So which is perfectly natural, if people are doing it both ways? Well, on the one hand it is perfectly natural to have a preference for one person over everyone else. On the other hand it's perfectly natural to be physically attracted to more than one person at a time. Well, a lot of primitive cultures had an easy way of reconciling this.

Basically to resolve the more of dilemma, is they came back to nature to provide the ir moral basics, right? Okay, so instead of looking at sex as a sinful indulgence that has to be repressed, they looked at it as one of those innocent little pleasures that nature has blessed each and every last one of us with.

So if you do have a preference for someone, if you really do cherish them, and you really want what's best for them and what keeps them happy, well, then you let them indulge in those physical urges, and those physical attractions that are just inherently human.

Now,how did they ever find a way of making this work? Well simply put, this is the way the argument goes. To demand a complete and physical commitment from someone, is nothing short of slavery. How are you suppose to tell another living, breathing, thinking individual what they can or can't do with their body, absolutely you love them, absolutely you are going to spend the rest of your life for them. But that has to do with emotional preference. Becoming your best friend, they are not becoming your property. So you want them to enjoy life, and you want them to interact with the community, and you want them to indulge in that innocent little pleasure that nature has given everyone of us. So what do you if your honey comes home with someone else's baby? Or what do you do if your hubby goes and gets the neighbor pregnant? Well, it's simple, if you are thinking about wealth in terms of human life, and not in terms of material possession, all of a sudden it's not so much of a problem. The community has another hand to lend to it.

So if it worked for them, where did we go wrong? What do we start thinking and start doing it another way? Well, a huge part of it is insecurity, we are all insecure people. We do have that preference to someone, and we don't want to risk losing them. More than anything we are social creatures, and we want to be able to be spend the rest of our life knowing that someone else is going to be there for us. Now we know that when we have a physical attachment to someone, or a physical interaction, it might evolve into an emotional one. And in that case the person might not be there tomorrow. So is this a risk we are willing to run? Absolutely not, in fact, in exchange for having propitiatory over someone else, we are willing to kind of summit ourselves into bondage, just on the of chance that they might meet someone that they like.