i actually think the argument could be made that a.) decrying an evolution of human behavior just because it's different from the way things used to be is not really a valid pov - that just because humans didn't used to be monogamous isnt reason enough to say humans SHOULDNT be monogamous, or that its not a valid progression of human behavior... or b.) that the emotional drama/passions/intensities that come with being or struggling to be monogamous (the passions of cheating, for example; freud had a theory about people cheating in order to feel close to their primary partner) serve to feed some deeply ingrained human social needs. but im sort of indifferent on the whole issue. all of the arguments for and against monogamy are plausible and defensible. i have a good feeling on where i stand on the monogamy line, and various economical/sociological/pyschological/biological rhetoric to back it up
I'm firm on the fact that female mating was for her best and brightest to become the father of children. When else in history did women select the lowest ranking genetic and social members to mate with besides this one? Didn't happen.