The Myth of Monogamy

Copyright Rod O'Steele © 2005, 2007

rod.osteele@yahoo.com

People are monogamous - right? It is accepted here in the United States and even
our laws reflect our point of view that people are monogamous. As Marshall
MacLuhan said, "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for
insight and understanding."
The Numbers Tell a Story
The Kinsey study of 1948, the granddaddy of sex studies, used face to face
interviews with five thousand men and six thousand women. The study found that
by age 40 approximately half of all married men and more than a quarter of
married women had an extra-pair copulation, an EPC. Isn't that a nice scientific
way of referring to adultery? For the next twenty years, Kinsey was accepted as
gospel when it came to sexual behavior in America.
In the 1960s the sexual revolution was in full swing and researchers wondered if
the attitudes and behavior of Americans had changed with the times. Hite found a
dramatic increase in the percentage of extramarital affairs from Kinsey's
findings. Her study found 72 percent of men married two years or more and 70
percent of women married five years or more had an EPC. The differences between
Hite's and Kinsey's results have been attributed to a shift in the culture and
the different methodology of the two studies. Hite believed she obtained more
accurate results because of the anonymity of her questionnaire compared to
Kinsey's face to face interviews. Other researchers conjectured that the
anonymity resulted in self-selection of respondents and therefore did not have a
valid sample population. In other words, the people drawn to answering the Hite
survey were more likely to have committed adultery than the general population.
They accused Hite of being unscientific for challenging their long-held beliefs.
After all, they knew Kinsey was right. Actually they should have known that
Kinsey had to be wrong. The single largest reason people refused to participate
in Kinsey's study was the question on extra-marital sex. Kinsey s method had to
result in an undercounting of EPCs because that question is what caused people
to drop from the study.
Hite's work stirred the academic pot. Many academically rigorous studies have
since found similar high rates of EPCs. The study by Glass & Wright found that
adultery occurs in 80 percent of all marriages. Other studies have found results
similar to Glass and Wright. One study found the male adultery level by itself
at 80%.
On the other hand, surveys conducted by the University of Chicago have found the
incidence of adultery around 15 to 25 percent. (When a less than scupulous
author is trying to 'prove' people are monogamous, they'll always quote this
study.) Why so low? The Chicago studies, which involve face to face interviews
in the home, actually show how likely people are to lie about their EPC
activities when a spouse is nearby or when they might be linked to the act. The
Chicago studies are completely at odds with every other study, academically
rigorous or not. Rather than show the incidence of adultery is low, the Chicago
studies dramatically demonstrate how likely people are to lie about it. We could
conclude that the 15 to 25 percent of positive responders are those willing to
admit to an EPC when their spouse is present. They probably represent the number
of people who have been caught or those couples with a sexually open lifestyle.
Higamous hogamous, woman monogamous
Hogamous higamous, man is polygamous.
- William James
We have accepted James' view of the duality of sex in mankind. But is it true?
Historically, adultery studies have concluded that men are nearly twice as
likely to cheat as women. But there is a growing body of evidence indicating
women are no more monogamous than men. Several modern studies found that women
under 30 are about as adulterous as men. It is possible the incidence of
adultery for women has always been as high as that of men; they have simply lied
about it? If men have been having affairs they have been having them with
someone. Stephen Beckerman, co-editor of the book Cultures of Multiple Fathers,
cites numerous instances of cultures in which women would proudly list all of
the fathers of their new baby, sometimes as many as forty different men. "This
model of the death-do-us-part, missionary-position couple is just a tiny part of
human history," says anthropologist Kristen Hawkes. "The patterns of human
sexuality are so much more variable."
