Monogamy is unnatural

Monogamous marriages are unnatural. On this, I agree with the emailer below.

Now, behold these enlightening thoughts that I found in my inbox this morning:

Greetings Mr. Walsh,

I am a college professor, author, and researcher. It was obvious to me before you ever stated it that you are a man of little education and limited intelligence. Still, I commend your newfound fame and congratulate you on the enormous amounts of money you must be making.

[Five more sentences of insults and pretentious self-aggrandizement]

…You have become a hot topic in some of my classes and this very much worries me. It wasn’t until your name came up for a fifth time that I decided to investigate you. Your prose are rife with fallacies and Neanderthalic musings, so I could easily disembowel and discredit any part of it. But I’d like to concentrate on what seems to be your most common themes: heterocentricism and monogamism. Whether you’re writing about marriage, “stay at home moms,” abstinence, or any other “issue of the family,” you seem to think that there is only *one* way and only *one* sort of family.

The truth that either escapes you or frightens you too much to acknowledge is that the “monogamous heterosexual relationship” is a largely unattainable (and undesirable) myth. Sexual unions between humans are not meant to be permanent. As we evolve, so does our understanding of these truths. Monogamy is not simply unrealistic; it is unnatural. You do not find it often in the animal kingdom, and where you do it is generally born of an evolutionary necessity. The necessity of monogamy among humankind has evaporated. This is particularly true of men, who are simply not biologically fitted for the “one woman” life.

You could use your platform for good but instead you use it to make those in open and poly relationships feel subhuman. Beyond the latent racism and sexism in your writings, it is your constant reinforcement of archaic relationship models that really does the profoundest of damage. Before you jump to any conclusions allow me to tell you this: I am married. I’ve been married for 15 years and my wife and I both sleep with other people. We are honest about this, which makes our open relationship more healthy than “monogamous” relationships built on lies.

Judge my choices if you like, but when you inevitably cheat on your wife, and then continue to sermonize about the sacredness of monogamous unions, I will return the favor.

I don’t expect you to use this email as you seem to only respond to imbeciles and easy targets.

And here is what I wrote back to him:

Good Day Professor,

It will be a challenge to type this response to you, sir, while I tremble in the blinding light of your godlike intellect. Do you begin all of your lectures by reciting your resume and viciously cutting down your audience? If so, I can only hope that you don’t teach a communications class. But if you do, then I can tell you that I receive at least 20 emails a day from people who must be your students. They’ve taken your strategy to heart. You should be proud.

In any case, I will attempt to make a rebuttal, but I will first offer the disclaimer that I am not nearly smart enough to use phrases like “archaic relationship models” and “your prose are rife with Neanderthalic musings.” I also lack the power to magically create liberal buzzwords like “monogamism” out of thin air. No, my dear Professor, I am a humble man and I can only write in plain language, using words that, you know, exist.

Now, with my idiocy and your cerebral supremacy well established, let us commence with the discussion.


Monogamy is “unnatural,” says the Professor. And he says this as a married man — or “married” man, I suppose. A married person who doesn’t believe in monogamy seems an awful lot like a Satanist in a church choir, or an existential nihilist performing lifesaving heart surgery. There’s a bit of a philosophical conflict of interest at work, wouldn’t you agree? In fact, I wouldn’t even bother to address such absurdity if it wasn’t becoming so widespread. What you people — you socially “progressive” academics — have realized is that you can not launch a salient attack against the ideals behind marriage, or abstinence for that matter, so instead you’ve decided to make the bizarre case that these things are somehow mythological. The more you say it, the more people believe it, and the more they believe it the more true it becomes. It’s a clever trick. You’ve succeeded, at least partially, in shouting at a reality until it disappears.

But there is SOME truth in what you say.

Monogamy is not natural. You’re right about that.

It’s supernatural.

It’s above our nature. It might not be realistic. Space flight isn’t realistic, either. If I wanted to be natural, I could live in a hole like a rodent, eat insects, and scamper from one mate to the next, until, after a life of nothingness, I die alone in the cold darkness, decomposing into the dirt without anyone ever noticing. That would be natural. It’s probably pretty realistic, too. So it is fortunate that I am a human being and I am given the chance to transcend the existence of a rat or a lizard. I have the opportunity to experience supernatural things like love, and sacrifice, and commitment.

You say that men are especially ill-suited for monogamy. We are not “biologically fitted” for it. What does that mean, Professor? Do you go about your day and, before deciding on any particular course of action, ask yourself if it is something you are “biologically fitted” to do? I would say we are biologically fitted to be rational beings. And, as rational beings, we are capable of attaining higher things. Monogamy and loyalty are higher things. But are they more difficult for men? I can’t fathom why that should be the case.

I have found a woman who will be with me until I die, even while my hair falls out and my skin shrivels and wrinkles, even when I stumble, even when I fail, even through the doldrums of daily existence, through bills and dirty diapers, through all things — joyous or miserable, pleasing or painful — through every day until death comes. Why should it be hard for me to simply refrain from tossing such a gift into the garbage?

It’s hard for men to be monogamous? What a cowardly, pitiful statement. Also, how incredibly obtuse. It ought to be easy for us. Especially for us.

If you won 600 million dollars in the lottery, would you go out the next day and break into cars to steal the change from the cup holders? That’s what sleeping around is like when you’ve already found a woman who will pledge her life and her entire being to you for the remainder of her existence.

You tell me that you are in an “open marriage.” I will probably be lambasted for “judging” you for it, but, sorry Professor, an “open marriage” makes about as much sense as a plane without wings or a boat that doesn’t float. Marriages, by definition, are supposed to be closed. Actually, I’m getting rather tired of people like you trying to hijack the institution, strip it of its beauty and purpose, and convert it into some shallow little thing that suits your vices.

If you aren’t strong enough to stay committed to one person, that’s your business. Walk down that path of loneliness and confusion, but you can’t drag the entire institution of marriage along with you. Personally, I like circles but I hate squares. Can I subvert the laws of geometry and suddenly decide that all squares shall henceforth be circles? No, because geometry is geometry, despite my strange square-hating quirks. Similarly, marriage is marriage, no matter how many college professors insist otherwise.

All that said, I must agree with one of your assertions: I only respond to imbeciles.

Thanks for writing.



Find me on Facebook.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2,191 Responses to Monogamy is unnatural

  1. LHS says:

    This whole thing was amusing, but I have one question for the professor…. If an open relationship is what you desire – Why on earth are you married? What is the purpose in that? Tax credit? wow. I would see little benefit in choosing a marriage if you have no desire to really treat it any differently than any other relationship you have with various other women. Why not simply agree to an open relationship? Oh… yeah… tax credit?

  2. denise bodman says:

    As a professor, as well, in the area of family relationships, I find it distressing that a fellow academic could make comments that fly in the face of research, even recent research that finds that most people in marriages stay true to their spouses and more people are likely to stay married than divorce (check out the recent issues of the Journal of Marriage and Family Relationships) . May not like the research but it’s been pretty consistent. Why should we talk a lie?

    • Sarah says:

      Sounds like everyone needs to read What Do Women Want? by Daniel Bergner. The whole issue of men are “biologically wired” to be polygamous and women are not is such bull$h!t. Whatever you believe, Matt is right in saying that we can choose to go beyond what is natural and become “supernatural” and challenge ourselves on a daily basis to live a higher level of existence and meaning. Good luck to everyone!

  3. Mr says:

    While i agree with many of his counter points and views on marriage i highly doubt this situation occurred. Seems to me to just be a manner for this walsh character to make a point and do so in a manner to incite anger, in his readers/followers, and belittle the differing opinions of others.

    • Delirious says:

      I don’t doubt this is true, because I have lived among these types of people. I have lived in the San Francisco bay area for about 17 years, and trust me, this is how th professors there think.

