In the aftermath of the Eliot Spitzer scandal, the New York Times ran an article about how rare true monogamy appears in nature. Fair enough; most of us wouldn’t argue with that. What was appalling was the way the article seemed to justify sleeping around and paying for sex, based on the premise that “everybody else is doing it.”
I think the theory has several holes in it, both scientific and moral.
One of the article’s arguments was centered on the findings of paternity tests given to animals: Evidently, even animals that supposedly mate for life have been found to be unfaithful. How do scientists know this? Because paternity tests show the children in the nest don’t always belong to the male.
The biggest flaw I see in this argument is that it says nothing about having followed the animals around for several months prior to the paternity test. If you are going to accuse a female of sleeping around, you have to have some proof other than a failed paternity test, right? I mean, if promiscuity can exist in nature, then what’s to say rape isn’t a possibility as well?
The article also argues that certain species have mating rituals equivalent to paying for sex. It then goes on to cite a type of male bird that gives females (other than his mate) treats, apparently in the hopes of getting laid: The bigger his offering, the more likely he’ll get some. Another example was macaque (a type of primate) culture: Although all macaques groom one another, it was once again assumed that the males are looking for sex, whereas the females are doing it for social and maternal reasons. Read More »







Hold on your barf bags, girls. This is gonna get disgusting.
Ladies, take note: the magazine that we love to hate,