Post: #1

Quote:In the upcoming flick, "The Other Woman," Cameron Diaz plays the mistress to Leslie Mann's onscreen husband. Turns out, Cameron actually believes that film's subject, infidelity, is prevalent in real life. The actress told U.K.'s OK! magazine, "Everybody has been cheated on. Everyone will be cheated on. I can't fix that, I don't know how, I don't have any judgment on anybody, I don't know how to fix the problem."

Cameron isn't the only leading lady in Hollywood who believes that couples cannot be monogamous. Scarlett Johansson, engaged to Romain Dauriac and expecting a baby, has a similar view. The actress told W magazine in 2008, "I've been battered for saying that I don't believe humans are monogamous by nature."

Ethan Hawke is another one of Tinseltown's stars who doesn't believe in being with only one person. The actor's marriage to Uma Thurman ended in 2004 amid accusations of infidelity. Hawke recently revealed his feelings about the topic to clothing retailer Mr Porter.

"People have such a childish view of monogamy and fidelity," Ethan said. "'He's cheated so he's bad, she's cheated so she's bad,' as opposed to a recognition that our species is not monogamous. To act all indignant, that your world has been rocked because your lover wasn't faithful to you, is a little bit like acting rocked that your hair went gray."

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-....html?vp=1

Post: #2

(03-21-2014 11:00 AM)jariel Wrote:  

Quote:In the upcoming flick, "The Other Woman," Cameron Diaz plays the mistress to Leslie Mann's onscreen husband. Turns out, Cameron actually believes that film's subject, infidelity, is prevalent in real life. The actress told U.K.'s OK! magazine, "Everybody has been cheated on. Everyone will be cheated on. I can't fix that, I don't know how, I don't have any judgment on anybody, I don't know how to fix the problem."

Cameron isn't the only leading lady in Hollywood who believes that couples cannot be monogamous. Scarlett Johansson, engaged to Romain Dauriac and expecting a baby, has a similar view. The actress told W magazine in 2008, "I've been battered for saying that I don't believe humans are monogamous by nature."

Ethan Hawke is another one of Tinseltown's stars who doesn't believe in being with only one person. The actor's marriage to Uma Thurman ended in 2004 amid accusations of infidelity. Hawke recently revealed his feelings about the topic to clothing retailer Mr Porter.

"People have such a childish view of monogamy and fidelity," Ethan said. "'He's cheated so he's bad, she's cheated so she's bad,' as opposed to a recognition that our species is not monogamous. To act all indignant, that your world has been rocked because your lover wasn't faithful to you, is a little bit like acting rocked that your hair went gray."

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-....html?vp=1

This is kind of interesting. I guess you could look at it from a perspective of biologically we are not meant to be monogomous.

Something I often chat with friends about is the topic of people and relationships today vs our parents or grandparents generation. Were people better people or did everyone cheat it just wasn't people had tracking devices and shows like cheaters and cellphone records to go off of to prove stuff and catch people or was it just social pressure caused people to stay in line and not get divorced? I don't know but I think it's an interesting topic. Are there any real commmitted relationships today?

Like someone said on antoher thread about business everyone has their price. Is it the same with relationships, at some point if someone is tempted enough and the woman is beautiful enough even the most committed guy will cheat.

Just some interesting thigns to think about

Post: #3

The word monogamy is only about 400 years old.

Of course monogamy is a sexual perversion.

Don't want to get cheated on? Have unfenced relationships instead.

Problem solved.

Post: #4

Monogamy will not exist when consequences of adultery are removed, in the same way fatty foods would be universally indulged upon if there were no consequence of weight gain.

In an LTR, consequences for each gender are not equally balanced right now. If a man leaves a woman in a long term relationship (either through common-law or legal marriage) he risks losing half of his earnings with the potential rape of alimony or child support. If a woman leaves she gets half plus benefits, with another male suitor eagerly waiting to repeat this cyclical hell. If there are children involved the wife has a 90% chance of gaining full custody while the father only has a 10% chance of full custody. The social tolerance is also completely out of whack. If a guy cheats he will get blasted upon for being a sleezebag, but if a woman cheats the question is always "what did he do wrong?". Here is a perfect example. I don't expect anyone to watch the whole thing but the TL;DW is that his wife hid a relationship with another man behind his back, and they spend over an hour showering her with attention with questions about what the husband could do to improve the situation, while she laughs through the entire interview. No slut-shaming whatsoever.