    • Momofthree says:

      Go to cnn opinion section right now… CNN!!! They are running a piece advocating polygamy … Written by a women who serves as a consultant to the Poly lifestyle!!!! It’s growing in acceptance… Totally nuts. This is a REAL and growing problem.

      • Felicity Jefferson says:

        Why do you say that it is a problem? You must realise that there are many people out there lying to their partners about sleeping around, spreading std’s and dishonesty. People who choose polyamory recognise that they will find it unnatural for them to only have sex with one person for the rest of there lives so they are open and honest about it to their partners. The poly people I’ve met are straight up and will tell people on a first date if not before that they are not looking for monogamy, then the person can choose to stay or go. In fact, the worst thing for a poly person is to be with someone who wants to be monogamous.
        You yourself may find monogamy natural but please understand that not everyone is the same as you, for some people it just does not feel right, if they were to be monogamous they would be suppressing an important part of themselves. Instead of lying to themselves and trying to fit the mould they bravely choose to honour their true nature and go against a world that tries to shame them. It’s like a queer individual pretending to be straight. Don’t tell me your homophobic too?

        • JSantorelli says:

          @Felicity: I find it unnatural to not live in a palace with 500 servants on the planet Neptune and a dog named Titan. What many people define as “unnatural” amounts to little more than a 4 year old trying to convince mommy and daddy that cookies and ice cream are the best dinner.

        • Caitlyn says:

          You don’t get the point of this blog post then. The idea is the fact that monogamy isn’t natural, its as Matt said, supernatural, its above our base instincts. We are rational reasonable beings and are able to rise above pure instinct and base natures. We have self-control.

  4. Pingback: Monogamy is Unnatural: A college professor reveals the goal of modern education institutions | Overmanwarrior's Wisdom

  5. sassypatriot says:

    My husband and I will celebrate our 55th anniversary on Feb. 14, 2014. We have spent these years in love and true to each other. We have not needed to destroy our love and relationship by having sexual escapades with others. The professor seems to be an especially egotistical individual and just uses his various “lovers” to relieve his sexual urges. There doesn’t seem to be a romantic bone in his body. Human beings are supposed to have the highest intelligence of all life. A person that cannot control his sexual urges has dropped from the human level to the animal level. I can’t imagine any woman (or man) that would tolerate the professors arrogant and self-serving attitude. I bet he has to pay for any sex. Maybe he even reverts to the beastiality version. Who knows? Some are talking about that kind of sex being demanded to be accepted by the courts. Our children are subjected to indoctrination by professors and teachers. They are taught that there is no right and no wrong. Well, the professor may find out that various diseases are the penalty for promiscuous sex. I predict a divorce in his future and I hope his wife takes him for everything he has including his lucrative retirement benefits.

    • JSantorelli says:

      @Sassypatriot: I think you have undertones of misandry in your post. If you read the whole article you would realize that his wife fools around too. If she divorces him it won’t be over the sex. She’s probably getting more than he is anyway since women actually run the swinger lifestyle. In fact in most swinger circles the man is nothing more than a cheap piece of garbage and the women call all the shots. She’s probably enjoying it more than he is but the dolt is too feeble to realize it.

      • JSantorelli says:

        @Felicity: Lets suppose you and your best friend decide to compete against 1st graders in a tug of war. Just because you both dragged them across the field on a rope does not mean you are tug of war world champs. You may think so from your perspective but in the grand scheme of things you took the easy way out mutually. When 2 people set the bar low it doesn’t mean they are extraordinary for exceeding a low standard to begin with.

  6. Danielle says:

    Mostly, I’m a “live and let live” person, so I don’t necessarily judge the professor’s lifestyle choice. However, even the lowest among us is capable of being in a relationship where there is no respect, loyalty, or limits to our own ego-driven-instant-gratification-seeking desires. There’s no true commitment (are we afraid?)….and of course the down-side is no real reward. But, hey, if it works for you and the mrs, great. A truly loving relationship on the other hand, I believe, is reserved for those lucky ones who are willing to step up to a higher plane. The bad news — yes, you have to make decisions and choices that are in the best interests of the “team,” some of which may be opposed to manly animal urges. The good news — the combination of the partners in committed, loving relationship become, together, infinitely more than either could have been alone. They shine not only on each other, but on all those who are part of their worlds. It’s a harder road, and it comes with vulnerabilities, a range of deep felt emotion, and risk. But, oh the rewards!! “Love is the joy of the good, the wonder of the wise, the amazement of the Gods.”
    ~Plato (who i think was a pretty smart guy) 😉

    • Michi says:

      You should do some research on Plato’s version of love.. sure, it sounds great when you quote little bits and don’t realize that there are several words in ancient Greek that all translate into “love” in English. Not that the semantic “pools” don’t overlap, but the “love” that Plato talks about in his writings is almost exclusively “eros” –> which is a “love” based solely on attraction. Not to mention – as you would know if you knew your history of philosophy – that it was mostly a pedophilic attraction. Plato’s writings on beauty and love take on a bit of a different hue when they’re read in that context.
      The problem is that modern society is accepting more and more Plato’s definition of love – eros – as the only and most beautiful (and natural) form of love. The “purest”. I beg to differ. Not that I’m trying to measure my intellect with Plato’s, but a love that transcends the alleged “laws of attraction” is the measure of true humanity. Plato is not the only one who ever wrote or spoke about love, and contrary to popular belief, he is not the be-all and end-all of philosophy.
      We love our families, ugly or beautiful, regardless of our attraction to them. It is possible, then, and desirable, to love like that. For everyone. Even “the lowest among us”. It is an unwillingness to expend the effort and time to extend – and learn – THAT love to someone other than those we grew up learning to love like that which is the problem.
      To argue the marriage/monogamy issue with “natural drives” is cowardice. What we have is a generation of people who feel entitled to their whims, who are unwilling to sacrifice their “baser” instincts, notions and behaviors for their own good and that of others. And because they’re unwilling, they use their positions as teachers, parents and mentors to spread the rumor that it is not possible to live outside – or ABOVE – that baseness. Bullshit.
      Even a viewpoint based on the “animal nature” of humans HAS to admit to the higher functions that set us apart from all the other animals. And with those higher functions comes the power – and a responsibility (be it to God, or to nature as one or the other has seen fit to endow us with them) to set ourselves apart from everything else by exercising the constraint they equip us with. The only excuses we have for succumbing to our “animal nature” are laziness and entitlement. Living according to our nature as humans does not mean giving in to those baser instincts, but ruling over them (for lack of a better phrase). If we use our baser instincts as an excuse to indulge in them, we are being less than we were meant to be. Less than we CAN be.
      Live and let live works up to a certain point. For myself, though, I would like to see everyone around me grow into the fullness of what they can be. Whether it’s right or wrong don’t really tie into it as much as the fact that their behavior is self-destructive rather than self-realizing. So I can live and let live, or I can try to step out of my own self-destructiveness and try to take some of those around me along with me. That is not judgement, it is love. The only alternative is complacency, and that never helped anyone.

