In response to another blog posted here recently about why people are so sexually dysfunctional, let me make a suggestion. We've been doing it wrong. After all, if we had got it right then things would be running smoothly, right? Warning: Hugely long blog so only read it if you're interested.

Why the hell do we allow monogamy to dominate our lives? The knee-jerk reaction is to say it's in the bible, so let's just assume for a moment that we all follow that dogma. Yeah, it's unrealistic, but let's assume.

For the most part, the ten commandments are what is used, and that makes it fairly clear. It states it twice: Don't commit adultery. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. Seems straightforward enough, until you actually look at the words.

First of all adultery has a lot of definitions, but legal ones aside the biblical ones are based on conjugal infidelity. In other words: Cheating is bad – it can get you into trouble. Besides being an obvious truth, that doesn't say you have to be monogamous. It just says cheating is a bad idea.

But what about the part about you shall not covet your neighbor's wife? Exodus 20:17? Well if we go back to the Vulgate (original Latin scripture) the passage reads:

Non concupisces domum proximi tui nec desiderabis uxorem eius non servum non ancillam non bovem non asinum nec omnia quae illius sunt.

The trick here is the way the words have been mistranslated. The words uxorem and omnia in particular. The gist of the translation isn't so much as stated in modern texts, but more along the lines of 'do not have avarice for...a wife...or anything.'

So what we have been told was about the importance of monogamy was actually about not cheating and avoiding avarice. That is good advice.

But let's get away from the bible. After all, more people prefer other approaches.

Another knee-jerk reaction to monogamy is the reason we do it is that it's in our nature. This just simply isn't true.

Some animals are monogamous and mate for life, others (the VAST majority of others) try to spread around their genes as much as possible, even attempting cross-species breeding. Now I've heard arguments on both sides stating that we should be like most other animals (spreading our genes wild and free) or that we should be monogamous (choosing one mate and remaining loyal for life.) Both arguments do have merit but they overlook one obvious point.

We are not animals. As human beings we possess the ability to transcend nature. To use not only physical tools, but social, emotional and intellectual ones. When my cat uses her litter box it's not because she chose to do so. Animals can learn, but only on a rudimentary level.

The fact is that there is a disparity between the way that human males and females can breed. Because males don't have to be bothered with the lengthy and sometimes inconvenient process of pregnancy, they benefit from mating as often as possible. They can ejaculate as quickly as their recovery time permits them. If this is once every five minutes, then so what. The fact that women need nine months to reproduce hampers male reproduction speed, so their best option is finding more females. So let me pose this: If monogamy was in our nature why are programs about cheating so common and popular?

For females, it's different. Yeah, they could benefit from having lots of partners, but for the most part they have a greater challenge to deal with. In order for them to breed successfully their children must survive. Modern society has made this easier (why do you think the concepts of health plans and day care are so important) but still has a long way to go. What females need more than a broad range of genetic material is a supportive environment. For thousands of years, that has meant a male that could go out and hunt for her and wave his club around warding off dangers. Fortunately, we've started to transcend that vestige of neanderthalism.

But before I digress too much on social conditions, let me restate that anyone that feels that monogamy in and of itself benefits us genetically, evolutionarily or socially is obviously ignoring our traits on all three. If monogamy was indeed our human nature then there wouldn't be so much to counterindicate that. What if things like homosexuality and transgenderism weren't diseases (as was long believed), but clues that there are other sides to our nature? What if we paused all of the heterosexual monogamous sex we're having for just a moment to introspectively question what we hold as our nature?

Our physical nature tells us that naked, we can't survive on ice floes and in deserts. But the Hopi and the Bedouin, the Inuit and the Algonquin have been doing just fine there. We can transcend our nature, so why aren't we examining ourselves?

One time, long ago during one of my parent's arguments, I had a revelation. Love, sex and marriage had nothing to do with one another.

What that breaks down into is that there is another element to the monogamy argument. Emotion. While there are some people that say that emotion is weaker than genetics or spirituality (a couple of my previous arguments) I would say that once again they are failing to look at the world around them, or at least inside themselves.

And, once again, there is a sort of dimorphism between what men and women are looking for in the emotion of sex. For men, it's very straightforward. They need sex. Their emotions tell them this. Now, sometimes the occasional male might feel guilty or have issues with their emotions because of past experience, but the emotion obviously still exists because you don't react to something that isn't there.