Extramarital trysts were a way of life for the Canela -- until the encroachment
of outsiders. "Multiple lovers, that's just part of the life. It's recreation,
just like races and running. It's all done in the spirit of joy and fun," says
William Crocker of the Smithsonian Institution. Crocker says the sexual customs
began to disappear after the arrival of missionaries and evangelical Christians
bringing with them shame and prudery. It is undeniable that monogamy is a
recent, evolutionarily speaking, invention and does not correspond with male or
female desires. Monogamy is a socially imposed pattern of behavior.
An interesting study was done by Michelle Alexander at the University of Maine.
In her study one group was promised absolute anonymity. The other group was told
that their answers would be checked with a lie detector. The women who answered
thinking their answers would be verified admitted to twice as much sexual
activity. This corresponds to the difference between men and women's answers in
adultery studies.
Do women feel so much social pressure, even anonymously, that they cut the
reported adultery numbers in half? A recent study found that men averaged eight
lifetime sexual partners and women four. Is that possible? After all, every time
a man had a sexual partner there must have been a woman involved. Or is there a
deeper reason why women hide sexual activity? There is certainly persuasive
evidence that they do. Interestingly, in Alexander's study the men's answers
were the same in both groups, verified and anonymous. Men don't seem to need to
lie about sex, except if their partner might find out.
Anthropologist Helen Fisher, author of The Anatomy of Love: The Natural History
of Monogamy, Adultery and Divorce states it succinctly, "The bottom line is that
the human animal is promiscuous, and it lies about sex." The inescapable
conclusion from the studies over the last 50 years is that man and woman are not
in the least monogamous. Some people, maybe as few as 20% will behave
monogamously but even they feel the urges. Why?
Biology and Evolution
Blame it on biology. Barash and Lipton, the authors of The Myth of Monogamy,
have found that monogamy in the animal kingdom is so rare that those romantic
Hallmark cards with pictures of swans or other types of lovebirds should really
feature a flatworm. Swans may mate for life, but they are not faithful to their
mate. The proof is in the DNA. Researchers tested the offspring of birds and
found that the mother bird's offspring weren't always the father's. About 40
percent of the offspring were fathered by a male other than the female's mate.
In one clutch of six eggs, there were five different fathers. Faced with these
surprising DNA results, researchers put radio transmitters on the females and
found out they were sneaking off to a neighboring nest for a tryst and then
slipping back home. It wasn't the males who were gallivanting around. It was the
females.
Study after study has found that the females have a higher rate of EPCs than
males. Males have to get lucky; females simply choose which male they want.
Studies using genetic testing techniques show that even the most apparently
devoted of partners often stray enjoying the sexual company of strangers. In one
DNA study, 7 of 13 Chimp babies were found to be fathered by males outside the
group. All of these females had been gone from the troop for one day during
their fertile period. In all cases, the females were extremely secretive.
Researchers, such as the Goodall team who almost lived with their chimp
subjects, have never witnessed even one case of an extra-group copulation by any
chimp but the DNA doesn't lie. Half of the offspring were fathered outside the
group. Researchers have noticed the females disappearing but they've never seen,
or even suspected, the copulations.
Other recent studies have shown that female unfaithfulness in humans is just as
natural as men's. Baker and Bellis found that EPCs generally occurred at the
woman's most fertile period. One study found that monogamously paired women
walked more and further during their fertile period than unpaired women. Women
at the height of fertility have been found to wear tighter clothing and expose
more skin. Are these women seeking EPCs even unknowingly? Women are apparently
impelled to seek the mixing of genes, Nature's way of achieving the best genetic
combinations. DNA testing found, that for two separate populations in northern
and southern England, more than 20% of children the social father was not the
genetic father. If you ever wondered why those siblings look so different, there
is a reason. Heaven help us if genetic testing becomes common. There will be a
lot of surprises. Mommy's babies - Daddy's maybes.
