Foxy,
Here's one on polyandry, for the girls:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/the_secret_china_doesnt_want_t.html
This might well be more widely applied throughout China, given the gender imbalance caused by the one-child policy.

Foxy, I looked up the Centrelink site re whether the government recognised people who had relationships with multiple partners.

" What are multiple relationships?
Multiple relationships are when you have multiple concurrent relationships with other people, who may be of the opposite-sex or same-sex, and each relationship is considered to be the same as being a member of a couple. A family group could include a customer with multiple male or female partners.
A separate member of a couple assessment is undertaken for each relationship and a person can be considered to be in a member of a couple relationship with more than one person at any time."

So there you have it! The Government recognises 'couples' who are parts of multiple relationships- homosexual, lesbian, men with more than one female relationship, and women with more than one male relationship.

Thus, the Government is quite happy to pay out on and tax on multiple relationships.
It would certainly be very expensive for anyone on centrelink benefits to maintain multiple relationships. Monogamy may be cheaper!

Of course, it is still illegal to actually marry more than one of these 'relationships'.

So to sum it up, we know that serial monogomy is natural , as it
exists in nature, amongst species where substantial investment is
required to raise the offspring.

We know that there are genes which code for it, as in prairie voles,
where it comes down to the hormone vasopressin, reacting with
parts of their limbic system.

We can't test this on humans as with prairie voles, as there is
an ethical problem with injecting humans with radioactive substances.

But given the amount of screwing around that goes on amongst married
people, we can safely assume that not all humans carry the monogamy
gene :)

We also know that humans are a social species, who enjoy pairbonding
for its benefits, as they are driven by self interest.

We've also learned that integrity is a rare commodity, when it
comes to human relationships.

It does seem that social monogamy is common in nature, though according to studies cited in Wikipedia over 80% of all human cultures are polygamous--exceptions being based more on economics than morals.
But I'm more interested in sexual monogamy (much to the discomfort of the prudes). In "The Myth of Monogamy" "biologists have discovered that for nearly every species, cheating is the rule -- for both sexes".
Here's a short review of the book; http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/MythMonogamy.htm

The uncomfortable truth, for those devoted to chivalrous fantasies, is that humans are very highly sexed, and that if they followed their 'natural' inclinations (I put commas around 'natural' above too, but they don't seem to have been noticed) all men (at least) would be screwing as many mates as possible.
Social monogamy is a civilising influence observed mainly in the breach.

Is it still monogamy, btw, when the faithful husband masturbates, or has sex with his wife, while imaging someone else?

Dear Squeers,

I love a play on words...

The skill of writing is the skill of using words.
So, please continue to widen the mind's eye and
take us far beyond the ordinary to a new and
exciting experience.

Dear Proxy,

Again, Thanks so much for the link.
I've read all of it and as I've said previously,
this thread has certainly been an eye-opener
for me. I deeply appreciate your contribution.

Dear Suze,

It's all very odd isn't it?
I had no idea that the Government is quite
happy to pay out on multiple relationships.

Dear Yabby,

Thanks for your summary. I guess it all goes
back to the old adage - to each his own.
One size doesn't fit all.

Dear Squeers,

Some men think "monogamy" is something you make
dining room tables out of.

As for "masturbation?"
Woody Allen said, "Don't knock it,
it's sex with someone you love."

Pynchme
Rape is already illegal. The considerations you raise are all valid, however they justify only a moral, not a legal obligation on men.

Suzieonline
That is fascinating.

In law, the difference between a de facto marriage and a de jure marriage is that a de jure marriage involes the man and woman taking each other to be husband and wife “in words of the present tense”.

A de jure marriage can either be a common law marriage or a marriage under the Marriage Act. The Act requires notice, witnesses, official celebrant, registration, etc. Common law doesn’t require any of that. If a man and a woman without witnesses exchange commitments in words of the present tense, then it’s a marriage at common law.

A de facto marriage on the other hand, means ‘living together as husband and wife although not legally married’. Contrary to popular opinion, a common law marriage and a de facto marriage are not the same thing. A common law marriage is a true marriage – one involving exchange of commitments. A de facto marriage is not a true marriage.

In other words, if they are just living together without having exchanged commitments, it’s a de facto marriage. But if they are living together and have exchanged commitments, it’s a common law, and therefore a legal marriage.

So the state of the law is:
The feds will pay you if you’re in a multiple sexual relationship that is marriage-like, so long as you have not been good enough to exchange commitments.
But if you have, they’ll still pay, but it’s a crime in state law.

Does that make sense?

Polygamy should be decriminalised.

Yabby
>But given the amount of screwing around that goes on amongst married
people, we can safely assume that not all humans carry the monogamy
gene :)

LOL. Seems pretty safe.

Squeers
>Is it still monogamy, btw, when the faithful husband masturbates, or has sex with his wife, while imaging someone else?

Yes, on etymological grounds. The ‘-gamy’ refers to a marriage or fertilization.