From a biological perspective, men and women simply aren’t meant to be in lifelong monogamous unions. I may not be the poster boy for monogamous relationships, but I can tell if a book is trying slip me the bonobo boner in a science wrapper. These authors, psychologists both, weigh in on everything from comparative biology, anthropology, and zoology. Soft scientists take on the hard. This is like having your camp counselor give you advice on your hi-def system-just because he happened to have read an issue of WIRED. These book pimps would have you believe that because we humans have big balls like our promiscuous ape cousins that means we are just like them. Meant to be just like them. Even though we aren’t hairy and don’t walk on hand-feet. Shit in the jungle. Fuck, they don’t even have whites in their eyes and that’s an organ close to where sexual behavior is mapped: the brain! That, apparently, isn’t important. Or the fact that our whooping man-orbs are actually evolving smaller. You see, humans having a lot of sperm means the writers’s theory is correct, and recent findings that our sperm count is declining also means their theory is correct. It’s like religion.
What’s the authors’ other ‘evidence?’
“We look at pre-agricultural people who have been studied today and horticultural people who have been studied by anthropologists.”
So there you have it: because we’re shaped like fuck-machine organ-grinder assistants, and, somewhere in the bush there are stone age tribes that screw like an Ikea futon, that means we are really meant to be promiscuous.
I therefore deduce from this mandril-butt outpouring that monogamy is associated with civilization, lack of furriness, and technological advances. Can we not obtain from this that if we shit out democracy, epilators, and ipods, we can then know our true nature in a mud hut orgy?
I don’t know about you, but if staying advanced means I have to fornicate with the same woman for the rest of my life, I’m willing to take one for the homosapien team.