If you look at our closest genetic relatives their sexual behavior would make a
back alley hooker blush. The Bonobos, who share 98% of our genetics, engage in a
non-stop sexual free-for-all including incest and same gender sex. And we are
made of the same genetic cloth. Experts used to point to the gibbons as
monogamous animal kingdom relatives until they did genetic studies. Even in
supposedly monogamous gibbons a large percentage of offspring are not related to
the social father. Females stray to gather the best possible genes for their
offspring, while males are driven to father as many offspring by as many females
as often as possible. Most mammal and avian species are socially monogamous,
sharing the burden of raising the young but sex occurs with many partners.
A powerful indictor of human promiscuous mating in biology is sexual dimorphism,
the biology of male and female sex differences, and sexual bimaturism, the later
sexual maturity of males. In monogamous species there is generally little
difference in the size, shape or maturity rates of the two genders. Sexual
dimorphism is strongly correlated with sexual promiscuity. The colorful or
larger males are competing to mate with females. The existence of Secondary
Sexual Characteristics is proof of non-monogamy through natural selection. It is
only by many females selecting the males with those characteristics that they
come to be expressed in the entire population. The greater the difference, the
more powerful the competition and therefore, the more powerful the urge toward
promiscuity. Do you think men and women look very different? Do you notice those
mammaries? Why should you care? You aren't a suckling infant. These differences
are enticements to the competition for mating. Sexual bimaturism, the later
maturity of the male, allows the male to grow larger and stronger before
beginning to compete for females and is only seen in species where polygyny, one
male-many females is common. In our evolutionary history, polygyny and sexual
competition must have been common for these genetic traits to become universal.
Biology overrides social factors in the mating game. A recent study found that
women prefer a certain face in men when they are fertile but a different face in
men when they are not. The choices were consistent in women of all cultures,
races and ages. They preferred a chiseled look when fertile but a softer look
when not. This preference was so invariant that only deep seated biology can
account for it. Another study found that women, and females of many other
species, preferred males who are symmetrical, that is both sides of the body are
the same, even if they were in a relationship with another and in preference to
factors such as wealth, age, even physical attractiveness. This preference in
humans is so great that women report more orgasms with 'symmetrical' men. Not
surprisingly the study also found that symmetrical men had a much higher rate of
EPCs than asymmetrical men. The biological urge trumps even strong social
factors such as wealth and age.
A study in Evolution and Human Behavior, found that men and women with more
'attractive' voices as rated by the opposite sex had more sexual partners, began
sex earlier, and had a greater frequency of EPCs. Once again biology trumps
other social factors. The authors speculate that an attractive voice played a
role in finding sexual partners especially at night when women were out seeking
that special partner. Women choose, men cooperate.
An aside about orgasms here. Biologists have wondered why human females have
orgasms. They don't seem necessary, evolutionarily speaking. But if women have
more orgasms with genetically preferred men, as above, then maybe orgasms are
nature's way of rewarding women for mating in the most genetically advantageous
way. Pick the best genes, get the best baby and an orgasm to boot. Maybe all of
those frigid women are simply women who have settled for perceived genetically
disadvantaged men. These women don't have orgasms because their men do not
excite their deep-seated biologic desires for symmetry and social dominance.
If there were any doubt that women choose while men cooperate this study should
put it to rest. Men and women were randomly asked one of three questions on a
college campus. As an introduction the researcher would say they had seen the
other person around campus and thought they were attractive. Then they would
ask: Would you go on a date with me tonight? Would you come to my apartment
tonight? or third, Would you go to bed with me tonight? 50% of women accepted
the date. 6% agreed to go to the apartment. 0% agreed to go to bed. Among men,
50% accepted the date, the same percentage as women, 69% agreed to go to the
woman's apartment and 75% agreed to go to bed. Of the 25% of men who declined
the sex, most offered some excuse, e.g. an existing date with a girlfriend,
maybe in the hopes of a rain check. Without the likelihood of their social
partner finding out, the percentage of males accepting sex with a complete
stranger would have been much higher. Whether she is choosing forty or four to
help her get the best genetics, it is the woman who chooses.
There are several interesting evolutionary confirmations of female promiscuity.