Men will use emotion to their best advantage when trying to get sex. If you're on the 'receiving' end of that emotion then you know what I'm talking about. The 'I love you and if you loved me too then we would have sex' circumstance. The confident 'you want to have sex with me because I am so great'. Even the 'pity f_ck'. To say men aren't emotional when seeking sex and relationships is not only ignorant, it's laughable. Sometimes as laughable as the emotions the men display.

Women are another issue. They are a little more accepting of their emotions for one thing, but they are much more complex. For one thing, they're more used to getting hurt, and it shows. They often feel the need to protect themselves physically as well as emotionally. This is often a reactionary result to the male tactic of using emotion to get women to open up, only to use them (or worse, then abuse them.) Knowing women are drawn to strong figures, the male 'confidence' approach can work well, but can often lead to female disillusion and feelings of 'why was I stupid enough to fall for that one?' Also, there's the males that chuck each other on the shoulder and grin maniacally at the concept of a 'nympho' female, without the realization that nymphomania is not so much a love of sex but a disappointment at being sexually unsatisfied by their partners.

But then there's the fact that women love sharing but hate stealing. Women have no problem sharing their good fortune with others. It's a way for them to show off, build relationships and gain status. They love the ability to, say, lend a friend a favorite sweater just so they can establish a closer bond. But once the friend steals that sweater the friendship is over. (Funny how this ties into my earlier comments on cheating, huh? I told you I was going someplace with all of this.)

Once again there are separate answers for men and women. Monogamy does not necessarily benefit men. They benefit by mating as many times as they can with as many partners. They don't seem to need emotional attachment to do this, and will often rely on social strategies to achieve this goal, making spirituality virtually irrelevant.

With women, it's (as always) much more complicated, but they don't necessarily benefit from monogamy either. Sharing can't work with monogamy as there are fewer breeding males available than women (the available female population is always slightly higher, meaning monogamy simply forces them to fight for mates; more on that later) and this causes rifts between women socially. Genetically it means that they have to put up with inferior material, and socially it means their children may not be cared after (people are quick to point fingers at single moms as being a problem, when in actuality could it be forced monogamy that is the problem and single mothers just the product of that?)

As you have probably surmised, I am a huge fan of loyalty, faith and devotion. I am not a big fan of dogmatic fundamentalist social rules.

Here's another angle that you may not have considered. How many women complain that they can't find a good man or they complain about the one they have? If you said you don't know anyone like that you are a statistical anomaly.

But why are women saying that? Are they just being silly? Well, women haven't always had science on their side, but their intuition is nothing to scoff at. The fact is they are right.

World census figures show that the male-to-female population ratio is about 49:51, so there are 49 males to every 51 females living. This is more often for health reasons than anything else. Female babies tend to be healthier and premature births are more common in male children. Men tend to have more physically dangerous jobs, and they are more likely to be killed as the result of a violent crime.

But the bare figures do speak. With a ratio like that, and a world population of 3 billion, that means that 60 million women are doomed to be without mates. But that's only if the circumstances are optimal. And they are not.

While the actual number of men is obviously offset, the number of available men is totally skewed. Men are three times more likely than women to be incarcerated for criminal activity. They are five times more likely to suffer from mental illness. As previously mentioned, for every 3 women that are victims of a violent crime, there are five men. Men are more likely to be involved in a crippling accident (their drunk-driving rates are much higher) or suffer from a debilitating disease (they are less likely to look after their own health.) All in all, it wouldn't be a big stretch of the imagination to say that a quarter of a billion women have no chance of finding a permanent mate. Ever.

This is where monogamy kicks itself into high gear, steps up and results in a method of social control. This is where it becomes a tool to oppress women. If the rules (that are dictated by men, mind you) state that one-man-one-woman is the way it is supposed to be, then as a woman you have no choice but to accept whichever man comes your way. Is it a wonder that competition between women can be so vicious under circumstances like these? And if she tries to complain, she stands a chance at loosing her man. Which is fine for him, because there are tons of available women out there that will do what he wants. Just to hold on to him.

How fucked up is that?

I can't say this enough. You are a human. You have a choice. If every person stepped forward and said they weren't going to put up with it anymore then they would solve their own problems. It has always been within your power. Or you could just accept it when someone tells you that you have to live in a way that hurts you, hurts other people, and completely screws up natural selection.

But hey, that man over there in the religious robes is telling you to ignore science and your intuition. Really. What he tells you to do is the way to go. Right?

