Do women prefer polyandry to monogamy?

Posted by James, 16 Dec 08

Want to know why females tend to have multiple partners?

Well, an international study by British and Japanese researchers from the Universities of Exeter (UK), Okayama (Japan) and Liverpool (UK) says that females evolved to mate with more partners to avoid producing offspring carrying the “selfish gene” from the male. Apparently, some males carry this 'selfish gene' on their X chromosome causing sperm carrying the Y-chromosome to fail. This means one thing … more and more daughters born.

Anyway, the study was based on the fruit-fly Drosophila pseudoobscura. Hoooow-ever, the researchers think that their findings have relevance to some primates too. Wonder how they figure out which males were clean!

Your perfect partner could be online right now...

What are you looking for?

But since this extends to some of our ‘ancestors’, could the above findings be have some relevance in understanding the human reproduction? Motivation of fleeing from the ‘selfish gene’ aside, do you think women (humans that is), prefer having multiple partners to monogamy?

29 responses to "Do women prefer polyandry to monogamy?"

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  1.   serenity33 says:
    Posted: 11 Aug 10

    Peachberry. I don't know what Bible you are reading but I graduated from Seminary and have read the entire Bible and looked up your passages and I see no proof for women to have more than one husband. I think you need to update your Bible or something and be careful of isegesis because that can get you into a lot of trouble when quoting the Bible. From a psychological perspective, I think women have as they have gained more equality in Western society, especially the United States, they are picking up the multiple partner selfish attitude that men traditionally and historically had. The problem is that the world is changing when it comes to relationships. Historically most men and women just used each other for procreation or sexual enjoyment. But today's society is much more complex with much more stressors on it. There are so many factors to deal with in every day life that unless you are using the opposite sex just for sexual pleasure, you can only handle one opposite sex relationship and get to true intimacy and true love because people are so complex and time is shorter than it ever has been for couples to actually get to know each other deeply. My parents are celebrating their 54 wedding anniversary and are still very much in love and sexually active and never once cheated in all their lives. And they also know each other's personality's better than most couples ever were. And studies show that those that those married couples that are in happy marriages and really know each other well and deeply, they never stray and love each other more than anyone else. So it is only our immorality and hedonism that would cause us to want more than one person. Not a deeper desire for true intimacy and depth. But then most people in our society don't want true intimacy and depth because they like sinfulness and hedonism and being more on the shallow side. That's what our media and society values and the corporations are quite happy because hedonists spend much more money on hedonistic pleasures than those who aren't into materialism or hedonism. Imagine if you didn't date all the time and all the money you spend on dates as well as clubs, alcohol, drugs, motels, expensive cars, expensive clothing, etc. as the list goes on and on. Plus studies show conclusively that a children raised by two positive role-models are better than single household parenting. I also saw it first hand at the abused children's home and the delinquent chilren's home that I worked at. Almost all the kids at both places were raised by single parents. Plus two parents in a household bring in more income and can give more attention to kids than a single parent which is maybe why the studies turned out the way they did. But back on topic, I do agree that the average woman that just wants men for shallow things will want multiple men, maybe not in marriage because of all the hassle it could cause but at least to have sex with. But why should they be any different than the average man in that capacity? Both parties are guilty in general.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  2.   peachperry says:
    Posted: 12 Jan 10

    CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death. If any person shall commit any willful and premeditated murder, which is manslaughter committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty; he shall be put to death. If any person slayeth another with axe or dagger who hath no weapon to defend himself; he shall be put to death. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by lying in wait privily for him or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any persons life; he shall be put to death. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmothers right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely, attempt to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of their Natural Mother or Lodgemother after being chastened, at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death. If any unmarryed man above twentysix years of age and under thirtynine years of age shall refuse wedlock for above thirteen days with any marryed woman or unmarryed woman, the said marryed woman or unmarryed woman being under thirtynine years of age; he shall be put to death. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than both her husbands or husband; she shall be put to death. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  3.   peachperry says:
    Posted: 12 Jan 10

    5th PAGE. Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path. That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world. And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact. The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a womans option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man. Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C. League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D. Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk. Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and historys final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C. And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked Frances attempt to seize New York so as to split Englands colonies in twain. Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism. Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant. Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together. THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY. THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI. THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY. THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  4.   peachperry says:
    Posted: 12 Jan 10