The most convincing might be sperm competition. The racing behavior of human
sperm has never made sense in a monogamous mating. After all, any sperm which
found the egg would pass on the male's genetic material, not just the fastest.
Having sperm which waited for a longer period for an egg to descend would
increase the likelihood of conception in monogamy. But if the sperm were
competing with another male's sperm, then speed is critical. Men have also
developed sperm which is spermicidal toward other men's sperm. Both of these
adaptations would only be an evolutionary advantage if women regularly mated
with more than one man during her fertile period. They make no sense in
monogamous mating and only continuous selection over a long period would lead to
them becoming inherent in man. These adaptations are present in all men. That's
theory. The facts - the Baker and Bellis study found that 30% of women had sex
with two different men within 24 hours of each other. (The gang bang may
actually be an evolutionary preference of women inviting strong sperm
competition to fertilize her precious egg.) Anthropologists are starting to
conclude that slutty behavior by women may be entirely natural and
pro-survival. Baker and Bellis studies found that over 20% of children were
fathered by another male than the social mate by actual genetic testing. You do
the math.
An interesting aside here about erotica. One thought as to the power of erotica
on males is the sperm competition hypothesis. The presence of erotic activity
conveys the basic message that sex is going on here which activates the male's
own desire to compete for the privilege of fertilization of the female. Watching
sex makes the male's competitive juices turn on. This may turn on the same
system that prehistorically turned on when a male witnessed another mating pair
and made him want to have sex with that female right away to get in the hunt for
offspring.
Another factor leading us to believe monogamy is a myth is mate-guarding.
Mate-guarding only exists when there is a chance of EPCs. Truly monogamous
species do not exhibit mate guarding, no need. But mate guarding is common among
bird and mammal species and almost universal among Homo Sapiens. An
anthropological review recorded that only 4 of 849 human societies studied did
not show mate-guarding. The wide spread male preoccupation with mate-guarding
fits the expectation of female EPC. Such concern is not without foundation: one
British study found the less time a woman spent with her male partner the more
likely she was to have copulated with another male. An interesting side note.
Female menstrual synchrony, that is females living closely together become
fertile at the same time, might be an evolutionary answer to mate guarding
preventing a male from guarding all of the fertile females and thus allowing
some females to seek EPCs while the male is busy guarding elsewhere. This is
another piece of evidence that polygyny, one male many females, has been common
enough historically that women have evolutionarily adapted to that pattern.
Many species advertise their sexual fertility, either visually or through scent.
Concealed ovulation is common among primates whose females have multiple
partners. Human ovulation is concealed. Concealed ovulation probably developed
for several reasons. It prevents mate guarding allowing a female to obtain EPCs
without her mate knowing. It would allow mating with multiple males thereby
enhancing sperm competition as well as the enhanced opportunity to spread the
fatherhood and obtain support and assistance from the would-be fathers. It is
not uncommon in some species for a female to convince several males they are the
father in order to obtain support and resources from multiple males.
Male preference, in many different species for virgins or very young females has
a basis in the desire to mate with females that have not already mated
guaranteeing the paternity of subsequent offspring. This is a way to circumvent
female extra-curricular mating; a female virgin is guaranteed to not have any
other EPCs. Mate guarding is associated with virgin preference for obvious
reasons. Physicians in Japan and covertly in the Middle East have long had a
booming business in re-creating virgins.
Many penile structures in male animals are built to flush out sperm from
competitors. The human male glans is structured to penetrate easily and has a
ring which serves to scrape the vagina on the back stroke which would flush out
competing male's sperm. Testicle size is correlated with sperm competition.
Human males have a relatively large testicles compared to body size. They are
nowhere as large as chimps but human don't appear to be as promiscuous as
chimps. Goodall observed one female chimp mate 84 times with seven different
males during one estrous cycle. British researchers have documented a direct
correlation between testicle size and individual behavior in humans. Working
with about 100 subjects, scientists found that males with larger testicles
reported higher rates of promiscuity. The only conclusion is that biology is
overriding social factors in the sexual behavior of males.