If the consequences were balanced, we'd see divorce filings being equally initiated by men as much as women, but in America about 80% of the divorces are filed by women (http://www.uplifting-love.com/2013/08/80...ed-by.html) with the #1 reason being "boredom".

Post: #5

(03-21-2014 12:21 PM)Collide Wrote:  Monogamy will not exist when consequences of adultery are removed

The only iron grip that monogamy has ever had over human society is as an idea.

Certainly not as a practice.

Even in cultures where the consequences of adultery were public stoning to death people cheated.

Post: #6

I don't think human beings are monogamous. Anyone who thinks otherwise ?

Post: #7

(03-21-2014 12:32 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I don't think human beings are monogamous. Anyone who thinks otherwise ?

If human being were sexually exclusive for life by nature there would have been no historic reason to invent marriage.

People would just

1.Meet
2.Hookup
3.Stay together for life on a sexually exclusively basis

And they would not even need to have a conversation about it (why would they?)

As this is NOT human nature, marriage needed to be invented so that men could be reasonably sure that were are raising their own kids.

This is the heart of Sex 2.0 and why it is the way it is.

As DNA paternity testing technology provides a far more accurate framework for determining paternity than marriage and forced sexual exclusivity ever did the whole model is redundant.

Post: #8

(03-21-2014 12:32 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I don't think human beings are monogamous. Anyone who thinks otherwise ?

When children are involved I think humans have an obligation to train themselves to be monogamous. Outside of a child-rearing marriage I do think monogamy is unnatural, but a child being raised by a single parent is also unnatural.

Post: #9

I am sure as hell men are not meant to be monogamous.

Women maybe if they have a strong alpha husband to keep them on short lease.

In the book Female Brain, they mentioned the "love" pair bonding hormone oxytocin can be found only for 4 years in the bloodstream of the pairs they surveyed.

It makes sense, a 4 year old child can walk, and easier to take care of. After 4 years, the male can find a new woman to fornicate, and the women can find a new man to make a new baby to have a different set of DNA.

Post: #10

(03-21-2014 12:40 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 12:32 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I don't think human beings are monogamous. Anyone who thinks otherwise ?

If human being were sexually exclusive for life by nature there would have been no historic reason to invent marriage.

People would just

1.Meet
2.Hookup
3.Stay together for life on a sexually exclusively basis

And they would not even need to have a conversation about it (why would they?)

As this is NOT human nature, marriage needed to be invented so that men could be reasonably sure that were are raising their own kids.

This is the heart of Sex 2.0 and why it is the way it is.

As DNA paternity testing technology provides a far more accurate framework for determining paternity than marriage and forced sexual exclusivity ever did the whole model is redundant.

To add on, I also agree that human's aren't monagamous by nature, nor are they honest or passive. Roll things back to the stone age and its kill your neighbour, bang his wife and eat the leg of woolly mammoth he had roasting on the fire.

But that is the whole human dilemma isn't it? Overcoming or controlling your natural motivations for other rewards.

Consider another aspect of human nature, eating, its our nature to go crazy and eat as much calorie rich food as we can. Indulge that nature and we'd be fat and dead vs. at the gym and juicing. Thats where I grate against this "oh its not natural to be monogamous" Its also natural to lie, cheat and steal...so why not just be a 'natural' person all of the time?

This is pretty much the foundation of Wolverine and Sabretooh, what it means to be an animal vs. a man.

Its also the foundation of the bible and the source of of a great quote from Thomas Hobbes' the natural state of man being a ware against every man where the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" The full quote is below.

Quote:"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

Monogamy is difficult because it is a 'prisoners dilemma' requiring blind trust. A woman who lives for herself or cannot resist the other parts of her nature (over eating, lying, laziness) is likey not the person you want to enter a monogamous 'prisoners dilemma' with.

