Pair Bonding and Polyamory

Can these two human impulses work together?

Pair bonding is an ancient human practice, going back to the very beginnings of our social organization. Paleolithic forager bands often traded members with other groups, both as a way to maintain genetic diversity and as a form of social networking and bonding.

Indeed, marriage as an elementary principle of human kinship systems has long been considered a central aspect of between-group alliances. The exchange of mates among kin groups (reciprocal exogamy) and accompanying networks of economic exchange (e.g., brideservice and brideprice) are widespread and arguably create the foundation of human social organization.

But, at the same time, this doesn’t necessarily indicate sexual exclusivity. In many cultures, both in the past and in the present, sexual relations do take place outside of long-term pair bonding. Sometimes this is considered transgressive but in other instances, it is socially allowed and considered normal.

In some cultures, young women are encouraged to explore sexual partners before settling on one permanent pair bond. In most cases, at that time, sexual fidelity will then be expected. A second common form of socially accepted extra-pair sex is through partible paternity where two men “father” a child — something found in a variety of cultures. In addition, there are other types of sanctioned extra-pair relationships in certain contexts, including formalized spouse sharing.

Anthropologist Stephen Beckerman, who has studied ideologies and practices of fatherhood among the Bari people of Venezuela, argues that partible paternity is adaptive, because it gives an advantage to children who have multiple male providers. He suggests a Bari child is 16% more likely than a single-fathered child to survive to the age of 15, probably due to improved nutrition.

In ancient Hawaii, partible paternity was called poʻolua. Hawaiian king Kamehameha I is said to have had two fathers.

The Warao of Brazil periodically suspend marriages and have ritual relations called mamuse. During this time, adults are free to have sex with whomever they please. These relationships are considered to be honorable and thought to have a positive effect on any children that might result.

The Inuit have traditionally had a system of spousal exchange that helped to cement bonds of affiliation and assistance that might be called upon to help get through life in such an unforgiving climate. Some were a part of a religious ceremony and others were part of a larger communal context.

This was reciprocal spouse exchange, sometimes described as co-marriage. It was found in all or almost all areas inhabited by the Eskimos, although it was rare in some regions. Even in areas where it was common, many couples did not participate. Co-marriage was not entered into lightly since it usually resulted in lifelong bonds amongst all members of both families. Besides the obvious motive of sex with a new partner, the purpose was to strengthen economic and friendship bonds between the two families, who could depend on each other in times of need.

In other words, humans are geared towards pair bonding, but sexual exclusivity doesn’t always take place, nor is it always expected. Different cultures have different expectations, to be sure, but coupling and extra-pair relationships do often go together. What this says to me is that pair bonding and polyamory aren’t mutually exclusive — over time, humans have a lot of experience with both pairing up and being involved with other people.

Polyamory is the practice of having more than one intimate relationship at a time in an open and consensual way. Most poly relationships have a sexual component, but this is not necessarily the case, as participants are free to choose whatever sort of intimacy works for them. One of the complications that sometimes arises in polyamory, however, is a couple prioritizing their relationship over those with other partners. This is often referred to as hierarchical polyamory.

In hierarchical polyamory, some relationships have more importance or more weight — often due to one set of partners being married, having children, sharing money, etc. This doesn’t necessarily mean that any other partners aren’t as loved or valued, but it points to the fact that the pair bond has a set of commitments that are different from what they are able to make with others. I can understand why another partner might feel like they are being marginalized in this scenario or how some people might abuse the dynamic, but I also understand how it is sometimes inevitable, particularly when children are involved.

There are polyamorous people who all live together but even then, a hierarchy may exist. For example, if two partners own a house the third person may or may not have the same say in updates, mortgage refinancing, etc. If two partners have children, the third (or fourth) person who lives with them may or may not have any parenting sayso or responsibilities.

The thing about polyamory is that there are no set rules or parameters. The partners have to co-create the relationship they want together and if some people want to keep hierarchy in place for whatever reasons, they should have that option — provided they can agree to that with any partners and do it sensitively and with caring. If they can’t agree, perhaps they aren’t a good fit for a relationship.

We are a pair-bond-oriented species and even if people wish to have other types of intimate relationships, I don’t know that expecting pair-bonding to go away is a reasonable desire. Obviously, for some people, it’s just not a factor. They are happy to live alone or to live with 5 other people they consider themselves mated with, but neither of those is the most common dynamic. Some people split their time equally between two mates, but again, this takes a lot of planning and intentionality and it is far from typical.

Our culture is geared toward monogamous marriage, and while I certainly support that as an option, in this day and age, it shouldn’t necessarily be the default. Still, it is tough to truly get away from pair bonding even if you also want to have other intimate partnerships. It may not always be easy, but I do believe that pair-bonded couples can have meaningful, loving, intimate connections with other people while still maintaining the primacy of their relationship.

In sum, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of mating patterns, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, the residential pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships.

Even as the instances of polyamorous relationships increase, pair bonding remains a strong and pervasive dynamic, and in my personal experience, the two are not at all incompatible. My other relationships and connections are not the same as the relationship with my husband, and they aren’t designed to be.

And for my other partners, that works fine for them. They are either pair bonded with other people or they do not wish to be in that sort of configuration. Everyone is satisfied with the relationships and no one feels left out or treated as a second-class citizen. Perhaps that isn’t everyone’s experience, but it certainly is possible.

Polyamory may not be for everyone, but it also isn’t necessarily a complete rejection of pair bonding. The two are not mutually exclusive — and this is something that the history of human cultures around the world seems to definitively support.

© Copyright Elle Beau 2022