Just like most birds and mammals, human evolution has adapted mankind to female
multiple mating strategies for reproductive success. Don't blame men because
they act like they do sexually. Females control the breeding dynamics and men
have simply adapted to women's behavior. Females mate promiscuously during their
fertile period and the best sperm wins the race to the egg. Then the female
mates repeatedly with her 'social' partner to convince him of the parentage of
the offspring and tying him to help her with the raising of the offspring. It is
a very common strategy in birds and mammals, including humans. So, the female
will mate promiscuously in order to obtain the best genetics for her offspring.
For instance, females almost never have EPCs with bachelors, who are already
rejects, but will compete for already mated males, usually those with the best
genetics whatever that is for that species. Many studies have shown that a
multi-mating female produces healthier, stronger, larger offspring. Genetics
favors non-monogamy. But once pregnant, she will mate with her social mate
exclusively in order to tie him to her during the period of pregnancy and
offspring rearing. Females are periodic cheaters. Most of the time, they crave
attachment to a supportive male even if they stray occasionally while fertile
bringing back another male's offspring.
Even in those societies which encourage many men to help the father produce
the baby, the parents are attached to each other in strong bonds. Women have an
enormous investment involved with a pregnancy and have more at risk without
support. Among the Ache Indians of South America a child with a father has a .6%
chance of death before age 15 but a fatherless child has a 9.1% chance. A female
human needs three factors to be present in order to cheat: she is fertile, she
is away from her social mate, and the new male is perceived to have a greater
genetic and dominance preference than her usual mate. A British study found that
the more a female was separated from her mate the more likely she was to have an
EPC. Males of course, are always capable of sperm competition. Men have little
invested beyond five minutes, ten if the woman is lucky, and a few spurts of
semen quickly replaced. There is no genetic advantage to monogamy. Males are
ever-ready cheaters, and the more the merrier, or at least, the better chance
they have to win the sperm derby and pass on their DNA. It takes two to do the
EPC tango, and humans love to dance.
All of this might explain the older man younger woman relationships which are
common and yet highly despised by older women. Women seek resources and good
genes from their mate. It is probable that the grey hair which makes a man
distinguished looking is simply genetic proof that his genes have longevity and
his relative dominance standing is proof of his ability to supply resources.
Diamonds are a girls best friend. Men prefer young women who are in the prime of
their breeding abilities as being more likely to last long enough to raise their
young. Remember, these biologic preferences have been bred into humans over the
past million years when the average life span was 35 years or so. A grey haired
man was a real survivor and a thirty-year-old woman might not last long enough
to raise her young successfully. Again, our genes trump our social surroundings.

Isn't it interesting how all of these facts seem to tie together? Women's
reproductive strategy is to seek dominant symmetric partners especially while
fertile, enhancing the chances of getting the best offspring. Men have adapted
to this by being ever-ready, they never know when the chance to copulate will
appear and by evolving to better their chances in sperm competition. Then women
tie their social partner to them with monogamous mating to convince him of the
parentage of the offspring and co-opt him in their upbringing. It would sound
like a soap opera except that it is all backed with solid science. No wonder
those crazy soap opera plots appeal to women. Infants have infancy, adults have
adultery.
New research has revealed a surprising risk factor for extinction: monogamy.
Brashares found two factors studied correlated with local extinctions in the
Ghanaian reserves. The first is population isolation. The second is harem size:
mammals that were monogamous or had small harems were more prone to extinction.
It is possible that Somerset Maugham was correct when he commented, "You know of
course that the Tasmanians, who never committed adultery, are now extinct."
Monogamy appears to be an evolutionary reject, especially for large bodied
species. Is it any wonder that humans mate promiscuously? Monogamy is
contra-survival.