      • Felicity Jefferson says:

        Nice call on Plato. I must ask though, why do you assume that it is better to constrain our sexual desires for anyone other than our partners, even if our partner is 110% ok with us doing this?
        Is it because our ability to control our sexual urges sets us apart from animals and therefore we must exercise it? Polyamorous people aren’t running around like animals having sex with no restraint, in fact they would have to use higher levels of cognition to wade through the territory of complex emotions etc. One could argue that those pursuing a relationship that challenges what our automatic pilot tells us to do are thinking even more about relationships.
        You sound like a smart individual but your assumption that this behaviour is self-destructive rather than self-realizing is just that – an assumption. The poly couples I’ve met are attempting to practise unconditional love for their partners which means they do not put any restrictions on their partners desires or behaviours but try to provide unconditional support and love, which helps to prevent any ‘self-destruction’. Doesn’t this sound even more self-actualised?
        Self-actualised – actualising of yourself, what if your ‘self’ finds monogamy unnatural, then shouldn’t you actualise this by ignoring the ignorant prejudices of a society that judges all sexuality as purely animalistic. Having an amazing emotional connection of unconditional love expressed through the passion and intimacy of sex can transcend a person to higher levels of consciousness. If there was no limit on who or how many people you could do this with, without hurting anyone, well one could say this may help you to become even more self-actualised than others, i.e. those who lose desire for their partner after 30 years and as a result of monogamy have to suppress all sexual desire and sacrifice a sex life at all.
        I think we need to stop looking at sex as some bestial desire that inhibits man, the vedantic approach, and realise it for it’s power to heal and transcend us into higher levels of consciousness, a more tantric approach.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @Felicity: I am very much a student of mystical and ascending to higher states of being. The problem though as I’m sure you are aware of though is that some people get obsessed with the power / rush of it. If you truly were ascending into a higher state then you should be able to love people as spiritual beings without the need to have sex with them which is a lowly physical process. A true spiritual encounter is enlightenment and comes from within, not without. When an individual achieves enlightenment there is no desire since all desire is quenched in spirit. Polyamory is the exact opposite that amounts to little more than a neurochemical addiction to the high people feel when they say they are “in love.” Neuroscience backs this up.

  7. Pingback: Monogamy is unnatural | Cy-Fair Parents Care

  8. Matt, a fantastic response to a man who is mislead and mistaken. Marriage and monogamy. It’s a beautiful thing!

  9. kris says:

    open and polyamorous relationships are actually quite rewarding and strongly anchored in love, respect, communication and honesty. looking at human history, our anatomy and natural social structures (and take man-made phooey like religion out of the picture) it is difficult to deny that humans are designed for extended family-units reinforced by sexual connections.

    • Kelli says:

      Really? So….you are no better than an animal? Look at the results of “sexual connections.” Unplanned or “who cares” pregnancies have made a whole generation of children with no fathers. Honesty, respect, communication? Sure. That’s what this is all about. Sheesh. Grow up.

      • Zack says:

        Kelli, you’re implying all polyamorous unions are solely based upon sex. While this is a general influence, I’m at the liberty (knowing quite a few many) to say that this is not true. Even the common belief is très facile, the problem with it, along with any other set of conventional wisdom his highly flawed and skewered to meet a point.

        The thing is, Love is an emotion, bound to other emotions and influenced by many situations. This is the problem in judging a connection between two and more human beings.

        Now, I’ll acknowledge the fact that a grand majority of poly relationships are heavily sexual and hardly loving, or are skewered towards one or two individuals rather than the third (or more?). However, one should not focus on all the bad in a group, they should focus upon the beauty in it, and find a way to extend that same beauty.

        Hopefully, one day, there will be poly relationships that truly hold some emotionally true bonds within them. Until then, the poly community can only try to make progress by stomping out the bad examples.

        • Darron DeSantis says:

          “I believe that, although you’re trying to make a rational or reasoned point, relationships (especially married- or monogamous- ones) are not principally or chiefly based upon the intellectual, or rationality or reason (the mind or the head) but are rather instead mostly-based upon emotions or “the heart”, and the whole-entire subject of sexuality cannot be objectively gotten rid of or out of the picture when it comes to relationships, because most are centered upon or heavily-influenced by, it, as well, as emotions from “the heart”. Thus, we derive the term, “romantic-relationships”, which stem from those, or are directly-affected by those sentiments or “spheres”, if you will or so to speak. To utterly remove sexuality from the equation or situation/ configuration of monogamous- or polygamous- relationships would be totally impossible and improbable, not to mention counter-productive and illogical or unreasonable/ irrational, and completely ignore or disassociate oneself from effectively or competently studying or analyzing said relationships. In other words, to put it simply and succinctly, one cannot take emotions or romanticism and sexuality out of both monogamous- and bigamous- or polygamous- relationships, any more than one can intelligently take the Creator-God out of Creationism or Creationist-Theory. Both “spheres” are the inevitable, essential-, or necessary-/ integral- rungs upon which one is able to climb up the ladder of relationships, and also the spokes, cogs, or glue between them which hold the wheel of ever-turning relationships together. One cannot have one without the one; they each directly-impact or -influence and inter-connect one another. I appreciate your comments, but logically or rationally and reasonably cannot agree with them. I think your comments try or attempt at making a point, but that point seems to me to be weak, uninformed or uneducated, ignorant, and implausible. Maybe you should try or attempt again, this time more-practically or pragmatically to assert your opinion, which is just that, an opinion or idea/ thought/ theory/ hypothesis/ guess of yours, and not empirical-fact or evidence/ proof. My opinion, on the other hand, is as near a fact as is mentally possible, wherein I cite several well-tried examples to support and prove my point. I believe, in the final-analysis, that I am in the right or absolutely correct, and that my comments reach a much-more tenable point or assertion and well-thought out and deliberate conclusion than your comments do. I pray that you have learned something valuable and true from my comments or description/ explanation/ definition. If you haven’t, I still wish or hope that someday you shall. Your comments were definitely food-for-thought enough for me to respond in kind. No offense intended, but you need to think out a much-better “answer” than you did. Take good care, God bless you, and thank you for your patience and attention.”
          –Darron R. DeSantis

        • Roelie says:

          @ Zack reading through your sad attempt at protecting poly relationships, I would like to correct you on one thing. Love is not an emotion. See emotions wane and waver, love , true love does not. Love = commitment. That’s the bottom line in any monogamous relationship. It means self sacrifice on so many levels. In a time where we are taught that “we’re worth it”, and A ME mentality there leaves little room for sacrifice, real sacrifice.

    • HaMalYa says:

      Kris, “looking at our anatomy, it is difficult to deny that humans are designed for extended family units reinforced by sexual connections?”

      Is that why I was born with twelve penises? I guess women have two breasts so she can be fondled by two men at once?

      Come on, nothing about our anatomy suggests that we should have multiple spouses or even multiple lovers. In fact, the millions of people with warts on their genitals would suggest that it only takes one moldy apple to ruin the bushel. I am always amused when people throw in baseless statements and hope others will check reason at the door and slurp up your garbage!

      • Darron DeSantis says:

        Absolutely. I appreciate and totally agree with your comments. Well said. Let us never forget that people who sleep around and have multiple, “casual” or “recreational” (sexual) partners always tend to try to self-righteously/ arrogantly/ egotistically, erringly “justify” their promiscuous, irresponsible behavior by excusing it away or attempting to “prove” that their behavior exists “commonly” in nature among even animals. However, whenever one seriously and honestly studies animals in nature, one immediately discovers that promiscuous and even homosexual behavior in animals is rare, in the minority and not actually “common” at all, and also always used to be considered abnormal or deviant behavior even by the scientifically-researching experts, until recently, when a growing minority of militant-minded, skewed Liberal-agenda, foolish and insatiable people have suddenly seemed to have ignored thinking rationally and logically, and throw out all common-sense and reason, and claimed that “it’s ok, it even happens in nature”. The Liberals have continued growing more and more extreme and crazy, lately, to the point that everything they think, say, feel, and do has become the polar-opposite of all sane activity. God save us all from the Liberal-wackos and their twisted view of the world, that they seek to remake into their own severely-biased, subjective Utopia or Heaven on Earth, with everyone either being forced to fit into their own made-up pigeon-holes–a bit like trying to fit round pieces into square pegs–, and if they don’t like your ages-old, conservative, morally-right principles or your views don’t fit their warped agenda, then they search you out and systemically and ruthlessly destroy you and everything you stand for! The Liberals are just plain crazy. They don’t make any real sense, anymore. (Actually, they never truly did. It’s just that nowadays they’re rapidly becoming more and more extreme and militant.)

