Are humans meant to be monogamous?

Articles like these are always PC, they’re trying to defend the ‘sex positive’ line.

At least it didn’t mention bonobos (red herring) on such a loaded question.

http://www.livescience.com/32146-are-humans-meant-to-be-monogamous.html

This comment is better than the article.

I disagree with the premise. If you look at Chimps… the females sleep around so that no one can be sure of paternity and they entire group will be invested in protecting the progeny. But in those societies males aren’t invested in parenting and they themselves sleep around.

However, human males have evolved to be invested in parenting. That’s why they develop biological changes such as increasing prolactin to help them bond with the child. The greater the paternal investment in rearing the offspring the greater the necessity to ensure paternity.

Any man irrationally terrified of cuckoldry in the age of DNA testing is flashing beta (anxious-avoidant attachment style) like a neon sign, why else would he think it’s possible that a woman would want to cheat on him?
[notable exception: rape]

Nature only has two options for that– either you become a lot bigger like male Gorillas so you can fight off other males to protect your harem or you invest in monogamy. If you compare humans to Gorillas we are lot less sexually dimorphic with only about a 10% difference compared to 50% difference. For monogamy, of course it makes sense that we have developed the biology to feel romantic love. When human males fall in love their testoterone actualy decreases and female testosterone increases. Making us more similar to each other. Both males and females feel jealousy at their mate with another person. Humans have actually evolved for monogamy compared to our closest relatives.

All true. Mate guarding is proof positive of monogamy in humans.

Bravo and good tidings

Why guard when you have others and don’t care?

Infidelity would lead to tribal ostracisation, the man would probably die a genetic death if he wasn’t bludgeoned to death by the genuine spouse (rightly, crime of passion) but the female would be left either with children and no provider or the children would remain behind without a carer and fall prey to a wolf or something, those remaining wouldn’t really care for the children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect

Women have more to lose from cheating and the current law corrects this. Anyone in a committed relationship who cheats is scum anyway, who cares what happens to them?

http://www.livescience.com/www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/2428-cheating-unsafe-sex-open-relationship-%20std-risk.html

Bring on antibiotic resistance.

OT: So-called ‘dread game’ actually attracts anxious women and makes them act out, not the secure ones who care. When you pull away, they let you. It keeps the crazies.

Are polygyny, promiscuity, hypergamy and cuckoldry pathogenic?

http://www.unz.com/pfrost/first-sexual-transmissibility-and-then/

Yes, why aren’t there studies of vaginal bacteria cultures? Doctors already take millions of samples.
I would also like to see male sample studies from STD checks to ascertain % transmission. As do the men, I would imagine.

Is this why feminists are insistent upon receiving oral? Subconsciously trying to pass on promiscuity or cuckoldry-causing strains?

dean that's enough no more internet laptop shut no no no nuhuh supernatural

This is too much of a fuck-mind to consider all at once. It sounds scarily probable.