All of this leads to the inescapable conclusion that mankind is by biology and
evolutionary design sexually promiscuous. Both genders are promiscuous, in
different ways. Men and women can no more control these impulses than they can
the impulses of hunger or pain. The impulse to promiscuity is as powerful as
hunger. Some people consider monogamy to be beautiful and moral. But some people
consider a hunger strike in which a person starves themselves to death to a
beautiful and moral gesture. I'm not sure I agree. Why are we starving
ourselves?
What Does it all Mean?
Then why does the myth of monogamy exist at all? Women would appear to prefer
dominant, genetically superior men. That would lead to polygyny, one man, many
women. When a man commanded the resources to provide for those women,
historically, this is exactly what happened. Polygyny grew as agriculture
created a surplus of resources. But polygyny is extremely hard on males. For
every male with ten wives there are nine males without a wife at all. As
civilization prospered more men became capable of supporting a family, the
conflict would have become sharper between the 'superior' men monopolizing the
females and the men without. One strong possibility is that monogamy was a
compromise created by males to avoid bloodshed in the competition for women.
Monogamy may in fact be male imposed rather than female imposed on our society.
Non-agrarian societies generally are much less likely to practice monogamy and
often have quite free sexual mores. But certainly, males who possess the
resources continue to possess extra females usually in the form of unofficial
wives, mistresses. This phenomenon is widely accepted. Males still desire the
freedom of seeking EPCs even though they support the structure which guarantees
accessibility to at least one female.
One theory has female preference for monogamy related to mate stealing. If
another female convinces the male of parentage he may abandon his mate for the
new female with his offspring. Mate stealing is common in many species. In
human societies in which mate stealing isn t allowed, female acceptance of
non-monogamy has been more common.
Why then do we think we are monogamous when it is obvious we aren't? At the same
time the studies were finding up to 80 percent of the respondents had been party
to adultery, 85 percent of respondents stated that monogamy was their ideal. The
ideal of monogamy is so deeply ingrained in our current society that people
don t even question the basic assumption, is it right? Even though 80 percent of
marriages fail to meet this minimum standard it is still held out as a valid
standard. How in the world can any standard which fails in 4 out of 5 marriages
be considered a valid minimum standard of behavior? Talk about setting people up
to fail. Even the experts, who have their faces rubbed in these facts, utter at
the end of their studies pious platitudes about learning to control our
impulses. After spending their entire book showing that monogamy simply doesn't
exist in humans, Barash and Lipton spend the last three pages arguing for
monogamy. Their argument is along these lines: Monogamy is not natural to
humans. There is no evidence that society is better off when monogamy is the
sole accepted pattern. In fact, most societies have permitted polygamy and they
seem happier. But, since our society has decided monogamy is better, and
civilization is the process of overcoming our brutish behaviors (They make no
argument to show why non-monogamy is brutish. This is thrown in without proof
and in contradiction to all of the evidence already presented in the book) then
we should just accept it and be monogamous. What an exemplar of logic that
argument is...
One woman responded to this article and argued that it was all wrong. She felt
that humans had to find a 'higher' type of sex which would bond us monogamously.
She supported this view with nascent brain chemistry experiments showing that
men were really pleased by an EPC and then felt 'down' for two weeks afterwards.
She argued that the two week downer adversely affected the primary relationship.
I see several problems with her line of reasoning. Why is monogamous sex somehow
higher? She assumes it to be true and then finds dubious support in brain
chemistry. In fact, studies of real behavior shows that men do like EPCs. But
many men also report feeling more loving towards their partner afterwards. There
is no 'let down.' Monogamy is not a higher type of sex or a better type of sex.
It is simply one possible way. Anthropological studies strongly support the view
that in societies encouraging polygamy, men and women are happier in their
sexual relations. Many of our societal sexual problems are probably related to
monogamy, not the other way round.