        • I can rebut this in one word: Bonobos. A quick google search of “Bonobo” and “Sex” should get you a sampling of behavior that would do a Penthouse Forum proud. Chimpanzees come close to that too, but they’re a bit on the rough side.

  10. Momofthree says:

    Wow. And I thought you were going to point out that not violently stabbing people you quarrel with, and sharing with non-kin are also unnatural, and therefore, by his twisted logic, things that should not be held up as behavioral objectives.

  11. Momofthree says:

    Or, come to think of it, you should point out that it is highly unnatural for him ( the prof), to allow his wife to stray outside the union, as men are biologically hardwired for extreme sexual jealousy. ( evidence: can you point to any significant polygynous society in the whole history of man )? Biology dictates that he should be murdering her suitors…. Maybe that’s why he feels the need to recite all his academic accomplishments….

    • kris says:

      actually, if you understand how we evolved as a hunter/gather species and that in these communities paternity was not important because the whole cared for each other and that women are actually designed for multiple partners (hidden ovulation, multiple orgasms, vocal during sex etc). the majority of industrialized nations are monogamous because they are controlled by a religious slant that began with the agricultural revolution to control society (especially women) not because monogamy is the natural human state.
      my poly family is extensive and loving, we are for each others children (all of whom where planned pregnancies, because although we are all active sexually we are also responsible adults), support the goals and any jealousy that arises is discussed and handled w care so that everyone feels safe, supported and loved. jealousy is an emotion, just like hunger or anger or joy… and jealousy is rooted in personal insecurities.
      and there is a VAST difference in polyamory and polygamy.

      • JSantorelli says:

        @kris: Ya know, society really needs to get off this “blame everything on the religious old crusts controlling women” attitude. It is an immature adolescent attitude that sounds more like a teenager crying how “grown up” they are when they don’t even take out their own garbage. There is no definitive scientific evidence that says men or women “were designed for multiple partners” anymore than there is evidence that trees were designed for climbing. Sure, we can use trees for climbing but to start ascribing that as their “natural given purpose” is ridiculous. Poly people, swingers, etc all live in a fantasy land built at the altars of taboo and novelty. If that’s what you want to waste away in God bless, but to come here like some beacon of divine love to assign purpose and blame is quite arrogant of one who claims to be so love oriented.

        Not every married person out there is hot to sack other people. I’m not so insecure that I need the constant affirmation from women other than my wife to feel “loved.” Conversely, she doesn’t need a line of men waiting to “affirm her value” either. We both took a deep hard look inside the other and happily found ourselves. It seems like you are still searching for something you never had.

      • momofthree says:

        Sorry Kris, but I am a biologist, and male sexual jealousy is a well-documented phenomenon. Again, point me to ANY evidence for a long-standing polyandrous society. “paternity was not important ” That is ENTIRELY untrue. Right now, perhaps the greatest threat to the LIFE of a child under five is an unrelated male (boyfriend of mom) living in the same household. Look it up.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @momofthree: Actually the greatest threat to the life of a child is an unmarried mother. Studies have shown that a woman alone is twice as likely as a father to kill their children. Women are also more likely to kill male children than female ones. You may want to stick to hard biology instead of the philosophical evolutionary and psychological kind.

          A Ph.D Material Scientist

        • JSantorelli says:

          Scroll down to the table and you will find the number of children subjected to neglect or abuse by mother alone was 1,452,099. For fathers alone it was 661,129. Sorry, but you smear campaign of men just doesn’t hold up.

        • William says:

          Hmm, if I understand your numbers correctly, if a Child is in the custody of a Single mother, 1,452,099 abuses but 661,129 times when in the custody of a single father, But was it the Mother that did the abuse, or was it the mother’s Boyfriend??? If you take a good look to the numbers Behind your numbers I am sure you would find it is the Boyfriend of the mother that does the majority of the abuse. Taking out his resentment on the proof (the child)
          of the mother’s prior relationship etc.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @William: Read closer. The data I put there was single mother ALONE, not with boyfriend!!!!

        • JSantorelli says:

          @Willian: Here so you don’t have to work too hard there…..
          Mother Only – 1,452,099
          Mother and Other – 222,836

        • As a biologist you will no doubt be aware and able to elaborate on how femailes among other primate species will mate with more than a single male of their group (and neighboring groups) in order to ensure the safety and security of their young and to make more stable their place within the group should the alpha male be challenged and unseated by another male. As to paternity-among other primates, paternity is a pretty big deal-male apes and chimps don’t generally kill their own offspring.

    • JSantorelli says:

      LOL! There was an article published a few months ago about a man in Africa that had 6 wives. 5 of the wives murdered him because he favored the 6th. I don’t think men win any awards in the jealousy department. Sounds like a tie to me. Ease that feminine ego momofthree.

      • momofthree says:

        No ego here…just the facts. Again…find a long-standing polyandrous society for me.

        • JSantorelli says:

          @momofthree: I’m not saying guys aren’t jealous, but you make it sound like women don’t mind sharing the marital bed. Polygamous societies only last because women are often oppressed in them and live under such conditions by force. Most women are not like “Sister Wives.”

        • Mother of Ben says:

          Interestingly fathers don’t get custody as often as mothers. I wonder how that looks in percentages?

        • Look to the middle east…

  12. isa015 says:

    whenever someone says that we’re not made for monogamy, i think of a quote from BBC’s Top Gear: “Yeah, we’re not made to use ovens either, or wear shoes.”

  13. mommyx4boys says:

    I have seen a lot of posts saying that sleeping around is natural and that you can have a very loving and meaningful open marriage. (Bullcrap) jealousy is also human nature and if you’re jealous of your spouse you can not havve a great relationship, where there is jealousy there is bitterness distrust and emptiness. And it doesn’t matter if someone has been in an open marriage for 20 years and claim to be happy because you don’t know the joys of being in a relationship with someone who devotes their whole self to only you

    • Felicity says:

      Jealousy comes form insecurity.

      • mommyx4boys says:

        Okay, name one person on earth who has never been insecure

      • Rachiel says:

        Yes I agree, jealousy can be (and frequently is) an indication that someone is damaging their relationship sexually or energetically and making it insecure and the jealousy feeling in their partner is the result. 😉

        A lot of this talk about people being insecure is just justification to run over people’s hearts and feelings and do whatever you want no matter what the cost.

        Most of the people who go into polyamory as a sexual relationship have fragmented selves where they can only express fragments of themselves with each partner and “switch” focus to the other partner when their internal issues in intimacy pop up in order to avoid dealing with them, and that is just as negative as fear based monogamy. All this talk of “detaching” and “personal freedom” can be the same as well, avoidance of emotional pain and running over your feelings and the feelings of your partner.

        If what you did was so great and perfect, there would be NO jealousy. It would feel good to your partner. If your partner is jealous, you had a part in it. We all effect each other in a RELATIONSHIP.

  14. Tara says:

    I absolutely enjoyed reading this blog and highly appreciated how Matt completely and utterly shut this arrogant and patronising professor down! Well done!!

  15. Blaxer says:

    Way to go Matt! Thank you for caging that animal for the ret of human-kind. Fabulous!

  16. Matt is he a real professor or just someone made it up? Usually, someone in academia would like to leave their credentials and where they work and a real name.

