Your statements make a great deal of sense. As we learned at an early age, those proclaiming to be sex experts frequently are among the least knowledgeable on the topic. As in politics, experience does not necessarily qualify one as an expert. One must always ask: "What type of experience, and how does it qualify one to give advice?"
I look forward to future columns from the two of you. I enjoy your obvious level of expertise and your sense of humor that makes a column such as yours so much easier to read.

Appreciate the kind words. CPR

why do you state that the need for sexual variety affects males without a mention of females? I would posit that females are also affected and you neglect to mention this.

You're right, anonymous, that we barely mentioned women in this post. That's because the research on the Coolidge Effect relates primarily to males. It seems the female response is more complex and harder to quantify (no surprise there!). We'll be addressing this in a later post. It was just too much information to get all into one post. Thanks for your comment.

I'm female and like variety... the sex is better with my long term partner when we're also involved with others. It's very good anyway, and I think part of the reason is that we're free to see other people even if we're not doing so all the time.

Polyamory: being open to or having more than one relationship partner and doing so honestly and safely.

Hi Steph, If you haven't read it already, you might want to check out a book called The Ethical Slut, by Easton and Liszt. It probably won't tell you anything you don't already know, but might make a great gift for people who are trying to understand your perspective on these matters.

I believe this to be true and women who want monogamy get the raw end of the deal. Also, I don't believe that the human race needs the male's insatiable desire for variety in a world bursting at the seams from overpopulation. Yes, we once did and we are here today because of it. I believe that the extremes in men should be reduced in the gene pool and that women should not remain with unfaithful men and have their children. In a few generations, there would be some easing of this behavior. Just as most men crave variety there is a subset, albeit, much smaller population, that does not. Their genes should be increased but due to being monogamously inclined, that is less likely to be done so in an exponential manner. Therefore, there should be sperm banks with monogamous males and women should use them more than they use the sperm of the promiscuous males.

A false assumption here is that polygamy was the only biological variation that existed or exists. Not true. It was selected out of a larger gene pool that most likely included monogamous DNA as well. It was merely the gene pool that won the evolutionary competition.

Practically, women who do want monogamy get the raw end of the deal. We get labeled pathological or whatever while the male's desire for promiscuity is labeled as the desired norm. Love gets defined according to promiscuous male desires. When, in fact, it is the victor's norm and of no greater moral value than the life of a cockroach. Just as slavery was also a victor's norm. Winning at all costs does not make it the best evolution adaptation. Just because it benefits promiscuous men (and some women) doesn't make it good.

If we are going to completely embrace polygamy at the expense of woman who desire monogamy, then I think women should be encouraged to not invest in men in any significant way. At the end of men's life when they have become incapacitated and need someone to wipe their rear ends, let the state do it. If men's promiscuous nature is to be permitted, then let them accept the consequences for it. Let them die alone.

What is being advocated in this article is that promiscuous men's definition of love be embraced. Desire for monogamy is thought to be fictitious, neurotic or selfish when in actuality it isn't. Many monogamous women give much more than they ask but somehow asking for monogamy seems to be extraordinarily selfish. Of course, any time women want ANYTHING it is considered selfish or pathological. We are supposed to give. Yet, promiscuous male desires are the norm and only good. They are supposed to take. Male selfishness is normal and monogamous female desires are villified. How convenient for males.

I don't think so. Just because it is biological, does not make it right. Rape is also biological but it is not right. Survival of the fittest works for the cockroach but it isn't the end all, be all for human existence. Perhaps, a better solution would be to consider how evolution could be redirected toward in more equitable directions.

Perhaps, the next leg of the feminist movement is a biological one--one that pushes for evolutionary fairness.

Christopher Ryan, while I disagree with your politics, I both agree with you on human sexual biology (including your understanding of others who make different choices than you, which makes sense because humans, genes, and culture are all variable) and (related) your polite treatment of others who take your positions to task.

Indeed, I'm not very good at that as a rule; the several articles and comment threads of yours I've read today indicate you're a stellar example in that regard.

Finally, regarding my title, I don't mean all humans are equally worthwhile. I mean they're inherently worthwhile, whether monogamous or not. To the degree humans have moral value it is only passingly related to that... and more to do with how they conduct themselves ethically in many areas of life.

Does the non-monogamous fireman who hypothetically rushes up burning stairs to save the commenters' elderly mother deserve being defined as a "cockroach"... while the monogamous man or woman who may (may -- I'm certainly not saying this is always the case!) even have little testosterone, making it easier for him or her to be monogamous, but who would wilt in terror under those circumstances... assume greater virtue?

I'd say not.

Here is a true story of a mother from the Regina Leader Post many years ago:

MOTHER DIES SHELTERING BABY DAUGHTER IN HOUSE FIRE
by Anne Kyle

A young mother trapped in her burning apartment building last weekend made the ultimate sacrifice to save her infant daughter.

Realizing there was no escape from the raging blaze, Linda Zeka swaddled her six-month-old daughter, Hanna, in blankets and sheltered her from the flames.

Ms. Zeka was found dead at the scene of the fire on Saturday that devestated her family and left two other familes homeless.

But the little girl survived.

"When they found her, Linda was lying on the floor nestling Hanna, who was covered in blankets, shielding her from the fire. The air trapped under the blankets is likely the only thing that saved the baby," Adrian Leusink, a family friend, said.

Ms. Zeka, 28, died of smoke inhalation. Her husband, Arben Zeka, 34, remains in critical condition in hospital, and her three-year-old son, Noll, is being treated for smoke inhalation and burns to his face and hand.

"Doctors are saying it's a miracle someone so young survived the smoke and the fire," Mr. Leusink said, adding Hanna, who suffered burns to her face and right leg, is expected to make a full recovery.

Did Mrs. Zeka ever have an affair? I doubt it. Too young, new mother, etc., and statistically, she probably didn't. Say a 1 in 3 chance at best.

But I don't give a damn: This is a virtuous loving woman, a good mother, and a tremendous wife who sacrificed herself for her child. To say the least, my heart broke when I read that article years ago.

And it was rejuvenated.

After reading and thinking about the article, I realize that I fit the patterns you discussed. I am the husband in the 33rd year of marriage. I cannot think of any one I would rather spend the rest of my days with on an emotional level, but wonder if that is all there is sexually. I was really surprised to be nodding my head when you stated that long term relationships start to feel incestous. I had never thought of it that way before, but I agree with the concept.
The comments from the writer about women who want to be monogamous should leave their husbands makes we wonder if there is a "hardwire" for monogamy in some or is it social or religous imprinting that makes us that way. My thought is the social and religous imprinting since I cannot think of any natural benefit to it for the species. It appears to be a social benefit.
I am torn in my values regarding monogamy. I am not sure that it is as healthy (loosely used term) as it has been touted for generations. It seems to me that it is not just men who are looking for "variety" but that women are as well. We are all genentically programed to react to those that we find attractive. This has caused problems in my marriage both from me looking and her looking at others we thought were attractive. I have less problem with her looking than she does with me, but we still both do.