    4th PAGE. Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth. Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611. The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman. But the New Testament gives a woman three choices. 1st Choice: Virgin woman without wedlock. 2nd Choice: Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child. Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children. Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child. Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with second born male child & succeeding male children. 3rd Choice: Virgin woman with two husbands in wedlock without child. Virgin woman with two husbands in wedlock with female child or female children. Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child. Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with second born male child & succeeding male children. A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands. But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a Lutheran and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a Lutheran Church. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church! A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denominations discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time. Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  5.   peachperry says:
    Posted: 12 Jan 10

    3rd PAGE. Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611. Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611. Genesis 3:20 King James 1611. The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means man in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means life in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life. Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611. Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband. 1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611. A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife. 1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611. A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife. Titus 1:6 King James 1611. An elder can have only one wife. 1 Timothy 5:9 King James 1611. Elders are not to provide for widows who have only had one husband. The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522. Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband. To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son. Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611. Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  6.   peachperry says:
    Posted: 12 Jan 10

    2nd PAGE. Luke 1:28 King James 1611. Luke 1:31 King James 1611. Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611. In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Marys womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a womans firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God. Luke 2:23 King James 1611. Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611. And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman. Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611. Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611. And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus sisters. Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611. Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611. Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King Davids son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King Davids son Nathan. Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611. Came in unto her means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judahs first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judahs second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  7.   peachperry says:
    Posted: 12 Jan 10

    1st PAGE. Christian Wedlock. QUESTION: Can a woman have more than two husbands? ANSWER: No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. Thats it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man. 1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III). Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria). Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry. 1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611. What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows: A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh. Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  8.   Member says:
    Posted: 30 Dec 09

    I strongly believe that both sexes are polygamous by design of nature, and judging by the responses above I can see that the majority are of the same view - even those who have expressed a preference for a monogamous relationship I noticed that such preferences are ostensibly qualified by other factors ( STDs, economics, religion, social acceptance etc.) Perhaps advance in Science & Medicine has tilted the balance in our favor temporary . However the long term effect of such advances are yet to be determined. Who knows whether AIDS and other STDs are Nature's weapons of Natural Selection and Balance where only the fittest were meant to survive ?

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  9. Posted: 26 Nov 09

    Well DAMMMMN ........i would hope one day that when i choose a mate she can be monogamous. I don't have time for cheating or wanna be with other women than my own woman . When a man who can't satisfied his woman than there is a problem in the relationship so you both be better off going your seperate way.

    Like or Dislike: or 1 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  10.   Triccinicci says:
    Posted: 11 Nov 09

    Wow shwiddle! I guess he was handed his head on a plate, lol! Can you explain the dicotomy of Venus Fly Trap syndrome and the Black Widow's mating habits would be appreciated too!

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  11.   shwiddle says:
    Posted: 09 Nov 09

    I feel some better now!

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  12.   shwiddle says:
    Posted: 09 Nov 09

    Ichibod, you are an imbecile. First, Polygamy means many marriage(or sexual partners), it is not gender specific. Monogamy is single marriage(or single sexual partners), and again, it is not gender specific. Polyandry means many men, and refers to a practice of marriage where one woman has several husbands. Polygyny means many women, and refers to the practice of one man having several wives. Second, STD's are spread through sexual contact, period. If one man has sex with many women he is actually MORE likely to spread STD's than a woman having sex with several men. This is because transmission factors are considerably higher when the habitat of vagina vs. penis is considered. Thirdly, women being regarded as property has stemmed historically from many factors, not the least of which is simply men's greater size and strength. It is a form of insecurity and possession that men justify through many means and defend in many ways. It is domination pure and simple, without rational foundation. Whether the origins are due to men's recognition of their role in fathing offspring,due to the intention of offering security and protection for their future generations, or due to misassignation of their own own fallibilities (bend toward polygamy), the result is oppression of the female of the species, with all its dire consequences (i.e rape, physical abuse, illegitimate children, and murder). Anonymous, you are misinformed. Males outnumber females on a 1.01-1 ratio. One theory on why males are more predominant at birth (1.07-1) is that the male is genetically more prone to life threatening conditions. The only phase of life where women outnumber men in standard society is in the latter years of life (.078-1). In other words, nature understands that men are defective from birth and has a built in safeguard to insure they do not perish.