    • Probably made up. This sounds like a prime example of Christian paranoia- people in open/polyamorous relationships aren’t trying to convince monogamous people to be poly. Just like how gay people aren’t trying to turn straight people gay, and people who don’t celebrate Christmas aren’t trying to stop people from celebrating Christmas. Meanwhile, Christians are upset by the very existence of poly, gay, or non-Christmas-celebrating people. They want to make it seem like the other side is the aggressor so they invent characters like this one.

      • mommyx4boys says:

        Right because you know every Christian in the world don’t you. what you said is such a load of crap. i am a Christian and i nor my family care if others celebrate christmas or not i also don’t care if someone is gay or not but i don’t like when someone says theyy have a good open marriage because for one thing it is an insult to the institution of marriage. and if your marriage is really great you don’t need or want to have sex with someone else. you would stay home and make love to your spouse. To say you hace a great open marriage is a contradiction in itself.

        • Elisabeth says:

          Debate debate argue argue blah blah blah. The only thing that matters is what God has to say about it. When our life here is over that’s all that’s going to matter. The only thing.

      • Elisabeth says:

        If he was some college professor with a bunch of initials behind his name I wouldn’t listen .

  17. sassypatriot says:

    Trent you are wrong on all counts. I believe that atheists are trying to change our culture. They go to court on a daily basis shutting down Christmas in every school and town in America. They fight to remove a cross from a place where it stood for one hundred years. They won’t allow Christmas cards, Easter cards etc. to be exchanged or posted in a school. Christmas trees and nativity scenes are to be removed from every town square. Christians are prohibited from even saying Merry Christmas. Homosexuality is taught to children K-12. If that isn’t indoctrination, I don’t know what is. The religion of secular humanism is also taught in our government schools. There is curriculum in many schools that celebrates Islam. Trent, you call it “Christian paranoia, but I believe Christians have been tolerant of evil for far too long. You destroy moral values and you destroy a culture.

  18. Anji says:

    A part of me feels unadulterated joy that you responded in kind to the self-righteous but ridiculous “professor.” Marriage is meant to be closed. I agree with absolutely everything you said. I’m glad to see such an entertaining and vividly expressive writer addressing some of the stickier problems we face today.

    What I don’t agree with, however, is the way you said it. I may be mistaken, but I have this impression that you are a Christian. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

    The professor slung attacks at you and noted the presence of “fallacies” probably to feel self-important. His email was brutal and cruel. Your response had much the same tone, especially the final barb (though both you made a number of crude digs at his character that could—like his attacks on your intelligence and character—be considered Ad Hominem attacks, which are extremely persuasive but logically irrelevant. You are a great writer. Please don’t use your words for this. Show him what we have [or what some of us hope to one day have]! Show him the truth, the health and the love and the beauty of marriage to one amazing person for the entirety of your natural life.). I daresay you are busy and will not have time to read this comment, but I ask you—if words from a stranger over the vast and anonymous internet mean anything to you—to keep in mind your tone. By responding with brutality and digs at his character, you have (for lack of a more original analogy) stooped to his level.

    Pull a Jesus on this one. He was the Master Philosopher. Let your wit be sharp and your words sharper, but don’t sink into dung-slinging. When that happens, everyone gets messy.

    I cannot honestly apologize for my words, because I mean them, but if anything comes across as rude, I sincerely apologize. I certainly don’t mean for this to seem rude, but I felt compelled to say it, even if my words are awkward and inadequate.

    Thanks for your time. It is always a pleasure to read your writing.

  19. Pingback: Monogamia nu este naturală...Este supranaturală. | Știri pentru viațăȘtiri pentru viață

  20. I have considered the professor’s viewpoint at times, but than I come to this question: what is more blatantly a result of “biological wiring”: The difficulty a man or woman may have in remaining faithful to one other, or the observable, measurable diseases which result from a multiplicity of partners? Have we “adapted” to monogamy so much to the point that our bodies cannot ward off such sicknesses? Ridiculous in my opinion. While I agree that monogamy is a lifestyle that is very difficult to attain, I still don’t see rational reasoning (besides mere unwarranted claims–“we are better suited for polygamy”) behind the polygamous proposition.

  21. imnobody00 says:

    I expect the good professor to reject modern medicine. After all, this is unnatural too.

  22. Good sir,
    I salute you in your bluntness, I am only 13 but this article was amazing, keep up the good work.
    P.S. nice insult at the end.

    • DYLAN says:

      Benjamin Cottam,

      Young man, I hope that by the time you are Matt Walsh’s age you will have discovered how inappropriate and unhelpful it is to respond the way that Matt did. Sure his arguments were amazing and all that, but perhaps you don’t realize that he sunk to the professor’s level…he played the professor’s game…and lost pretty much all his credibility as someone to look up to. You are of course free to salute his bluntness and admire his insults…it’s what a lot of teenagers do. But you can get an early start on manhood by practicing and encouraging grace and kindness when it comes to conversations with others. And in case you think I’m a wacko, you can check out all the other comments by many others here who also think Matt made a huge mistake in the way he responded.

      • Thank you, I am a teenager but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a brain, I believe that it is completely appropriate to speak with kindness when needed, but I also believe that this is not the time, it is a growing problem andyou know it, maybe your just jealous of the fact that this man is amazing, he was blunt only because the professor was so pompous that nothing else would get his attention.

        • RB says:

          ^ Agreed. You don’t need to be exceptionally P.C and walk on eggshells around everyone’s feelings to get your point across. I admire his boldness. People who have opposing views to Matt’s have their own tv shows where they lambast and mock these beliefs. He has every right to stand up for his with sharp wit.

  23. Sapientivore says:

    Here’s the point of an open marriage as opposed to another arrangement: what happens if your sexual needs are not the same as your spouse? My significant other is a wonderful woman who I am with because she is the person with whom I want to have children and share my life.

    However, she does not like sex. At all. And I am an intensely sexual person.

    Would you advocate that I live the rest of my life sexless, or push her to have sex even though she hates it? She doesn’t. She actively encourages me to seek sexual pleasure elsewhere. Why would I deny my natural sexual needs or perform an act that may as well be rape(I don’t care whether she _says_ it’s okay or not, I know perfectly well sex disgusts her) when I have her full approval to engage in sexual relationships with other people?

    • DYLAN says:

      Sapientivore — First off, thanks for being honest and open about your situation.

      Some questions I have for you: I take it by “significant other” you mean your “wife”, is that correct? I certainly would wonder why it is that this amazing woman, with whom you want to have your kids, is disgusted by sex. Do you know what the source for that is? Maybe you don’t have to force her to do something that disgusts her if she can alter her perceptions regarding sex. This doesn’t have to be something you force on her…she can choose for herself to either be okay with forcing you to sleep around or she can figure out what might be at the root of it all. I would also ask what it is you consider to be “natural sexual needs”. This might not be a topic for discussion here, but I would hope you would examine yourself and your own desires and determine whether some of those desires might also contribute to the issue you two have. Just because you “have her full approval” to have “casual sexual encounters” doesn’t mean it is at all healthy for you or her. She’s probably only giving her approval because she feels forced to.

      Anyway, some food for thought…

    • Darron DeSantis says:

      The whole reason for having a monogamous spouse in the first place is for one, to satisfy your sexual needs. If that doesn’t work for you, then maybe you need to work on yourself or not be in a monogamous marriage, but don’t be ridiculous and blame marriage for your own short-comings. Blame, especially if invalid, as in this case, doesn’t help anybody, especially yourself. Be a part of the solution to the problem, not the cause of it.

      • mommyx4boys says:

        Well first if she is in love with you then she shouldn’t be disgusted by making love to you and second how do you plan on having children with someone who you can’t have sex with. also sex is a natural act if she hates it that much maybe she should get some therapy to find out why she does. i know i would if it were me i love my husband to much to suggest he go somewhere else and get what he needs when i could just fix my problem instead. good luck

  24. jakin says:

    So if we evolved into not needing to be monogamous why have so many sexually transmitted diseases evolved along with it?

