Being non-monogomous doesn't mean you're a "greedy whore" or "not serious about your partner" or "not actually in love".

Civilization has gone through so many iterations of what "socially acceptable" relationships look like, including polyandry and other forms of polyamory.

What is deemed societally acceptable now, doesn't necessarily satisfy our biology.

The animal kingdom is filled with non-monogomous, non-exclusive partnerships.

Our own human physiology, differs to the point where strict heterosexual monogamy just doesn't make sense.

The introduction of abrahamic tradition gave way to the idea that men are allowed multiple sexual partners because they have beastly sexual appetites and very little self control.

Our human biology contradicts this idea that it's *solely* a male need.

Regardless of your personal belief, there's a reason why polygamy wasn't a strict rule, but an offered option for those that *suited* it.

It takes into consideration the somewhat vast differences found in the human male population.

Then comes the topic of love vs lust.

Again, largely due to abrahamic tradition, society was fed the idea that sex - in and of itself - is sinful.
Sex strays away from sin when sex is under wedlock, mainly/solely for the purpose of reproduction, rather than gratification.

Love ≠ Sex. Love and Sex can coexist. But Love can exist without Sex. Sex can exist without Love. And Sex and Love can exist at the same time, with different people.

We love our parents. We love our friends. We love our partners.

Love exists in many different ways.
As can sex.

We afford 'Love' so much malleability, yet we confine sex under such rigidity.

Why is sex seen as vice, while love is seen as angelic and pure?

In the end, aren't they both biological needs? Aren't they both inherently human?

These ideas continue to permeate through even the most modern secular societies.

We celebrate female sexuality until it affects our own self worth.

We celebrate a "free woman" until we date her and expect her to drop most of her sexuality under the expectation of monogomy.

We celebrate a "free woman" until she refuses to settle into monogomy.

Suddenly, the "free woman" becomes "a whore", "easy", "a good lay, but not a wifey".

Suddenly we berate her, look down on her, and treat her like an immoral character.

It is one thing to know your own preferences and needs, it's another all together to dictate those preferences and needs for others.

The second you question the validity of someone's needs, is the second you put yourself on a holier-than-thou pedestal.

To everyone whose made it to the end of my thread, I ask you this:
1. Do you believe monogomy is "natural", while non-monogomy is merely a self-indulgence?
2. Do you think romantic love is tainted by non-monogomous sex?
3. Do you *trust* a non-monogomous person?