    Like or Dislike: or 2 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  13.   Anonomyous says:
    Posted: 30 Aug 09

    I believe that marraige and monogamy both evoleved out of necessity, as oposed to what many says religious and social pressures. Lets take a look at our own history. When we were forest dwellers, a pregnant women was really vulnerable, she was weak, tired and of course, she was precious, casue she is now carrying the next generation in her. So, to protect her, slowly the concept of marraige evolved. It naturally put women in the needing place and males in the providing shoes. It was generally seen that most males did not have enough enough resources to have more then one wife, and from the wifes point of view, more then one husband would only make her a sex object, she wont be protcted and provided for by either of them carefully. Thus, monogamy evolved. One interesting point to be noted here is that demanding is easier then providing, i mean all females can demand protection, physicall and financial, from thier counterparts, but not all men had the ability to provide them. So, slowly, polygamy, more preciously polyginy evolved. But in this present age, the concept of a male being needed to protect a female is obsolete to some extent, as a result, the previously seen monogamous wife notion is threatened. But one interesting theory I have about the future is that, in future, we will have a even large scale polyginy society. We all know that females are simpply outnumbering males. Open relations are simply too complicated for general people. Now one plausible way can be no relatioon, pure sex, but i the coming days when resources are running out soon, i believe for survival, both females and males need to be together as staying seperated requires more resources. Now in that way, the only option left (to solve the problem of more females then males) is POLYGINNY. * I love my gf and I want to remain in a monogamy. * If I hurt anyones feelinh, specially females...please forgvie me, men and female are both needy in thier own ways, its just my nature of explanation only stated one side.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  14.   Ichibod says:
    Posted: 08 Jul 09

    Let's make sure we understand that the article mentions 'polyandry', not polygamy. NubianGem made the most sense to me. I agree with you completely. Many of you mentioned religion. I believe that's part of it, but I doubt any of you understand religion's influence on various customs and traditions in people lives (nor do many of you really care about religion in lieu of your comments). Let me put it this way. Monogamy is having one wife or female partner. Polygamy, as was mentioned in some comments (not in the article), is a man with more than one wife or female partner. Me personally, I would like to come home to a woman (or women) that haven't already been jizzed in or on by someone else regularly or on occasion. Not even after she's had a hot bath. Well there's condoms? Yea, but no man was born wearing a condom, therefore they were never meant to be a factor of life or the reproductive process. Then you have STDs to be concerned about. How do STDs spread? Through polyandry, the practice of having multiple partners not necessarily to yourself. Monogamy, as well as polygamy, both deal with trust and faith in one another. These concepts are natural and not recent phenomenon. And neither is love or loyalty. Early people didn't just decide to consider women personal property for no reason. They were however considered personal for a reason. Considering women property was a way to have already existing laws protect husband's rights regarding them, seeing as though women are people too with their own lives, minds, and ability to choose. It would have been cool if a man wanted a woman to himself and that woman wanted him to herself. But if he chose monogamy and she chose polyandry, a law regarding property would at least have any man sleeping with that woman considered a thief... and her considered a harlot or witch for not being raped (but I digress). We as humans have the ability to do millions of things. We can even kill each other. However, does that mean we should kill more than one person in a lifetime? Murder is wrong, and there are plenty of logical reasons to support that theory universally amongst all people throughout time; just as there are logical reasons to support monogamy, and even polygamy. Norms are chosen based on how various practices effect societies as a whole. Why is rape bad if men, by nature, should be able to sleep as many woman as they feel according to nature? Because of another old as humanity concept called a conscience. I'm sure all women can attest to being glad that isn't just some phenomena or some old religious tenet unprotected by law. Ofcourse, men like the idea that women want us and it would be sweet to have a choice of 1, 2, or 10 women to bang on the regular. But just think in our society, how much work could we get done if we engaged in such practices, in a manner that would satisfy all parties envolved? What type of jealousies and dissension amongst our personals would we encounter trying to juggle many of them at one time? Even cultures and religions where polygamy is legal set limits, and not every man in such cultures have multiple wives. As NubianGem suggested, not all men are "able to provide for all of his wives" and not all parties envolved are equipped to "respectfully know of one another and be prepared to work together for the sake of the family". That leaves us with polyandry. A practice that deals very little with love, loyalty, and faith. The foundations of peace and true happiness. The very things we as humans use to get along and survive. You can only hope to trust the person or people you choose to sleep with then. In the end, it's up to the individual to decide. Some men practice polyandry just as much as some women, so it's not just women. I prefer monogamy... unless I end up with some Hugh Heffner money.

