One of the interesting aspects of monogamy is that it is more 'Naturally' suited to women than men. What I mean by that is that there are BIG differences in the drivers for genetic survival between women and men that have developed over 100,000 yrs but are still very prominent in determining our behaviour today.
All of us have a direct ancestral line that goes back the full 100,000 yrs. (It’s probably lucky we can’t follow it). We are the direct family of those ancestors who successfully raised some of their children to mating age. The genetic lines of those who didn’t raise children died out forever.
Remember life for the first 98,000 yrs was tough. Wars, starvation, ice ages, mammoths, etc etc restricted the chances of raising your children up to their mating age. The successful behaviour for a women was to find one strong, powerful man and form a very strong attachment with him. It was only through his protection that she could maximise the chances of raising her children. And it was a definite advantage for your children not to have your man distracted in his role as protector by him forming further attachments with other women. So strong jealous behaviour was rewarded by further maximising the chances for your children.
However for the men, apart from being a strong protector and provider, the most important behaviour that maximised the chances of your children getting to mating age was to maximise the number of your children. This meant that forming more than one strong attachment was more successful for men. So Polygamy is more ‘Naturally’ suited to men. Also for a man, mating outside of these attachments with 'Any' women also increased the chances of your genetics being successfully passed on down the line.
So that is why Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus and they never will understand each other

Dear Pynch,

Helen Fisher tells us that lust and attraction
don't last. But the phase of love that does she
lists as "attachment." "As you walk together holding
hands, when you sit next to each other reading
in the evening, as you laugh simultaeously at a movie
or stroll through a park or on the beach, your souls
are merged..."

I know this kind of love, and there's not enough of
it in the world.

Dear CJ,

Who'd have thought you'd enjoy "Clan of the Cave bear?"

Dear Cherful,

Most women I know aren't really into sharing
their partners. But who knows what the future
will bring?

Dear Antiseptic,

Glad to see you're giving CJ credit for his
knowledge!

Dear Peter Hume,

Your knowledge is impressive.
I love reading your posts.
And, I'm going to buy Helen Fisher's book.

Dear Richie 10,

Your heartfelt post brought tears to my eyes.
Thank You.

Dear Pelly,

When you consider we're all born into relationships -
starting with the maternal one, it seems only
natural that people generally want to share their
life with a partner. Love and affection are beneficial
throughout life, people know this innately.
Marriage isn't compulsory of course, and its likely
to occur less frequently in the future, but it's a
fair bet people will continue to fall in love and try to
find harmony together just as they always have.

Dear Yabby, and Bill25,

"We're never so defenceless against suffering as when
we love," said Sigmund Freud.

Love does take courage. So why bother, if it's
such a minefield? One sense that larger forces are
at work, and not just the desire to perpetuate
the species. It's about people taking care of themselves
by finding what they need to nurture their souls, to
give life meaning. This might be with another
person, in which case it will help satisfy their need
for intimacy and acceptance (to know and be known) as well
as companionship, sexual fulfillment, warmth and
affection. If it's not with a significant other they might
find it in whatever
else gives their life meaning.

Bill25
Yes I think there's something to that. Polygamy is unpopular in an egalitarian age, but the fact is that it exists in all cultures and all times; but polyandry doesn't. Remember Jack Thompson? He had two sisters as partners at one stage. I read an article about a guy in Byron Bay who had eleven wives - all of them paid for by the government. Very wise fellah. I'd love to have multiple wives, but my wife can't seem to be persuaded about how wonderfull it would be!

>So that is why Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus and they never will understand each other

Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes "No-one will ever win the battle of the sexes because there is so much fraternising with the enemy."

Dear PETER HUME <the battle of the sexes will never be won because there is too much fraternising with the enemy>

Thnak you for that lighthearted comment it is always good to have some merriment to break up these serious discussions.

<Polygamy is unpopular in egalitarian times but the fact is that it exists in all cultures and all times, but Polyandry doesn’t.>

The reason for that maybe that women don’t need to keep the men they sleep with in an exclusive relationship because they always know who their children are. It has always been the men who actually needed to keep their women in an exclusive relationship so as to be sure they weren’t providing protection and support to some other males offspring.
Even today the Muslims are fanatical about faithfulness in women to the point of putting them in prison or to death.

Therefore in most societies women have needed to keep their polygamy secret.

My dad was an insurance salesman back before they had the pill and he realised that there were a whole lot of married women having sex with other partners when their husbands went to work for the day. He of course got in on the action womanising philanderer that he was. He says it still amazes him that this went on when there was no pill. He seems to want to confess his sins to me in his old age now at 79years.

I was surprised by this information about women too.

The advantage to women being, the chance to mate with more partners and ensure different genetics for their children giving them a bigger chance of survival. Also if the present partner were to die or leave and stop protecting and providing then there was another protector and provider available in the form of the secret lover.

My conclusion is that dominant male societies sanction polygamy only for males, so the females practice polyandry in a more secret selective way.

Dear Peter Hume,

According to Ian Robertson, "Sociology,"
" Most societies favour polygyny
rather than monogamy, most men in the world
have only one wife - partly because the
societies that insist on monogamy contain
the bulk of the world's population, and partly
because there are not enough women to permit
widespread polygyny even in societies that favour
the arrangement. In practice, it is usually the
more wealthy and powerful men in these societies
who have more than one wife. Polyandry occurs
only under exceptional conditions. The Toda of
India, for example, practice female infanticide,
so they had a large surplus of males. When a
Toda woman married a man, she became wife to all
of his brothers as well."

"Love is blind but marriage is an eye opener."

Dear Cherful,

You may appreciate this.
Seen on a bumper-sticker in Los Angeles:

"An erection does not count as personal growth."

suzeonline,
“Yes Proxy, your worries about Muslim polygamous practices without acknowledging that some Christian groups still practice polygamy (although it is still illegal), say more about you than them.”
Mohammed had eleven wives, from age six and upwards, as well as countless sex slaves.
Mohammed is the perfect example according to Islam.
Hence, Islam endorses polygamy.
Christianity does not endorse polygamy.
Your desperate comparison between some obscure “Christian” sects and Mohammedanism reveals something about you.
I nowhere claimed that polygamy would be made legal in this country.
I merely disputed the claim that Western laws “insist” that marriage-like relationships exclude polygamy.
Welfare laws granting de facto recognition of polygamous relationships lends credence to my point of view.