Being with One Partner is NOT Innate | Cheating is Therefore Natural



My current relationship lasting a bit over three years is the longest one I’ve been in by far. My first and supposedly true love who assured me of her eternal love for me with corny recycled text messages that at the time made me incredibly smite and go red in my black cheeks didn’t last six months.

And we were barely eighteen. A couple more reality inducing, jarring, brief flings disguised as relationships, and then i met KAF who’s getting married next month to a man who’s not me. My current relationship overlaps that with KAF slightly.

The current relationship may or may not have ended last night. Or more likely three months ago when I bedded an incredibly attractive close friend and admitted to it. With this background I may appear not too credible a contributor to the topic Monogamy. However, my experiences I believe put me in a good stead to speak on this contentious issue. Is `Mongamy feasible? Is it natural? Is there one person destined to be coupled with you forever?

No. Well according to common sense and logic. Marrying for love as we know it now only began in the 18th century. Prior to that marriage was primarily to form business ties, secure already existing family worth, expand family networks or even pay family debts.

READ ALSO:  Another Doom Prophecy: Enemies Of President Akufo-Addo Are Planning His Assassination - Owusu Bempah

Indeed back then a man was better respected and admired if he had multiple women. Montaigne the renowned essayist said in the 16th “any man in love with his wife was a man so dull no one else could love him”. This best reflects the values and standards of the time.

Monogamy is a social construct that aims at organizing our sex lives and furthermore  provide a stable environment for the raising of children, but also (and this is often overlooked), that by pairing up couple for life, it does a good job in alleviating the jealousy and mayhem which would ensue from a sexual free-for-all.

Countless examples in our everyday lives alone is enough proof that jealousy and mayhem is rife in monogamous relationships. This is because it takes a superhuman level of discipline and commitment for monogamy to work to achieve the aims for which it was constructed.

No doubt, there are countless examples of couples being together and staying committed until death. A close look would reveal however that these are the ones who CHOSE to stay even after one or both partners strayed from the concept of monogamy.

An even closer look would also suggest these couples usually have more at stake in the relationship than mere love. Business ties, wealth, societal connections play a huge part in couples who remain committed which is what marriage was about in the first place before we were seduced and swayed by fairy tales. Ardor and enthusiasm dwindles. The mystery and fascination of a new partner in most cases wears off. The dream of endless cuddles and eternal smooches and kisses gets chased away by the nightmare of morning farts, messy partners and dealing with individual idiosyncrasies.

READ ALSO:  Celebrities All Around the World Are JUST Like You | The Leaked Naked Photos Somewhat Confirm This…

What then remains is a resolve and commitment to stay. It becomes a choice

In my experiences, the ‘never-ending happy ending’ is one that you create, together, deliberately, day after day, in the moments of connection, in between the bins and the dropped socks.

However, sexual fidelity is not a one-time deal – sign on the dotted line and never think about it again. It is a gift, given freely if it means anything, and given each time the question arises. Like making a happy ending, it is an act of will and of love.

Harder work perhaps than riding the head-rush of sexual chemistry – but, I think, far more satisfying.

Sticking to a life partner is not and cannot be innate or natural. It is a choice, one that is totally influenced by a great assortment of benefits, proximity, individual values etc.

What is your take on monogamy and what has experience taught you?


Jamaal says:

I agree with this article somehow, even though it may sound more like an anecdotal theory. An evolutionist would argue that monogamous marriage is more a social construct and not a naturally influenced behaviour formed to prevent the extinction of our species. There is no conspicuous evidence that supports the notion that monogamy reduces the chances of genetic disorders occurring in the offspring nor encourage the evolution of the offspring. The reason why I say this is: the chances of genetic mutation occurring in offspring are reduced in a polygamous because the male has more females to give his chromosomes to, which means new and different chromosomes are going to formed from a more different variants from the females. Thereby new chromosomes are created in the offspring. This cannot happen in a monogamous marriage because the couples are supposed to only mate with their choice of partner, therefore if they have some recessive or dominant mutated genes, they have no choice but to produce offspring who would be either carriers of the defective gene or manifest the genetic disorder. This reduces the chances of both the male and female genes from surviving into the next generation. This furthermore supports my assertion that monogamy is a socially created institution so as to control the sexual activities of the people. In all the religions I have read their doctrines, there is no clear cut laws that categorically state that polygamy is sinful. It is only in the letters of Paul in the New Testaments of the Bible that talks vaguely about a man and woman coming together to become one. The underlining point is, the fundamental essence of marriage of any type to the human species is procreation: so as to sustain our existence on this planet. Therefore, it would be more logical to believe that the type of marriage that promotes the survival of good genes would be the biologically innate one for humans.

I think there is a clear misunderstanding here; the article per rule suggests that; exclusivity or monogamy for ALL human beings (I mean men and women) is unnatural—principal theory.

The pot hole in the article is the fact that the writer cited his own male example and used a male quote concerning polygamous marriage and did not cite any female or lesbian quotes or examples.

When something is natural, it simply means it has been part of our evolution as human beings, it does not necessary mean it is GOOD or OKAY. For example, jealousy, greed, fighting and even stealing is natural—but are they good or okay?

Like someone said; the common assumption that men are from Mars and women are from Venus is out of place, men and women are all from Africa—we all started from there and it is in our nature or genes not to be exclusive. So the concept of exclusivity (being with one partner—before or during marriage) later came into our existence, well placed and enforced by society considering the many benefits it has.

In fact, it is argued that monogamy or exclusivity in relationships became a thing of enforcement in the ‘prudish’ Victorian era, before that, it may have been a minority concept.