    Like or Dislike: or 3 ()
    Reply to this comment
  15.   Smile4242 says:
    Posted: 31 Mar 09

    Monogamy, whether you think it is a good thing or bad thing is actually a relatively recent phenomenon, if you look back at history thousands of years and look at many different cultures. One of monogamy's roots come from the concept that women are property and are not permitted to have sex with anyone other than their husband without his permission, since he is the rightful owner of the woman. Men were allowed to have more than one woman, but woman could not because they were property. Then, in interest of equality, men were eventually forced to follow the same rules (i.e. only have sex with their wife) to make it fair. But what people forget is that there was a time before that, and cultures that did not embrace the concept of women as property. In these cultures (good examples are some aborigine tribes), where sex and marriage were not connected. People got married because they loved each other, and people had sex because they wanted to have sex. It was common practice to have sex with one's friends, and have the husband watch the children while the wife goes have sex with a male friend. The men, of course, had the same freedom. What is interesting is that their culture changed once the concept of ownership was taught to them by the Europeans. Once that happened, then men started forbidding their wifes from having sex outside the marriage, since she "belonged" to the man. History aside, people tend to want what they are taught to want. If society says that monogamy is the correct way, and imposes penalties to discourage other forms of relationships, then monogamy will be what most people practice. If having a harem of wives is normal for your time and culture, then that is what would be practiced by many. If a culture permitted sex outside of marriage (like some native tribes practiced), then that would be considered the correct and normal way. I think that a lot of what controls people's behavior around sex and marriage has a lot to do with societal & religious pressures. Humans are very flexible beings. We can be monogamous, and we can have multiple sex partners. We can be straight, gay or even bisexual. We can be dominant or submissive or somewhere in between. We can love sex or hate sex. We can love one person exclusively, or we can love everyone. The beauty of humans is that they can create a world they want, and every generation and every culture and every person has their own unique way.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: or 1 ()
    Reply to this comment
  16.   ariana says:
    Posted: 17 Mar 09

    i believe in this...it take a man to make a man

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  17.   VA_Princess says:
    Posted: 25 Jan 09

    The question is interesting since that for as long as any of us can remember, the typical belief is that men are going to be men and sleep around and it makes then a stud, while women are supposed to be more proper and respectful. When the reality is and has been for a very long time that women sleep around just as much as men many tend to be a lot less inhibited about it. What a person is looking for depends on that individual. Be it man or woman, they are looking for what they are looking for. Women want monogamy just as much as men do. We want to find that right person and be with them and only them.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  18.   kyttikat11 says:
    Posted: 31 Dec 08

    I personally think human beings were not meant to be monogamous. We are animals (mammals to be exact) with animal instincts. We are not going to be attracted to just one mate for our entire lives. I believe some people (like my parents) can and will be with just one partner for the rest of their lives. But for me, it just doesn't seem natural. I agree, you have to be cautious with all the STD's out there in this day and age. But as the sexual beings that we are, it's only natural to have more than one partner in a life time.

    Like or Dislike: or 1 ()
    Reply to this comment
  19.   Vanilla3657 says:
    Posted: 28 Dec 08

    I can only speak for myself. I will do what I have to do to feel wanted, sexy, and satisfied. I give the man I'm with an over abundance of chances and when all chances are used and I know it's time to move on, I will. If the guy I'm with is open to an open relationship and can still make me feel wanted, etc. I'm down with that too. But I am basicly loyal to one. The guy has to be honest and let me know whats going on so I don't walk in on an open relationship that I didn't know was going on. If I think I'm the only one, finding out that I'm not. . . I feel lied to and lying has no place in any close relationship. No matter how many people are included in that relationship.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  20.   indigo_eyes says:
    Posted: 27 Dec 08

    monogamy? yes i definitely know what it is, but the men that i chose to spend my time with didn't practice it. as for women who choose or desire not to be... it all depends. if i feel a devotion to a man then i'm in the relationship faithfully until it's run it's course. i am always looking and wishing for that "forever" and i still believe it does exsist. unfortunately for myself, that forever is still a search i'm practicing. i have been "single life" minded in my day where i did have my choice of dates, not that i slept with every one of them, but i had the choice, that's the point. in a nutshell, it's about whatever completes that person and since none of us are the same then to each his own. i know personally i want a one woman man because i am a one man woman... good luck to everyone on here looking for that special one... happy holidays and a very happy new year to all...