  25. Pingback: Self-Mastery and the Vocation of Marriage | Team Orthodoxy

  26. Rose says:

    I believe it is ignorant to say what is the good, or right, or perfect definition of a relationship for everyone. We, humans, are not one-size-fits-all. In gender rolls, in life choices, in politics, in relationships, in creed, culture and religion. In some tribes poly-amorous relationships are normal, in other societies closed marriages from a young age are normal. It’s what truly makes us human, the ability to make choices and live with our different decisions. It’s wrong for the professor to say that humans are inextricable from our hormones or our ancestral habits and everyone wants or needs to sleep around. It’s wrong to say that all humans in all committed relationships operate the best in a closed marriage.

    I’ve been with my husband for ten years, I am 27. We constantly work to stay committed to each other on a daily basis out of love. He is the best human being I have ever run across, and he feels the same about me. If one or the other were to leave, we would be forever lost without our other half. Yet, we operate best in the “non-normal” version of marriage… not that I am going to define that aspect of relationship here because it doesn’t matter. What matters is what is important and what works for the individual couple.

    • mommyx4boys says:

      you can not have an open marriage and a committed relationship at the same time because you are not committed to only your spouse

      • I completely disagree with your comment. You can be committed because you have children, and want to keep that family together. Think of all the great men that were admired for being great men in their fields, great fathers and husbands, and then later on we find out that they had mistresses on the side. People marry for other reasons and stay married for other reasons than you or I would. I don’t understand the Clinton’s marriage, but they stayed together despite his very public outing of his cheating. You cannot say that that is wrong because you are not IN that relationship. People get married for one reason and then sometimes it grows into another reason. Businesses started together, men or women realize later on in life that they are really gay, people fall in love with other people outside of their marriage that they would never live with, so they stayed married.

        Your version of marriage is good for you. Let others marry for their own reasons. This reminds me of all the idiots that say marriage is only for reproduction. That is simply not true, or post-menopausal women would never be allowed to marry, and sterile people would not be allowed to marry. Yet that notion persists.

        I think that the “professor” that contacted Matt was a bit loopy in that he was trying to impose his version of marriage on Matt, but the basic idea that polyamorous relationships can work is not loopy. Sure, it might not work for you or for me, but it does work. I have friends that have wonderful relationships that have lasted as long as their marriages have. In fact, for one woman I know, she met her first husband within the poly community, they maintained outside relationships and had children. Then they divorced because he wanted to be married to someone else. She then married one of her other poly relationships that had been maintained from the time during her first marriage, after living together for about 5 yrs. and they are happily raising the kids between the father, the mother and the new step father (who has been in the girls’ lives since they can remember).

        Like I said, it might not be for you or me, but it does work.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          I did not say it couldn’t work i simply meant that marriage is supposed to be a commitment between two people not two people and others it even says so in the vows and i personally think you miss out on so much of the bond a husband and wife share together but maybe I’m wrong after all i have never been through it all i know is i would be devastated if my husband said he wanted us to have an open marriage and then he would be devastated because i would hurt him lol not really but i would probably want to

      • Darron DeSantis says:

        “No. I have to object to your ignorant, seditious comments. In point of fact or reality, there actually is only one, truly right or correct definition of the best kind of relationship and that’s a monogamous marriage one between one man and one woman. It’s been the only ordained institution blessed by God like that for over six-thousand years, since the time of the first one, Adam’s and Eve’s. Yes, I believe the accounts or records of the Bible’s first ‘Book of Genesis’ in ‘The Old Testament’ to be literal. Why not? There is more evidence for the sake of argument from the pro-closed marriage side than there is for any other kind of relationship out there in the world. Let’s remember that all the others are truly deviant lifestyles, meaning (by their very definition, which was defined ages ago, but only ‘redefined’ by Progressives or Liberals who digressed or fell away from common ages-old consensus or agreement roughly five decades ago during the late- nineteen-sixties, with the relatively-short beginning of the ‘hippie-movement’ and ‘civil-rights’ which were both touted by the minority, not the majority in power and establishment) other lifestyles were/are rebellious and an blatant, lewd insult to the original which was begun by God so many millennia ago. Other societies which practice other relationships have been justly designated or described of (for good reason by well-educated documenters) as ‘pagan’ or ‘heathen’, literally-meaning anything that goes against traditional Judeo-Christian norms or customs. In fact, all societies which deviated from the original have one, principle problem with them: they all fell away, corrupted or deteriorated from within, and eventually fell (after rising to a peak or prime), as a direct-result of their own people’s sin or transgression from God’s Laws, statutes, ordinances, and commandments. It’s a very sad and unnecessary/preventable thing, which I see is the way that even the once-great U.S.A. is heading down these days, unfortunately; but it’s been prophesized ages ago to happen this way. God allowed it for His benevolent and divine-purposes to eventually come to pass, but He never endorsed nor liked it.”

        • Rose says:

          “It’s been the only ordained institution blessed by God like that for over six-thousand years, since the time of the first one, Adam’s and Eve’s. ” ….Like he blessed all of his Chosen Kings that had harems, multiple (up to hundreds) of wives? Marriages forced between slave and owner, rape victim and rapist? Abraham had… oh that’s right, Keturah, Hagar, Sarah? King David (which means God’s Beloved) had 8 wives?

          You need to get a little more familiar with your bible there, hon.

        • Darron DeSantis says:

          “The God of the Bible allowed those other relationships, and tolerated them, for His ultimate/ eventual purposes, but He wasn’t pleased by them, actually. You’re the one who really needs to read and study her Bible in depth, seriously, hon.”

        • You may wish to consider widening your scope of biblical study. Might I suggest The Historical Jesus; Five Views. Not a light read, but having biblical scholars relate the struggles of separating truth from myth in the Hebrew and Christian texts is fascinating.

      • Rose says:

        There is more than one type of commitment.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          Not in a marriage. In a marriage that is called adultery

        • AmandaM says:

          Sure, you can call it adultery, but that doesn’t mean it’s a problem. If you and your spouse have agreed in advance that it’s okay, that your commitment to your relationship is worth more than just the state of your sex life, then it’s not a problem.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          what others do is up to them. my point was only that marriage is supposed to be a bond between two people who are dedicated to only each other in every way i think if you want to have that kind of relationship you should just be in a relationship and not get married because that go’s against what marriage is supposed to be i mean listen to the vows that are said

        • AmandaM says:

          Sure, but you get to decide what your vows will be. I wrote my own. I’m pretty sure I’ve never been to a wedding where they vowed to “never have sex with anyone else again.”

        • William says:

          Amanda your reply seems like weasel wording to me! In every contract there are both implicit and explicit factors. Some things are spelled out in detail, others are understood. I doubt that any marriage vows carry “I will not hit you”, “I will always tell you the truth”, ” I will not steal from you”, I will protect your health (I will not expose you to STD’s)”, ” I will edify you to others (I will not run you down behind your back” etc. etc. These are implicit in the contract. To cover every possible factor would make the vows too long and unwieldy. Therefore to claim that the vow does not promise such is weasel wording to get around what is part of the understood marriage contract. It is part of being “Faithful”

        • AmandaM says:

          Sure, you could argue that, and I assume that for you the term “faithful” does include sexual exclusivity. What I am saying is just because you vowed to be faithful in your vows, and your agreement with your spouse is for you to be sexually exclusive, doesn’t mean that everyone who gets married has the same vows or same agreement on what those vows mean.

  27. Matt,
    I would like to point out, in the most respectful way possible, that your idea of marriage is clearly a very modern one. Many people have married in the past, and continue to do so in the present, with the idea that there are other reasons to marry besides monogamy.