One has to ask...with so many women complaining about the lack of good men, why there aren't more polygamous relationships. Sure, there's the fact that they are suppressed by the church and governmental structure, but when has that ever stopped anyone before? There have been lots of sex practices that are against dogma that people perform anyway, so why is polygamy lagging behind?

Because we're taught that it is so wrong. That's why.

We're taught that polygamy and polyamory lead to the destruction of the fabric of society. When a man has a wife, their primary goal is to make children. A man who has relations outside of his marriage has a chance at impregnating another female, which would draw resources away from his wife and her children. A woman who has a child by a man other than her husband is also anathema, being that now her husband might have to spend his resources raising a child that isn't his. In other words, what it comes down to in the long run is that children are expensive, money is precious, and so monogamy is important.

Or is it?

Let's take a look at the benefits of a polygamous relationship. First of all, there's always the sex thing. It's fun. Enough said about that. But in regards to children, polygamy allows for a stronger genetic diversity within a family, allowing for better genes to be passed on. In other words, it's better for a group of women to have one really good male than to have a bunch of women scrambling so that they each have their own regardless of how awful he is. That, in turn, leads to a greater emotional and social bond. And, much as fundamentalists are fond of pointing out, strong family bonds are good for raising moral and stable individuals.

But what about the resources thing? Well, that's where monogamy really falls short. There are two types of multiple partner relationships: Polygamy and polyamory. Polyamory is a relationship that is mostly sex based, not commitment based, and therefore the focus isn't on having children but having fun. And with modern advances in contraception, there's no real fear about spreading resources too thin unless you're just being stupid about things.

Polygamous relationships imply a long term commitment and more than likely reproduction. These aren't people that are taking sex and relationships lightly; they are together to look out for one another. They share the burden of a family together, and in that sharing they are strong because of their numbers. In a society that makes it hard for one person to stay at home and raise children while their partner is earning capital, imagine the benefit of two bread-winners who are helping bring in money while one stays home to raise the kids. Now imagine two people staying home to raise take care of the house while five people are bringing home the bacon. You see the point? It's not a circumstance of restriction and loss of resources. It's a tight knit relationship where personal roles free individuals to pursue their own paths according to their strengths.

Meanwhile, monogamists have to decide if they have enough cash to allow someone to stay at home with their kid, or if they have to pay someone to do that while both parents work. And let's not forget that with monogamy, the only way to enjoy yourself outside of the relationship is by “cheating”, which leads to an even greater depletion of resources.

And let's not even start in with the fact that forced monogamy has no historical support whatsoever. It wasn't until the late nineteenth century that the large outcry to do away with the "twin evils of slavery and bigamy" began. Yes, that was an actual quote urging congress to pass laws against it.

I have to say this: There are a lot of people that believe, mostly due to the media, that multiple partner relationships are only a sexual thing or that they have to do with vanity and libido. In actuality, it's the other way around. That's how cheating monogamists see the world, so they feel it necessary to impose their point of view on other people who actually have a system that works.

But there's three greater elements to this whole point: First of all, that I can argue until my mouth falls off (not likely) and if you are prejudiced that heterosexual monogamy is the key to happiness then I'm not going to change anything. For everyone else, the next two items will make a hell of a lot of sense.

Just like I said in before, we are not animals. We can transcend our nature. Once we realize that the concept of monogamy looses all power. We have the power to define our own relationships and what they mean to us.

Finally, I saw a shirt that had a great saying on it this week -I have the pussy, so I make the rules- how eloquent is that? Think about it. Women really are the ones that control who gets to breed. They do it on a personal level. If they could just put aside the pre-conceived notions that have been crammed down their throats (and if you think that men don't try to dictate that to women any less than they try to dictate to them what their bodies should look like then you really have lost it) then women could choose what was best for them for a change. The best relationships. The best mates. The best genes and the best emotions. Just like Karl Marx pointed out that labor is the property of the worker, a woman's sex is her property and no one else's.

Listen, I know this argument is limited. It just fills four pages about a topic that can fill volumes. And I know I hardly touched on a lot of elements like homosexuality and people who decide not to have children. The whole point is that we are a society so we had damned well start acting like it. Define what is important in our lives rather than having it dictated to us.

And anyone who tells you not to look within yourself - anyone who tells you what to think rather than gives you the tools to make your own decisions – that person is not to be trusted.