Polygamy and Pseudo-Science

I found an article written by one of Associated Content's providers that suggested polygamy as a cure-all for dating dilemmas. In fact, it suggested that women who leave adulterous mates are ruining "perfectly good" relationships. This is absurd. Although I will not profess what it is like to date a man who thinks he has some "God-given right" to procreate with as many women as possible (while he's in a relationship), I find the tactic to legitimize the pseudo-scientific notion that men need to lay as many girlies as he can grab, preposterous. And if, say, we were in a society that did not abhor the lunacy of multiple partnerships, can you imagine the decline in women's rights this society would experience? Forty years of fighting for equality would flush right down the male ego-inflated drain.

Contrary to the argument, I do not find that "un-institutionalized" men are a rare find. Perhaps the writer spent too much time dating dangerous or depressive dames to come to such a foul conclusion about his own gender. Men and women, unlike popular opinion, are really more alike than we are different. Consider this: of all the 46 chromosomes humans have, only one differentiates the sexes. That means that, genetically speaking, we have only a 2% differentiation in our make-up. Can this account for the overly dramatic comparisons so many people allude to when trying to assert the benefits or detriments inherent to a gender? I think not. I don't think it's the 2% that we fret over, but rather the social "norms" that -lest we forget - we have ourselves created.

It is insulting to both genders to surmise that one or the other is this way or that; to assert that "a good man is hard to find" only promulgates the stupidity and rigidity of our backwards thinking. Isn't the goal of a society to progress, rather than deteriorate philosophical notions and social accord?

A recent study conducted by Dr. Janet Shibley-Hyde from the University of Wisconsin, suggests that we are not so different as we sometimes like to think:
The studies looked at cognitive abilities, verbal and nonverbal communication, social or psychological traits like aggression or leadership, psychological well-being like self-esteem and motor behaviours, such as throwing ability and moral reasoning. Dr Hyde said gender differences accounted for either no or a very small effect for most of the psychological variables examined.1

It appears that the only marked differences were throwing distance and physical aggression, and even these depended on context:

Dr Hyde highlighted one study where participants were told that they were not identified as male or female nor wore any identification, which led to neither sex conforming to a stereotyped image when given the opportunity to act aggressively.

They actually did the opposite to what was expected - they did not stick to the stereotype of aggressive males and passive females.

She said the misrepresentation of how different the sexes are could harm men and women of all ages in many different areas of life.

If science can't prove behavioral differences on the basis of gender alone, then how can a normal joe profess to know the subtle differences that define a human - especially when only considering a fraction of only the anatomical makeup?

I'm quite fine finding a man who is content to remain faithful. I have seen first-hand the consequences of deception, as well the instability rendered when couple's try the "open-relationship" approach. If you want to dip your love-stick into several reservoirs, then do it - but not at the expense of the trust and love of someone you have committed to. A relationship that works is one that is based on trust, honesty, and integrity. So, if you can't handle all of that with one woman, or one man, how can you handle two, or three, or more? If you do want more than one mate, don't use faulty science or your inability to control your libido as an excuse to make your case. The solution to the problem that the itchy-to-get-fresh-meat sufferer has is this: stay single. And stay off the market for those of us looking for quality mates, for as the article suggests, a good one is hard to find.

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4251968.stm