    In the Old Testament, people married because their families decided that they will. Women had no choice in the matter, as they were property of their fathers until they became property of their husbands. They had not say in anything to do with marriage.

    Marriages in the Old testament times were often for business reasons- you have this land that abuts to my land and if our children marry, then their children will benefit for that huge land parcel. Or you have 100 head of cattle and I have 200 head of cattle and our kids will marry so that there will be an abundance of cattle and they will benefit from that.

    Men who strayed all the way up until the 60’s, if they were in prominent positions, were often admired for staying married and raising their children, if they had a mistress.

    I am not defending polyamorous relationships. I am not defending monogamous relationships. What I am saying is that your idea of what marriage should be like, has not been the norm until more or less the last 30-40 yrs. In other countries, it is still not the norm.

    Please know that I admire your passionate view on what type of marriage that you have and that you find all that you need within it. And you should consider that everyone else’s view of marriage might be different and that, too, is OK. Your decisions for your marriage are between you and your wife, both in a legal sense, and in common sense. Should you bring another person into your union, that should not impinge on anyone else’s view of what they want out of marriage.

    Food for thought, eh?

    • Rose says:

      I appreciate your respectful, articulate responses. Food for thought. 🙂

      • Thank you Rose. I know that this argument for most of you is based on biblical teachings. But for those of us that are not following the bible, whether because we are agnostic, atheistic, or another religion, your argument does not hold water for those people. Can you in fact, find a way to convince people who are not Christians. Since other civilizations that precede the old testament time, had multiple partners in a marriage, within the old Testment there are many examples of multiple partners within a marriage and those individuals sometimes were still blessed by God to do great things (making it seem as if God condoned their multiple partners within marriage and other relationships outside of their marriage), and still today there are great leaders that have done good things that have had relationships outside of their marriage, the argument based on the bible or Christianity, falls a bit flat. If you (I mean “you” in a general way) are going to argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that there should be no other relationships outside of it, you need to come up with an argument that will also be based on reasons that non-religious people can agree with.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          Okay how about the fact that sleeping around can spread disease even if precautions are taken it can still happen

        • I am responding to Mommy4boys comment of what about STDs- Yes, you are right, STDs still sometimes spread despite taking precautions. I will not argue that this is common sense. In my case, I never had a chance to protect myself. 19 yrs with a man who said he would never cheat (I do believe that for that entire time, he was faithful) and then the last 4 mos. He decided to have an affair and did not use protection with her or with me. When I found out by accident, that was the thing that appalled me the most, the utter lack of concern for my health. Had we been in an open marriage, OR a polyamorous one, we would all be getting tested regularly, and/or using protection. This is why I say that sometimes that is the better alternative. Not every spouse will cheat, of course, but … I would have preferred to know if I was taking a chance with my health, than being put in a position of not knowing. I could have said “no to sex” while he was having the other relationship, and I think we would have stayed together once it was out of his system.

          My case colors my point of view, so I know that this is not for everyone.
          Thank you for being so respectful of my point of view and I hope you now not only understand that I am respectful of all of you and your point of views, but I also understand why mine happens to be different.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          I am sorry to hear that happened to you. I have also been cheated on and maybe that is why i feel so strongly that once you get married there should never be any messing around. I would probably tattoo my name on my husbands forehead to let other women know he is taken, if he would let me but i thhink that may be going a little bit to far. Lol

  28. I’m sorry, I also forgot to add, that many prominent figures in the Old Testament not only had concubines, affairs, multiple wives, etc, but that many civilizations growing up prior to the Old Testament time, during and after, also held that it was common to have one man and multiple women as sexual partners, in both a legal sense, and in a casual way.

    My ex told me for 19 yrs that he would never cheat on me. I have friends within the polyamorous community, so we had discussed on multiple occasions about what that would entail, why it would not work for us, and so on. Very, VERY open about this discussion and that it would not work for us. Then he went and had an affair. Would it not have been more honest for him to have confessed, that while we still were having sex almost daily, that after 19 yrs of “eating chicken ever day” that he was in fact, bored of “eating chicken” and wanted something else? The only reason I can figure out that he decided that being polyamorous would not work for us, is that then I would have had permission to go outside of our union to pursue romantic or sexual connections and that he would have to wear a condom, so that we would not be sharing anyone else’s communicable diseases.

    My only hesitation in a polyamorous situation would be that too many emotions are involved and that it is int fact, more difficult to maintain peace within a relationship where 3 or more people are having sex on a regular basis. The jealousies, envies, the time constraints, the juggling of schedules, the juggling of who is with whom, at any given moment, would need a master organizer. While I am in fact, very good at organizing, I’m not sure that I would want to take that on. So for me, I am not sure that this would work out.

    I’m not down on anyone for choosing one way or the other, I just think that my personal decision would be based on the practicalities of the situation and not on a decision to adhere what our society deems what is the norm.

    I mean this respectfully,

  29. I would also like to point out that where the societal norm has been “monogamous marriage” we do in fact have a whole bunch of families now broken where the father has chosen to leave and not interact with the children much.

    You cannot blame this on polyamorous relationships. When 3 or more people, do bring children into their relationships, there is usually more care added into the schedules for taking care of the kids.

    I am irreligious, so I am not basing my opinions on Christianity, or anything of the sort. If you are religious and you only have sex with your spouse, and that is fulfilling to you, then do not judge other people who choose to do things differently than you. Simply, be happy in your union and wish upon others that they are happy in their unions.

    I am currently dating. I have been in contact with couples that want to add me to their union, and it does sound odd to say, but I actually am considering it. For now, I only seek platonic relationships with all that I date. I think it is more important to have sexual relationships that grow out of friendship situations, instead of just lust. But then again, if someone chose to do something differently, I would not judge them.

    I have been contacted by men who want to sneak around behind their wife’s back. I always, ALWAYS tell them that this is not a good idea. I tell them to go in for counseling, tell them to seek medical attention if there might be a physical reason why their wives do not want to have sex anymore, ask them if their wife was doing what they are considering doing would they like that, and as a last resort, tell them that if they actually cannot imagine breaking up their marriage, to consider opening it up to the others to be added.

    This is common sense. I was cheated on and it did not feel good. Being monogamous or for that matter polyamorous is not for everyone. But you should stop using religion to impose your beliefs on others, or your lack of of religion to impose your beliefs on others. If I am an agnostic, you quoting the bible will not sway me. If I am a Christian, and you try to tell me that it is not “natural to be monogamous” that will not sway me.

  30. That professor is going to need to sleep with a lot off women to make himself feel like a man again.

  31. Pingback: What Women Want… | One Shade Human

  32. Thank you Matt!!!! I love how you put things so plainly, but also in an INTELLECTUAL way. The arrogance of supposedly “learned” people like the professor just continues to boggle my mind. He is lashing out at you, because he knows in his soul he is wrong, but doesn’t want to admit it. Yes, you will get “lambasted” for your beliefs, but there will be many who will stand on your side. Keep at it Matt!

  33. ayamsirias says:

    Great article. Well done.

  34. Mark says:

    Haha, nicely done. I’ve never actually read this blog before and I have to admit I probably lean more toward the professor’s lifestyle in practice. That said, i think you have a fairly enlightening proposition and I applaud the way you stood up for yourself and, more importantly, defended the belief in marriage.

    Honestly, I’m not really sure I believe in the concept of exclusivity, but I also understand that’s due to my past history and have nothing against the institution of marriage. In fact, I think it’s kind of silly there is a “war” on something that has existed for thousands of years when it would be much easier for academics and other alternative proponents to just create something new. Meh, I’m wandering. Anyway, can’t say I’d be willing to adopt your lifestyle but I like your conviction. Nice article.

