DC Cookie

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Ducks Mate for Life

I’ve always hated the rationale so many people use when they are unable to sustain a relationship commitment: “Being with one person for life is not nature’s way.” Tell that to a duck! Although dating can be as hectic as a buffalo stampede, or as bleak and arduous as a penguin march, I don’t believe we’re all fated to a life of monogamous misery just because we don’t follow the same social mating habits as the hippo. Yes, it’s in our animal nature to be attracted to multiple potential suitors, and yes, it’s in our animal nature to desire to spread our seeds, but coming from the family that I do, I would also argue that it’s human nature to yearn for the mutual, supportive, unconditional companionship that only monogamy offers.

The dilemma is, how do you know when you've found that? It's absolutely inevitable that we are going to be attracted to other people no matter how strong the bond we have with our significant other. We're mammals first; we ooze pheromones from our pores. We should never feel guilty about the nomadic physical desires we experience for fine specimens of the opposite sex, provided those feelings are fleeting. That's how you know you've found the right partner. When your boyfriend's smile makes you instantly forget the name of the gorgeous bartender who was buying you shots, or when his voice sends more shivers down your spine than a Ryan Reynolds nude scene, you can rest assured that it's the mallards, not the cows, who hold the key to animal kingdom happiness.

11 Comments:

  • At March 28, 2006 7:33 PM, Blogger Drunken Chud said…

    there's a reason monogomy rhymes with monotony. sort of. who knows, all i know is that right now, i'd vote "monogomy no!". but should the right girl come along... i may be swithcing parties. who knows.

     
  • At March 28, 2006 10:08 PM, Blogger Carrie Broadshoulders said…

    I would argue the male of the species is far more prone to wander than the female. It makes more sense really. He can spread his seed far and wide to ensure the continuation of his DNA without the burden of gestation and giving birth and taking care of the offspring. A female however depends on the male for protection quite often which therefore ensures the survival of their offspring. However, even most females in nature stray. Except penguins. Penguins also mate for life. I love penguins. It's interesting how in gay relationships, at least most long lasting ones I have seen, there is a pretty high percentage of male/male couples that have "open" relationships. It's not for me at all, but it seems far more common than in straight couples. Maybe its because you have no female to regulate.

    I agree though, I hope I find that penguin of mine who makes me not care about spreading my seed. Lord knows there doesn't need to be any other Carrie Broadshoulders running around this planet.

     
  • At March 29, 2006 1:52 AM, Blogger Drunken Chud said…

    odd. both examples of mating for life... not mammals. hrmm...

     
  • At March 29, 2006 8:32 AM, Blogger I-66 said…

    ooooh good point...

    This is strangely apropos when matched with my "You are doomed to be happy in wedlock" fortune cookie fortune.

     
  • At March 29, 2006 9:11 AM, Blogger Phil said…

    I have a feeling Bon will have some comments about this post when the trial is over.

     
  • At March 29, 2006 12:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    IMHO women are just as likely to wander as men. Otherwise, who are these wandering men sleeping with??

    Men may wander further afield on average. But both sexes take advantage of their opportunities equally. Women may wander with men who have higher survival value (alphas) desiring stronger children while needing to secure long term resources for childcare from men who are more likely to stick around (betas).

    Women like a naughty roll in the hay as much as men. It's wrong and exciting but humans are humans.

     
  • At March 29, 2006 1:27 PM, Blogger Sterculian Rhetoric said…

    Velvet tells me you are a puck-slapping, maple-eater?
    Is this true?
    One thing is certain, 'drunken chud' has the spelling acumen of an East End Toronto boy. The Beaches perhaps, or Parkdale.

     
  • At March 29, 2006 1:43 PM, Blogger Drunken Chud said…

    meh. it's teh intarwebs. not a master's thesis. typing from the hip with no spell check. phht. who needs spell check. no i who spells all correctly. ha!

     
  • At March 29, 2006 1:57 PM, Blogger Jessamyn said…

    cute post little cookie!

    but i do gotta say: mallards that "mate for life" - are partners for life, yes - in the social sense of living together in pairs - but they rarely stay strictly faithful. i say humans made up monogomy - but thats not to say that after thousands of years of practicing it - it hasn't been encoded in our genes.

    something to think about.

     
  • At March 29, 2006 3:11 PM, Blogger DC Cookie said…

    Jessa's right. We made it up. But that's because, at the top of the food chain, we were given the gift of...rational thought.

    Monogamy doesn't work for everyone, but it does work. Point being, for those who choose not to live by it, don't blame nature...blame your choice in partner ;-)

     
  • At March 29, 2006 3:54 PM, Blogger Rina said…

    New reader here, thought I'd share what my research (relationships, break ups and subsequent reading of psychology books)have led me to:
    1) Chimps do not mate for life, but bonobos (our closest genetic relatives) do.
    2) Mammalian males have something knows as the Coolidge Effect.
    3) Humans brains and bodies are programmed for life in ancestral conditions: small tribes with few choices, short life spans, no birth control, hunting/gethering and high infant mortality. So as you can see conditions have changed, while our psychology hasn't. Here in lies the problem

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
free webpage counters