The human species is preferentially and biologically polygynous, but socially
monogamous and when conditions are ripe, avidly adulterous, all at once. The
question our current society should confront but refuses to is, what can we
really expect of marriage? 85 percent of women say they expect their spouse to
not cheat. But up to 80 percent of those men will cheat. This gap between
expectation and performance creates a situation in which too many marriages
break up under the exposure of the infidelity, again, a situation not uncommon
in other animals. Of those people who divorce because of adultery, 80 percent of
both adulterers and spouses say they regret the divorce. 10 percent of those
adulterous liaisons wind up in marriage. 70 percent of these marriages end in
divorce. In other words, most people would be much better off continuing a
marriage than ending it because of adultery. In a historical context this makes
sense since mankind is suited to promiscuous reproduction. Yet families continue
to break up because one person was a philanderer.
The Semitic religions have indoctrinated people to believe that only monogamy is
right. Men want their women to be monogamous while they seek those EPCs. Women
want their men to be monogamous while they mate for the best genetics. The human
animal is promiscuous. All of the moralizing, preaching and ranting won't change
that. It isn't bad men or women who stray; it is your neighbor, your teacher,
your president, your preacher, your spouse. It is going to happen to the
majority of us. We might as well rail against gravity as against the nature of
man and woman. We should allow our partners the freedom their nature demands and
give them the acceptance of their humanity so that they can come home and tell
the truth. It is the lies that are harmful, not the sexual act. But with our
current unrealistic views the lies are inevitable. It doesn't have to be this
way. Nearly 1,000 of the 1,154 past or present human societies studied have
accepted polygamy in one form or another. Ours could as well.
The man who resides in a large urban area and who never once, during thirty
years or more of married life, is sorely tempted to engage in adultery for
purposes of sexual variety is to be suspected of being biologically and or
psychologically abnormal: and he who frequently has such desires and who
occasionally and unobtrusively carries them into practice is well within the
normal healthy range. - Havelock Ellis
Isn't it funny that when a person fights their basic biological instincts, as in
anorexia, we consider it a mental illness. But when we cooperate with our normal
biological sexual instincts the moral authorities have taught that it is a human
failing. Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be
restrained. - William Blake
What we can change is our expectations. We don't need to continue punishing
people and breaking up families for normal behavior, normal as in 80 percent of
families. Other societies at other times have been able to reconcile the
wandering eye with the demands of family life. Ford and Beach found that 39% of
studied societies not only accepted, they approved of extramarital sexual
liaisons. Most of the world's people's around the globe have arranged things so
that marriage and sexual exclusivity are not the same thing. Among the Lepcha of
the Himalayas a man is expected to object only if his wife has sex with another
man in his presence. Monogamy simply doesn t serve mankind well historically or
currently. Maybe the brain chemists will find a way to turn off man s desires or
channel them towards monogamy. But why? Polygamous relationship can be just as
fulfilling as monogamous. This is the flaw in the current thinking about
monogamy/polygamy. Our current thinking starts with the unfounded assumption
that monogamy is better. That simply isn t true. Polygamous relationships, in
societies that accept them, have been just as pleasurable and just as fulfilling
as monogamous, and a lot more fun. They have been more natural to human desires
and therefore, easier to maintain. If we start from the viewpoint that 87% of
human societies have been polygamous, happily so, and then look at the data, it
quickly becomes apparent that polygamy is better. It is only our current
ingrained Religious prejudice against polygamy that skews our thinking.

I would like to know your thoughts, especially if you think there is a weakness
to or an improvement which could be made to my argument. Let me know what you
thought. I answer all comments. Please make sure your email address is correct
and that you are set up to receive email from me.

================================================================================
I answer all feedback. Please make sure your address is correct and you are set
up to accept email from me. Please enter your email address if you'd like me to
write back.
You can e-mail me directly rod.osteele@yahoo.com
Copyright Rod O'Steele © 2005, 2006, 2007