Last, I think there is a difference in recognizing 'human nature' and being naive enough to think that people can overcome it every day at every hour.

Post: #11

Monogamy is the deliberate and willful restriction of man's base, animalistic nature, so as to benefit future offspring by giving them a stable home and a civilized society to grow up in.

Of course monogamy is not "natural." Neither is civilization. Civilization has to be built, by people willing to sacrifice short term gratification for long term gain.

Sure I'd like fuck 100 women. But I'll agree to vows with one, so that my children have a stable home with both a mother and a father, and a community comprised of the same sort of household.

Funny how you get all these famous people that talk about how monogamy is "not natural."

Ask them if it's "natural" for grown men to be highly sexually attracted to 14 and 15 year old females who've physically matured and gone through puberty...

Post: #12

(03-21-2014 01:14 PM)Collide Wrote:  Outside of a child-rearing marriage I do think monogamy is unnatural, but a child being raised by a single parent is also unnatural.

For almost all of human history children were raised by thee entire tribe including both parents.

You are quite right, a child being raised by a single parent is unnatural.

A child just being raised by two parents is also un-natural.

As child rearing arrangements go it is extremely fragile.

Child rearing by both parents and an extended network of care givers is both natural and robust.

Post: #13

(03-21-2014 02:45 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 01:14 PM)Collide Wrote:  Outside of a child-rearing marriage I do think monogamy is unnatural, but a child being raised by a single parent is also unnatural.

For almost all of human history children were raised by thee entire tribe including both parents.

You are quite right, a child being raised by a single parent is unnatural.

A child just being raised by two parents is also un-natural.

As child rearing arrangements go it is extremely fragile.

Child rearing by both parents and an extended network of care givers is both natural and robust.

I agree that child rearing with 2 parents is precarious. I like the extended family basis of grandparents aunts and uncles, which in tribal times, I don't know if you would have that many generations alive at one time to depend on that model. 2 Parents, with living and involved active parents seem to make everyone happy in the child rearing arrangement.

Post: #14

(03-21-2014 01:34 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  To add on, I also agree that human's aren't monagamous by nature, nor are they honest or passive. Roll things back to the stone age and its kill your neighbour, bang his wife and eat the leg of woolly mammoth he had roasting on the fire.

Expect than "stone age man" did not get married.

As for the rest, human beings have always competed for survival resources in the face of scarcity whether its food, mating opportunities or anything else.

But we also banded together co-operatively in egalitarian hunter gatherer tribes which was our natural way of being for about 98% of human existence.

(03-21-2014 01:34 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Its also natural to lie, cheat and steal

No, no and no. Such behaviour would get your thrown out of the tribe which would lower your chance of survival.

(03-21-2014 01:34 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Its also the foundation of the bible and the source of of a great quote from Thomas Hobbes' the natural state of man being a ware against every man where the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" The full quote is below.

This quote is based on the great forgetting.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Hobbes albeit a very common one.

(03-21-2014 01:34 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Monogamy is difficult because it is a 'prisoners dilemma' requiring blind trust.

Except there is no blind trust. Thats why there is marriage, thats why there were chastity belts, thats why women in the middle east cannot go out of the house without male relative, that why female gential mutilation is still practiced in large parts of Africa and the middle east, that's why we have slut shaming etc etc.

Monogamy is not difficult because it requires blind trust it is difficult because it is completely impossible for human beings to BE monogamous only to behave monogamously.

(03-21-2014 01:34 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Last, I think there is a difference in recognizing 'human nature' and being naive enough to think that people can overcome it every day at every hour.

2.0 as a framework DOES recognise human nature... and it is designed to thwart human nature ... which is why it is not sustainable and which is why it is already nothing more than a failed experiment.

3.0 both recognises and embraces human nature in a way that also deals with male paternity concnen in a way that is far more effective that the 2.0 recipe which is nothing more than forcing people into mutual sexual slavery agreements (fenced relationships) and then when it comes to paternity just hoping that the fence was strong enough.

