What do you think of this?

I really don’t know about the validity of the article, but I know that human beings are not naturally monogamus, and no mammal is, so far as I know. Monogamy is something that moralists have tried to foist on human beings through legislation.

I, for one, would love to have several wives, but I don’t think I could deal with more than one woman on PMS, at a time.

I have heard that there are only two animals that are naturally monogamus, and the Swan is supposedly one of them.

September 1, 2008, 7:45 PM EDT

The biggest b.s. about that site is this statement-
“First of all, 75 percent of men do not cheat, and 85 percent of women do not cheat,” said Fisher.

One thing I’ve noted- generally, monogamy for men is a work-in-progress, and monogamy for women is pretty much settled once decided upon. I don’t hold with the percentages stated either.

For me, the lead-in sentence about Jude Law totally detonates my interest and my credence in the article. It says to me that this is an airhead entertainment article.

Don’t cheat youself! Treat yourself!

A: This is a source for reference? “According to Hal Sparks, host of E!‘s “Talk Soup,” cheating happens with both men and women because human beings are not chemically engineered to be monogamous.

“Nature hates two things, virginity and monogamy,” said Sparks. “We are not built that way. You can civilize yourself, you can absolutely bonsai tree your soul, but your nature will be to go forth, be fruitful and multiply at every possible opportunity.”

B: Would you really want your spouse or SO to have to be injected with a monogamy gene in order to stay faithful?

That article was from 2005, millions of men & women have cheated since then. It’s a sad but unfortunate truth; shit happens.

People are more than the sum of their parts, though, and individual nurture and cultural expectations also play a part.

Some people are naturally monogamous. Some people are naturally not. Your mileage may vary.

OK, first who is the expert here? A second rate comic or a scientific observer? If the best the anti-monogamy side can come up with is Hal Sparks then forget Barack Obama, let Urkel run the country.

A marriage is a contract. If you feel you cannot keep your commitment, legally dissolve the contract. This has nothing to do with genetic propensities. There is attraction to people who are not our partners, but we don’t just jump on every person who attracts us (unless we are prepared to spend time in jail) Cheater (like thief or slob) is a negative word because it is a negative/antisocial behavior.

You might also look at fidelity as having an evolutionary component. The social structure is based on what is needed to carry on the species. Fish may have just a momentary interaction and neither male nor female sticks around. Many birds are together the weeks needed to bring chicks to self-sufficiency. While many mammals, like elephants, leave the child-rearing to females, the males are excluded and may only have a few opportunities to mate in a lifetime. (Human males are not willing to pay that price for their freedom)

Because of long immaturity of the human child, they need 2 parents for approx 15 years. This was true even in theneolihic era. Today as culture has become more complex, not only has parental protection become more essential, the family unit has too. The commitment has become one of serial monogamy, but monogamy none the less.

As a man is with one woman the commitment must be to that family unit. If he decides he wishes to change partners, he must leave some of his assets to provide for his 1st family unit. Of course that makes him less desirable to a future mate, oh well. What we abhor in this society is the man who fails his commitments.

@galileogirl: Risposta meravigliosa!