Thank-you Lauren for another realistic and relevant article on human sexuality.

The non-monogamy discussion is not about the morality of fidelity but the idea that if you freely agree to partner with someone, then you adhere to the terms that you agreed to. Variation can only occur by mutual, informed consent and in the context of relationships which are not marked by a power imbalance.

If we stopped making such a big deal about sex it would probably help.

What I mean is, every time someone famous is caught "cheating" or is heard to be in an "open relationship" or the occasional polygynous relationship, the moral outrage ensues. If it became more about the acceptance of choice, as Lauren points out, then we'd be much better off.

Of course tabloid media would be battling for content then...

Thankyou for a great read!

There are no real rules set in stone for exactly how a relationship 'should' play out or function - of course it is individual - and as long as each person understands and agrees to what the set standard should be then as Susan (above comment) words so well,

"Variation can only occur by mutual, informed consent and in the context of relationships which are not marked by a power imbalance."

Betrayal is an awful experience that can truly leave a person deeply damaged, and can result in future relationship difficulties; Trust is something that is built through honesty, and if from the beginning the 'relationship rules' are laid out for each to accept or reject (inclusive of 'if' or not future variations can or are allowed to occur), with a balance of mutual understanding and respect, then that relationship - in which ever context - leaves little room for hurt or betrayal.

So I have to agree, there is much choice in relationship - it is simply a matter of determining what suits an individuals desires and needs, and finding another who is willing and agreeable to that. Making a choice that includes respecting the mutual understanding of each in the relationship.

This is a perfect expression of the thoughts I have been having on the subject recently. A supposed inability to be monogamous is never justification for cheating and lying about it; it is justification for being honest about our weaknesses and not entering or maintaining monogamous relationships under false pretences.

Great article! I would only add that being monogamous IS a choice, no question about it. And so is non-monogamy. Perhaps if more people were open and honest about wanting to BE non-monogamous, we wouldn't have so many people forcing themselves into sexually exclusive relationships when they don't really want/need to be there.

I would also throw in that it is totally human to hide unpleasant facts, behaviors, activities, etc because people generally see themselves as good. Therefore, when they decide to be sexually unfaithful to their partner, their egos can't handle that blow (not to sound Freudian at ALL), then they can more easily rationalize not telling their partners. It's difficult to talk about sex openly and honestly with people you're NOT in relationships with, let alone someone you're supposed to want to spend your life with.

As a therapist (http://www.mytherapistnewyork.info). I try to work with people on challenging the notion that they have to be in relationships at all before they jump in and decide they need/want to have sex with someone besides their partner (when they're not ready to be up front about it).

It's totally cool to be monogamous. It's fine to be single. It's fine to be emotionally faithful, but not sexually. Hope we can just get more people to talk about what they want instead of just assuming there's only one "normal" style of relationship.

Thanks Lauren for another amusing read on sexuality. Allow me to advance the idea that the political economy of the distribution of pleasure inflects the views of those who commit infidelity. As in all political economy the issue is always about power - gaining it, using it, feeling powerful - in relation to an intimate other.

For those on the hurt side of the infidelity equation: it is always better to complete a journey alone than to travel with a fool.

Our piece of the Human social fabric have chosen to connect the partnering/marriage part of our relationships with sexually exclusivity. It has not always been so, just as marriage has not always been so. One may make an observation that both originated from religious teachings and may be construed as a combination of control of the populace and "good behaviour". The use of the term "monogamy" is clouded by our view of it's meaning - the dictionary describes it as being married to one person at a time. It is social convention which connects marriage to one person with sexual exclusivity. It is breaches of that convention which lead to accusations of cheating. The jump to emotive terms like infidelity is just a short distance away.

Some parrots are known to mate for life. There was some surprise in recent years when it was discovered that the mating part covered social behaviour and the rearing of the young, but not sexual encounters. This may or may not be a useful approach for humans. Certainly the survival of the species is favoured by males having multiple partners and females being protected by a stable environment during child-rearing years. However right now there are probably enough of us that survival of the species is threatened more by there being too many of us rather than too few.

Lauren, thanks for a really well thought out and well written piece. You have clarified a lot of the ideas I have running around in my head on this issue for me and I think you got it 100% right. Cheers

Great article, and a really well rounded interpretation of human sexuality. The thing about debate on whether or not monogamy is 'natural' is that it tends to tends to focus on humans and excludes the rest of the anumals kingdom. Monogamy is most common in birds (around 90% of species) because both parents are usually needed to protect and feed the young until they are independent, unitl then they are completely helpless. Male and female birds are also equally equiped to assist their offsprind once they are hatched. However, polygyny is the most common mating system in the animal kingdom. According to Emlen and Oring (1977) polygyny with no male care often develops through a causal chain that begines with food resources existing in clumps or patches. As a consequence the females tend to exist only at these patches because their ability to raise offspring and have reproductive success depends directly on the resources. In this situation males compete for access to the females by seizing these territories and keeping other males out. Thus, the most general condition that promotes the development of mating systems is the distribution of resources.