Considering whether this is natural or not, researchers and those with interest in this subject have said, human beings are almost like chimps and bonobos—and these animals till today have no idea or commitment to monogamy. They still do it the natural way which is having sex with multiple partners (cheating we may call it)—and both the men and women do it.

In fact, we must accept that even though monogamy has become the norm of today, the accepted and right form of doing things—and we’ve been conditioned to accept that being faithful is the best or natural,
our primitive or true urges is that, we are promiscuous.

So I don’t think anyone is advocating for polygamy in today’s world, and it will be insane to even suggest that we should all become polygamous or reside in our primal promiscuousness,considering the pros and cons of the two.

Go back in history, to as early as there are records and see if men and women were not cheating or having multiple partners. It is the patriarchal society which somehow succeeded in legitimating men’s promiscuousness by allowing them to have multiple partners in the open by acceptably marrying more than one.This does not mean women’s natural promiscuousness were killed, they still cheated—and in some places and with time, women were even accepted to also have more than one husband—a tribe in India still does this today.

I believe some women think that, the argument that exclusivity (monogamy) is unnatural means, men can have multiple partners and women can’t or are not allowed. It simple means that, we are all promiscuous by nature but considering the many downfalls of this in our today’s world, the more accepted worldview is exclusivity in relationships—and we can all see why.

Queen Ekuba says:

Put in that way, I agree with you one hundred percent

Queen Ekuba says:

My problem with men who argue that monogamy is unnatural is two-fold. First, your arguments that monogamy is unnatural tend to be in favor of men cheating/ having multiple partners & not of women doing the same. If you’re practicing what you preach, then you should be happy/ understanding, if your future partners bang men behind your back (or with your knowledge) since monogamy is unnatural to them. But I bet we wont get an article from you anytime soon, celebrating how your girlfriend/ wife bangs other men & you’re cool with it, will we?

Second, there are so many unnatural things that humans have learnt to live with cos it makes our lives better. Driving on roads, flying in planes, even typing this article on your computer was unnatural. & yet have you stopped doing them? & yet imagine a world where we didn’t do them cos ‘they were unnatural’ Similarly, even if monogamy is unnatural, humans have adopted various shades of it in order to organize our society & we won’t die being monogamous. But if it is unnatural & we should be polygamous, then it should be across board (ie: men & women should be allowed to do it) AND there should be honesty about it, no sneaking around.

GoldenGurl says:

I found your writing fun by the way just TOTALLY disagree with ur bonkers theory lol

rainier-mackie says:

Thank you.

GoldenGurl says:

I disagree! We are not animals living in the jungle bonking each other. I’d like to believe that like myself given the choice not everyone would go f’ing as many men/women as is humanly possibly. I believe in monogamy I would never nor would I chose to remain with a man who shared such views. This article only sights instances were such low grade behaviour benefits men yet u spoke as if it were natural to humans. I guess I should moved to India, apparently a woman just legally married three men! Lol thank Goodness for condoms ey!!

Rainier-Mackie says:

My main point was monogamy is a man made structure not natural. Insistence on it by society creates as many problems as it seeks to solve. You women are totally crushed when a partner usually their first cheats once because they’ve been programmed to believe in fairy tale love. Children born out of wedlock are tagged illegitimate because of the stigma attached to having more than one sexual partner. I believe there Is a grey area and if we as humans became more flexible and came to terms with the fact that we both male and female are likely to like or lust after others besides our partners, we’d better understand the commitment and work needed to be monogamous.towards the end of my article I even said monogamy may be more satisfying.

GoldenGurl says:

What’s to understand ? If you want to talk about nature? be real what woman wants to share? That to me is unnatural. Didn’t you read Chris’s article on being a side chick. If your theory is correct why is the side chick who appears to agree with your stance, now try an become the main chick! (Some/most) Woman don’t share! It’s unnatural. Fi real. It isn’t about what society has enforced on us because where I’m from men can have wives yet some of these woman are freekin miserable…so no flexibility is not an option for me. Thanks for replying though.

rainier says:

Lots of women as evidenced in my good friend sameness home and in cultures where polygamy is accepted. Women up to four have willingly shared a husband where the culture and comfort permits. I’ve had a very beautiful and intelligent sought after woman whilst I had a main girlfriend. She was comfortable as long as there was respect and no drama. We parted ways because I was lying to my girlfriend thereby wronging and causing her grief. I believe if we were in a society where it wouldn’t have caused my girlfriend grief to share there’d have been no problems.

Why do you think women don’t share? It’s been indoctrinated in you since childhood. Humans both male and female lust after other humans. Lust isn’t confined to partnership. That’s natural. Curbing that is unnatural.

rainier says:

On a lighter note I placed a bet with a friend this morn concerning the tone of the replies this article would receive. She was insistent the writing would be complimented but the content thrashed as she’d done. Thanks a great deal for costing me a free lunch today. 🙂

GoldenGurl says:

No probs! Anytime! 😀 Although my one opinion should hardly count as repping for the majority. By the way my issue is you are only advocating for men to have all the fun. So your ex too had men outside of your relationship….I also think you should allow room to consider to humans are individuals who don’t all think/feel the same about everything! So regardless of indoctrination Surely some will not be into such. I guess this cud go on and on.

Rainier says:

Your one opinion is the unchallenged(besides me) majority here. I wasn’t advocating for men only to have have or anyone to have fun on that matter. Women lust and enjoy sex too. I’m merely touching a rather curious issue here.