Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Promiscuity Is For The Birds
Promiscuity Is For The Birds
Review: DM690
A SUMMARY CRITIQUE
PROMISCUITY IS FOR THE BIRDS
a book review of
The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People
by David P. Barash and Judith Eve Lipton
(W. H. Freeman & Company, 2001)
This review first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 24, number 3 (2002). For further information or to
subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Did you know that monogamy has been reported as the primary behavior for only 10 to 15 percent of all
primate species and for only three percent of mammals? Did you know that monogamy in birds has
traditionally been reported at better than 90 percent, but that recent DNA research has revealed a very
different picture of the avian world? Basing their study on the assumption that the Darwinian
evolutionary theory is true, as well as selected case studies of animal sexual behavior, authors David
Barash and Judith Lipton insist that “aspiring monogamists are going against some of the deepest-seated
evolutionary inclinations with which biology has endowed most creatures, Homo Sapiens included” (p. 1).
They emphasize current studies of bird behavior as most informative to human behavior because, of all
animals, birds and humans are generally more inclined toward monogamy and because in each both
parents are involved in raising their young (4).
The Myth of Monogamy is coauthored by a husband and wife team: David P. Barash, Ph.D., received his
doctorate in zoology and is currently professor of psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Judith Eve Lipton, M.D., is a psychiatrist. They delight in shattering ideas previously held concerning
monogamy within the animal kingdom. Their book is bound to become assigned reading in human
sexuality classes.
The authors say their interest is in finding commonality of patterns that provide “powerful evidence that
human beings are not ‘naturally’ monogamous, as well as proof that many animals, once thought to be
monogamous, are not” (1). Citing the remarkable variety of sexual and social behavior in the animal
kingdom, they state, “It isn’t at all clear which is most ‘relevant’ to human beings” (4). They consistently,
however, appeal to certain animal case histories when making comparisons to human beings, paying
attention mainly to evidence that seems to support their thesis and ignoring evidence that does not. They
also use controversial evidence to support some of their main contentions.
One of their most strident points is that animals engage in what they designate as “EPCs” because of
sperm competition. (“EPC stands for extra-pair copulation, which simply means a copulation in which at
least one participant is already socially mated to someone else.” 14). According to the paradigm of
natural selection, biological success and failure is seen in terms of the number of children successfully
born and raised. Males and females therefore engage in EPCs as an unconscious biological strategy in
which more than one male competes to fertilize a female’s egg (123).
Sperm competition (“essentially another way of saying nonmonogamy,” 5) is well documented in various
species of animals. When they apply this premise to human beings, however, their primary
documentation comes from British biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis, two controversial researchers