  35. Pingback: When I Googled “Monogamism”… | LucidMystery's Weblog

  36. lucidmystery says:

    I’m a terrible blogger, but I really liked this post and followed it up with some of my thoughts…

  37. G says:

    You people just have different sets of values. It’s not a matter of whose are better. Stick to what works for you. We are all different. That’s beautiful

  38. S.T. says:

    That professor is a self-centered, arrogant, ungrateful, selfish, and foolish man. And, I hate to honor him by calling him a “man”.

  39. Van says:

    The question of monogamy has recently become a problem for me due to the fact that I love two women. I was married for 13 years and it was not a problem being monogamous. However, it became a problem for the Ex and as she stated, “I’m not happy and I don’t know why.” She promptly filed for divorce and began running around. In effect abandoning me and our 2 daughters 13 and 11. I was heart broken. Not so much in losing her, but in seeing our family unit destroyed. It took 13 years to quit hating her, but it became too much trouble to do so. I am indifferent to her now.

    I was active in the dating scene and met a woman that I fell head over heels for. Turns out she was using me to make another guy jealous and dumped me when he came back to her. Heart broken again.

    Then 10 or 11 years ago I met a woman with whom I developed a chemistry that I can’t and have not yet been able to explain. We planned to marry, but after living together for a while we came to the conclusion that we were both so controlling that it was not going to work. We did maintain a casual/intimate relationship due to the chemistry we shared, but it was complicated by her being in love with a another man who had become verbally abusive and ran around on her. Her attraction to him became periodic at best and he continued to throw his indiscretions in her face and she would beat herself up whenever she had been with him periodically. Never the less I was still in love with her and still am.

    About 6 years ago I met a beautiful and kind hearted, wonderful woman who I came to love dearly (1 was involved with the other guy at the time). She too had a rough marriage with 2 kids and was cheated on by her Ex. She came to fall in love with me too. She was visibly upset when I told her I would never marry again, but she has hung in there with me never the less. During this time Ex girlfriend and I have seen each other periodically and have succumbed to our chemistry which neither of us can explain. Both of these gals were on the verge of becoming friends as we would see each other at our regular hangout. Woman 1 and woman 2 have had discussions about 1 and myself with 1 assuring her we were not being intimate and would not be doing so. It has been so long since we have that I cannot remember when we last were. Last week we all arrived at the hangout me first, then, 1 and 2 arriving after work, extremely tired and worn out. She left after a drink for home and as she is very jealous of 1(but has been trying very hard to get over it), when I walked her to her car she stated in frustration that she no longer cared what 1 and I did together.

    I made the mistake of telling 1 this. As a resulted she was up all night worrying and taking the blame for for the situation. This resulted in her sending a text to 2 saying she was disappearing from our lives and would never be seen or heard of again. 2 thought it made no sense and further text messages between them and myself resulted in 1 telling me what a worthless low life I was. Then later a phone call from her as if nothing had happened. Later in the afternoon 2 appeared at my door because she couldn’t get me on the phone( had left my cell at home while running errands). She worry’s about me a lot. After 3 hours of discussion, 2 ask point blank if I had been intimate with 1 the night before after she left the bar and my answer was no as I had not. Later she asked if I had been intimate with 1 since I had fallen in love with her. I came clean as 1 had suggested and I told 2 that I had, but that it had been so long ago I could not even remember when. She cried and said we were through since I had not been monogamous and cheated on her. Her things were packed and she left for good.

    I did text her about 2 leaving and do not blame her for what has happened. It is no one’s fault but mine. Now 1 says that I threw her under the bus and broke her heart, and she will never talk to me again. I truly don’t know what I said or did to provoke this.

    So my questions are these, “What the hell are you supposed to do when you love two women at the same time”? How do you turn away from either one? How the hell do you choose which one you abandon? I love both of them dearly and have no clue as to how I can possibly repair the situation. It would appear that I will have to start all over. Find another woman to love? How the hell would I explain this situation to another woman? I’m 63 and it seems my track record would not attract another good woman.

  40. chris says:

    Marriage was created for the purpose of finances. It was a way of better living. It still holds true to this day. At least for those who have solid open trustworthy relations with there other half per say.
    Marriage is a very old concept but its ideas were not Romeo and Juliet. In example look to families of very high statue; I.e. kingdoms such as Britian until more recent time. Those were arranged marriages between families of power or otherwise to hold status land money or to lighten hostilities between rivaling kingdoms or nations. Love doesnt mean shit to the parents of these marriages. As long as the children wont kill each other when they are forced to marry lol.

  41. pepperjack91 says:

    You and your “veiled racism”. lol

  42. Pingback: Weekly Reads: March 9-16, 2014 | Unto That Glorious Adventure

  43. Annika says:

    Might I point out that the word prose is singular. Why didn’t the professor proof read his e-mail before he sent it? Or rather, why did he make such a mistake in the first place? On the topic of the article, I think that Mr. Walsh expressed his views very well and I have to say that I agree with them. My parents have been married for over thirty years and they have a very strong relationship. Huzzah Mr. Walsh, huzzah.

  44. Marc says:

    Another “academic” orbiting out in Chardin’s “Noosphere”!

  45. Jen says:

    I wonder what this professor would say after reading Hebrews 13:4.

  46. Amy says:

    I don’t suppose you would divulge the professors name or place of employment so we can advise our children to avoid him/it. I will be celebrating my 30th anniversary in 2 months time and I would hate for my children to have to endure even 1 lecture from this nutcase!

  47. Any credential anthropologist will tell you that human beings “pair bond” aka monogamy.

    it’s not a secret and it’s common knowledge.

  48. Toniko says:

    Awesome reply Matt! Mr Professor since you “can’t” be faithful in your marriage you assume no man can? Seriously? You had no right to say Matt or anyone other than yourself will indefinitely cheat on their spouse. You basically just proved that you are intellectually dumber than Matt by stating you do not have the willpower to stay monogamous. Shocker bet you cheat with your much younger students who only do it for a grade-sick, sad, and all too common.

    • Toniko says:

      After a day of reflection I regret the name calling and assumption about your students(although when I was in college the profs that did it all seemed to have the same style/attitude as this prof), sorry anyway!

      I have a thought on the following part of the Professor’s message: “You do not find it often in the animal kingdom, and where you do it is generally born of an evolutionary necessity. The necessity of monogamy among humankind has evaporated.” Animals basically only have sex to reproduce. Do the animals enjoy it? Nature would say yes, but really it is just a hormonal instinct to procreate. Animals have one main drive: to reproduce, and in some species, to add/defend territory. Humans are the only ones advanced enough to willfully want to disregard and stop from reproducing out of personal desires and not for survival. Situations where there is a single parent, is that harder to raise a child(compared to 2 parents who care about the child)? YES. It is far easier to raise a child with two people who are committed to care for them so there is still ‘a necessity for monogamy’ whether he wants to admit it or not. Single parents, many times, do an awesome job alone and work their butts off to provide. A spouse with equal input would make it easier and offer the child more. It is not a perfect world and none of us has ‘that perfect marriage’ but there are certainly ways to give your marriage and children better chances for the long haul and I do not think introducing a sexual partner is one of them. Jealousy, feelings of inferiority, competition, feeling inadequate, etc are the long term result. Say you both are ‘happy’ all you want but know that people are deep and someday one or both of you might sorely regret this ‘life choice’

  49. rachbart21 says:

    You are such a boss. Like seriously, I want to be you.

  50. P says:

    Human (sin) nature is all about self gratification and in that respect – it is NOT normal to have one partner. Christians have been told by God that it is the only way to live – we obey and we are blessed because of it. THAT is IT in a nutshell. 🙂

Comments are closed.