Post: #15

(03-21-2014 02:59 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I agree that child rearing with 2 parents is precarious. I like the extended family basis of grandparents aunts and uncles

The reason why this is also precarious is that this also breaks down when the couple split in many cases.

A tribe of care givers plus both parents is easily the most robust model as it is not breakable by divorce.

Post: #16

(03-21-2014 03:05 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:59 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I agree that child rearing with 2 parents is precarious. I like the extended family basis of grandparents aunts and uncles

The reason why this is also precarious is that this also breaks down when the couple split in many cases.

A tribe of care givers plus both parents is easily the most robust model as it is not breakable by divorce.

Good discussion so far, I don't think I'd argue against any points except the following;

1. Isn't a tribe still structure that keeps people from acting on their natural instincts? As you had mentioned above, lying, stealing etc would get you thrown out of the tribe. I think those are natural behaviours/instincts and threat of punishment is what keeps people from doing them. A dog will steal food from another dog.

2. I can't get behind the whole 'egalitarian hunter gather tribes' thing, it creates the 'noble savage' notion in my head where its the north american indian living in peace and harmony with his neighbors. I have no way to prove it than saying that native people I know today don't strike me as different than myself so I would imagine they would also have had to deal with foregoing their natural urges to bang every woman, kill every man that pissed them off and steal what wasn't nailed down. Or maybe that the stories of "the raven" from the west coast constantly tricking, stealing and sleeping with women means that those were still tribal issues.

3. I agree that paternity tests are great but maybe I don't understand how that helps either to acknowledge that monogamy is not a natural instinct, inhibit slutty behavior or provide for an improved version of monogamy. I think paternity tests in a world where there was no birth control or abortions would do something for monogamy but I'm not clear on what you mean otherwise.

The overall direction I was trying to go in was: Just because a human behavior is natural or instinctual doesn't mean its the best fit to one's survival or personal satisfaction. Monogamy is unnatural, but advantageous if mutually assured. Don't get me wrong though, i think mutual assurance of monogamy today is tougher than it has been historically.

Post: #17

(03-21-2014 04:38 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Good discussion so far, I don't think I'd argue against any points except the following;

1. Isn't a tribe still structure that keeps people from acting on their natural instincts? As you had mentioned above, lying, stealing etc would get you thrown out of the tribe. I think those are natural behaviours/instincts and threat of punishment is what keeps people from doing them. A dog will steal food from another dog.

2. I can't get behind the whole 'egalitarian hunter gather tribes' thing, it creates the 'noble savage' notion in my head where its the north american indian living in peace and harmony with his neighbors. I have no way to prove it than saying that native people I know today don't strike me as different than myself so I would imagine they would also have had to deal with foregoing their natural urges to bang every woman, kill every man that pissed them off and steal what wasn't nailed down. Or maybe that the stories of "the raven" from the west coast constantly tricking, stealing and sleeping with women means that those were still tribal issues.

These two questions are far better answered is this series of posts than I could possibly answer them,

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/free...arian-ways

(03-21-2014 04:38 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  3. I agree that paternity tests are great but maybe I don't understand how that helps either to acknowledge that monogamy is not a natural instinct, inhibit slutty behavior or provide for an improved version of monogamy. I think paternity tests in a world where there was no birth control or abortions would do something for monogamy but I'm not clear on what you mean otherwise.

The overall direction I was trying to go in was: Just because a human behavior is natural or instinctual doesn't mean its the best fit to one's survival or personal satisfaction. Monogamy is unnatural, but advantageous if mutually assured. Don't get me wrong though, i think mutual assurance of monogamy today is tougher than it has been historically.

The one page explanation for all of that is here:

http://sexthreepointzero.org

Post: #18

There's actually an incredibly strong case for monogamy being natural. 3 reasons:

1. Marriage predates history

The earliest known civilizations have all had marriages. No one knows how old the practice of marriage is. Men and women have been shacking up for millions of years, for all we know.

2. Marriages aren't always done with legal procedures

The earliest known historical records showed that people were married between families as a religious affair, and ceremonies were typically for the rich. Marriages could occur the same way two lovers today start seeing each other often. Often times they would just agree to be married and that was that.

