revealingly?

It could be that while female flesh is always alluring, too much on public display sends mixed messages to men who want to be titillated, but not share that titillation with lots of other men.

Or, as psychologist Dr Colin Hendrie, who led the study, said at the time: “Any more than 40 per cent and the signal changes from ‘allure’ to one indicating general availability and future infidelity.

“Show some leg, show some arm, but not any more than that.”

So there may be some truth in the idea that men are turned off, or at least intimidated, by the Rihannas of the world. In truth, men are a mass of contradictions on the subject. Though ostensibly we like to see as much flesh as possible, in potential partners it seems there really is a point where we can get too much of a good thing.