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  21.   justcliff says:
    Posted: 26 Dec 08

    Well, I'm gonna give this a male slant, just what you ladies needed...lol. I'm all about the ploy aspect of life, shocked huh? Especially within a commited relationship, yeah, that's what I said. People were never meant to be mongamous, religion did that. It's natural for people to be attracted to and to desire people other than their BF's & GF's, wives and husbands. In fact, I have been in relationships where we enjoyed the pleasures of others, always as a couple, and it has been amazingly fun and much easier than the typical look but don't touch mentality. The one issue is that you have to have a strong, commited, and trusting relationship to pull it off, but if you can, it's better to "cheat" together than to do it behind someones back. It's just one mans opinion but no matter how bashed I get, I'm sticking with it...lol.

    Like or Dislike: or 1 ()
    Reply to this comment
  22.   luvanurse says:
    Posted: 25 Dec 08

    I personally do not have any problems with polygamy. I am agreeing with jraqbbit1982, if all parties are okay with the being with each other then why should't you go for it. Some people just aren't monogamous. I prefer monogomy but who knows how I will feel down the line.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  23. Posted: 25 Dec 08

    I think that it depends on the woman. I agree with above that it is a decision that has to be made daily. I personally had no problem staying faithful to my man for years. There were possible temptations but i stayed true and didn't let them faze me. When the relationship took a horrible turn for the worst,however, i was desperatly seeking the attention and eventually gave in to it. I don't believe that we as humans (not just us woman) were meant to be monogamous. But i know that i love having a faithful sound relationship that is 100%mon. If monogamous is what you want you have to continually make the relationship work and keep the spark, or eventually one of you will stray. and if polygimous is what you want then it needs to be ok'd with all parties.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  24. Posted: 22 Dec 08

    What's natural for one may not be natural for another.....But I will agree with NubianGem here.....STD's are nothing to play around with (even WITH protection). I think it is partial about self-control here....nothing wrong with doing the "single n' minglin" routine but if you are "taken it there" with every guy you date then that is just playing sexual Russian roulette. Not a game for either gender to get into. As for me, I like to keep sex out of the picture for as long as I can....NOT for religious reasons....just for the sake of safety (GET TESTED PEOPLE!!!).

    Like or Dislike: or 0 ()
    Reply to this comment
  25.   Anonymous26 says:
    Posted: 22 Dec 08

    Each woman is different, and u really can't speak for all women in general. For myself it all depends on the guy.

    Like or Dislike: or 0 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  26.   strange86 says:
    Posted: 20 Dec 08

    I've heard that the "7 year itch" is true, which would further support the argument for women not being monogomous. Supposedly, after 7 years, the child, on a very basic level, is able to care for itself. That being the case, both parents no longer need to be there for the child (again, the child can take care of itself on a basic level--I'm not saying that the parents have to instict to completely dismiss the child). So the females go look for another partner...I've never been in a relationship for 7 years, but I don't know if I could see myself staying monogomous...I just don't think nature intended it that way. It's all a result of religious "influence"--if that's what you wish to call it--that has made us believe that being completely monogomous is completely natural. I think it's a bunch crap.

    Like or Dislike: or 3 (0)
    Reply to this comment
  27.   NubianGem says:
    Posted: 17 Dec 08

    This world is too damn crazy to have multiple men in my life. I prefer monogamy and love, if I am not receiving the fruits of what makes for a good relationship to me, than I will not waste my time. Animals are polyandrous and I can see why but women, come on now. I am not against polygamy though assuming the traditional customs are to be followed accordingly. First the alpha should be able to provide for all of his wives and secondly all will respectfully know of one another and be prepared to work together for the sake of the family. If your just random willy nilly and cant be faithful to one man at a time your nasty and I hope I don't come across any of your exes. STD'S KILL and they are not prejudice nor do they all travel by penetration.

    Like or Dislike: or 3 (-2)
    Reply to this comment
  28.   sexylatin says:
    Posted: 17 Dec 08

    Personally I am not faithfull because I want more and he is not enough for me. How? He doesnt have time he is not sweet and so love dies. He is very good in bed. But I want the whole package! That is the reason I have multiple men in my life.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: or 1 ()
    Reply to this comment
  29.   sassykae says:
    Posted: 17 Dec 08

    It's pure myth that women are naturally monogamous. When they find themselves in a mutually satisfying relationship, they will prolong it. If and when that changes, a smart one will notify the partner and either seek to solve the dilemma it or move on. The weak one will hide it and continue the charade. If the partner is not faithful, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. There is plenty of data to substantiate all theories but the bottom line is that for both men and women, monogamy is a decision they must make every day.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: or 1 ()
    Reply to this comment