3. Women were preggo by age 20

For millions upon millions of years women have had sex without any reliable form of birth control. Women were basically getting pregnant as soon as they left puberty in most cases. How could a woman being having sex with lots of different men without a reliable way to care for her offspring?

---

In light of these observations...

Children could have been raised by the tribe, but at some point in human history, perhaps even as far back as 2,000,000 years ago, human populations became so large that tribes became vulnerable to predatory males. A tribe can usually manage it's own members, but a tribe cannot defend itself against a larger force of violent males.

Over time, roving bands of raiders forced humans to group together more in order to survive, and this is what probably caused the first forms of civilization and agriculture to occur. And the attendant problems of having settlements with large populations created the need for property over land, and over women. The defenders of the tribe would be given the greatest amount of property and/or women, and thus marriage was born: a fuse the natural human instinct to fall in love combined with the social pressures of invasion and survival.

As far as I can tell, the predecessor to humanity wasn't as social as we were; they were probably indeed more like monkeys. They would group together loosely but most likely unable to form any organized movements. Language was the game changer. As these predecessors to humanity somehow became more intelligent, and learned how to communicate clearly, the unwanted, power hungry, or horny excess males of various tribes banded together and worked together simply to steal and rape from others.

This pressure forced small tribes to come together and form a defense force in order to protect themselves, which in turn created larger and larger tribes. At this point in evolution, it was no longer about the raiders, but instead protecting yourself from a big neighboring tribe. And this competition produced what would eventually become competition between even larger tribes, tribes big enough to cover entire rivers, forests, or coastal areas, when then grew into city-states, then countries, etc.

So when considering the pressures upon individual evolution, you must think of the group pressures first. Humans are social animals, it is impossible for us to survive without each other, especially as children, so group selection explains human evolution, not individual selection. And it is not nature that drives human evolution, but most likely intra-specie competition that forced how other humans evolve in order to survive from attackers. Thus humanity drives its own evolution. (this isn't uncommon in nature - almost all mammals have some kind of competition between the males, as we know)

So monogamy most likely arrived during the stages of humanity when tribes became large enough to need property, as the men who did the fighting not only wanted legitimate children, but more importantly a reliable source of sex in a world where access to fertile women was VERY scarce. Not only would other men constantly be going for as many women as they could take (think tragedy of the commons), but women were getting pregnant before age 20 on average. So if a man wanted a woman without any children, his options were very small and thus he would guard his wife, and source of progenity, very closely.

And the men who didn't care about protecting his wife from other men? Well not too many of those men are here to talk about it. The jealous men are the norm today, which means the jealous men were better at getting and protecting their offspring in the past.

Monogamy may therefore be natural even though it was not how nature created us, but rather, it was how we were able to survive from ourselves.

Post: #19

(03-21-2014 12:40 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 12:32 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  I don't think human beings are monogamous. Anyone who thinks otherwise ?

As DNA paternity testing technology provides a far more accurate framework for determining paternity than marriage and forced sexual exclusivity ever did the whole model is redundant.

Problem with DNA testing is that it is done from a third party just like marriage, hence the government can come into it, and force the tests to be positive, and you have the same crap over again about betas providing resources for children of alphas.

Assuming DNA testing becomes the norm and marriage is rare, it will be no better than marriage.

It is better for marriage to be the norm and DNA testing to be done on the downlow.

Even what we have now, it is only a matter of time before it gets regulated by the government.

Post: #20

Human beings are special in that we are above the animal species, but we are below Divinity, constantly struggling between the two.

Monogamy associates with the longing for the divine (The One). This term "The One" is very powerful. Whether it's used in the context of an adventure (Neo from the Matrix) or in the realm of Eros, it describes not just a hero, but really a messiah, a savior. We are searching for The One, but was also want to be The One. It's not enough to find that perfect hottie, but she also needs to see us as The One as well. This is why hookers simply won't do.

Marriage symbolizes the unification of the opposites (Masculine and Feminine), where two halves become the whole (The One). The terms Masculine and Feminine refer to the metaphysical, but their manifestations do occur in gender which is why Men and Women are symbols of this.

Traditionally, marriage would be a way for each person to become more developed spiritually. Before the marriage each person was an "I". A separate identity whose wants and desires revolved around itself. Since real spiritual development involves the destruction of one's Ego, marriage would be a way of doing that. Each person would die to their old ways (individual identity) to become unified with The One. He would now "husband" all his resources to provide for the good of the family, instead of himself and she would focus her feminine energy to the family.

In essence he would "sacrifice" and she would "surrender", and by doing this in the context of marriage they would both eradicate personal egotism (on some level), not for the other but for the "union" and what it represents…..the unification of the opposites…The One.

Modern day western society has thrown marriage to side of the road for a path of Individualism. How often do we hear these days that marriage should never "change who you are". You should never have to "give up" anything? Give up Boys/Girls night out? Stop spending money on sports cars and designer clothes? Give up my friends of the opposite sex? My money is mine, yours is yours.

Is it really any wonder why marriage doesn't work these days? Most view it as a means of enhancing their individual lives. They'll have more buying power to get a bigger house, nicer car, nicer clothes, and all the rest.

That said, I don't think the idea of marriage or monogamy will ever go away because the symbolism of it is too powerful. That would be like saying the words "Hope" and "Change" and "Freedom" will someday never be used in advertising.

Post: #21

I love how everyone on this forum is an amateur evolutionary biologist who knows what human society was like 40,000 years ago, in reality no one has a clue how humans acted all them years ago, for example a couple of years ago scientists thought that there was no way that Non-African himans breeded with Neanderthals and that was disproven, so everyone claiming to know doesn't really have the proof, they just make it up to back up their point.
Finally a couple of posters seem to think that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is something to emulate and that we should go back to living like that as it's our "natural way of living" and civilisation is unnatural . Ok lets abandon civilisation i'll just put on my loin cloth and start hunting animals in the woods with my sharpened stick.

Post: #22

(03-22-2014 08:11 AM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  I love how everyone on this forum is an amateur evolutionary biologist who knows what human society was like 40,000 years ago, in reality no one has a clue how humans acted all them years ago, for example a couple of years ago scientists thought that there was no way that Non-African himans breeded with Neanderthals and that was disproven, so everyone claiming to know doesn't really have the proof, they just make it up to back up their point.
Finally a couple of posters seem to think that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is something to emulate and that we should go back to living like that as it's our "natural way of living" and civilisation is unnatural . Ok lets abandon civilisation i'll just put on my loin cloth and start hunting animals in the woods with my sharpened stick.

Instead of negating "everyone", as you put it, why not put forth an idea yourself on the subject.

Post: #23

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My point was unless you're an expert in a field that is rapidly changing all the time. You can't really claim to know how humans lived back then. Also I don't claim to know how humans lived back then.

Post: #24

(03-22-2014 09:13 AM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My point was unless you're an expert in a field that is rapidly changing all the time. You can't really claim to know how humans lived back then. Also I don't claim to know how humans lived back then.

But you do claim to know what others can and can't know.

Post: #25

(03-22-2014 02:24 AM)Samseau Wrote:  There's actually an incredibly strong case for monogamy being natural. 3 reasons:

1. Marriage predates history
2. Marriages aren't always done with legal procedures
3. Women were preggo by age 20

I don't think these reasons support the case for monogamy. It definitely supports the idea that marriage itself goes hand-in-hand with humanity.

If we define monogamy as a man only allowed one wife at a time I would disagree with monogamy being anything more than an aberration in what we know of human history. If anything, it is polygyny that has been the overall norm throughout history. Even in Europe polygyny as an institutuion has been widely practiced. While it may be true that most men may have had only one wife it seems to be due to a lack of resources and not an imposed structure. Even today where monogamy is touted as the ideal those men who possess the resources and the inclination end up financing their wives and extra marital consorts.

Monogamy seems to be only really enforced throughout the Anglo Christian (or post-Christian) West.

If anyone is interested in this topic I would highly recommend Hondo Solomon's work titled The Polygamist Papers.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Polygamist-Pap...B00BZF1ZGW

Check out his citations for more information on the topic as well.