“I can’t be monogamous.”

Stephanie offhandedly confessed that to me during one of our encounters. Her work as an escort obviously testified to that. She had previously admitted to being “promiscuous” even before her introduction to the “industry.” In addition to her current boyfriend, she has “secondary boyfriends” whom she usually sees for about 90 days. And she’s admitted to being turned on by having sex with strangers.

So, no, she can’t be monogamous.

“I don’t think human beings are monogamous creatures by nature.”

Scarlett Johansson

I’ve had over 100 sexual partners.

The vast majority have been escorts. There have also been internet hookups and one-night stands with classmates. Only a couple were within the context of what could broadly be called a “relationship.”

(I’m a virgin compare with King Solomon. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines [1 Kg 11:3]. The Deuteronomist seems to disapprove of his love of foreign women more than his promiscuity.)

In traditional Christian morality, sexual activity is reserved for marriage, which is, as my church puts it, a “lifelong, monogamous, and faithful relationship.” With my behavior, I’m definitely flouting this expectation, which certainly applies even more stringently to one in ministry. But what if this expectation that governs sexual conduct is contrary to human nature?

In a Playboy interview a couple of years ago, Scarlett Johansson said, “I don’t think it’s natural to be a monogamous person….I think it definitely goes against some instinct to look beyond.”

Ms. Johansson’s opinion is not without merit. Social scientists have observed what is called the Coolidge Effect, based on an anecdote (probably apocryphal) about Silent Cal and Mrs. Coolidge. Justin J. Lehmiller describes it:

[T]he first couple visited a chicken farm together, and on their guided tour, the president trailed a bit behind his wife. While visiting the hen yard, Mrs. Coolidge took note of one particularly potent rooster that went from one hen to the next. She asked the tour guide to be absolutely sure to point out that rooster to the president when he came by. The guide obliged. When President Coolidge arrived at the yard, he was informed of the rooster’s sexual prowess and, further, that his wife was the one who thought it should be brought to his attention. The president paused for a moment and responded, “Tell Mrs. Coolidge that there is more than one hen.”

Novelty in the form of new (or potential) partners enhances arousal while interest in a current partner will diminish over time. (This appears to have a neurochemical basis. Novelty boosts dopamine and norepinephrine levels.) It turns out that this phenomenon in humans has its roots in evolution.

Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jeffa explores the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. The main thrust of the book is that monogamy is a relatively recent arrangement at odds with how humans have evolved as primates. “Like bonobos and chimps, we are the randy descendents of hypersexual ancestors….Conventional notions of monogamous, till-death-do-us-part marriage strain under the dead weight of a false narrative that insists we’re something else.” Let’s start with biology. The testicles and penis of the human male, larger than in other primates, as well as his tendency to quickly reach orgasm, point to a creature capable of multiple ejaculations. The woman, in turn, features uniquely shaped breasts, copulatory vocalization, and the capacity for multiple orgasms. It seems both men and women were designed for promiscuity.

“In London alone, there are 80,000 prostitutes. What are they but… human sacrifices offered up on the altar of monogamy?”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Then there is the social structure that prevailed for most of humanity’s history. Before the advent of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago, humans lived in small communities that shared resources–food, shelter, protection–as a survival mechanism. Like everything else, sex was also shared. “Several types of evidence suggest our pre-agricultural (prehistoric) ancestors lived in groups where most mature individuals would have had several ongoing sexual relationships at any given time,” Ryan and Jeffa write. The emergence of private property made paternity matter, which incentivized the formation of stable, exclusive relationships. The imprint of having had access to multiple partners remained, however, explaining why monogamy has been so vexing. The sexual dysfunction in so many marriages is the product of an arrangement that doesn’t come naturally to us.

One successful escort, whose clients are mostly married, reflected on her experience and concluded, “Monogamy, to me, is a lie. I think it’s healthy to want to be with other people.” Her sexual exploration can’t be confined to one partner. “I want to experiment and experience it with more than one person. It’s gotten to the point where I don’t even want to be in a relationship, but I want to have all the sex.”

“Variety, multiplicity are the two most powerful vehicles of lust.”

Marquis de Sade, Juliette

Anthropologist Donald Symons noted, “Human males seem to be so constituted that they resist learning not to desire variety despite impediments such as Christianity and the doctrine of sin.” I bring this up because I stumbled upon discussion about non-monogamy and Christian sexual ethics. One Christian woman in a polyamorous relationship detailed the explorations she’s shared with other polyamorous Christians: “We tend to have gotten married young, felt trapped by the conservative bounds of purity culture, and wanted to explore the sexuality we never really got a chance to have. But it can be daunting to leap from the repressed Christianity we were raised with to the sexually open world of non-monogamy.” Another polyamorous woman acknowledges the possible sinfulness of her lifestyle, but excuses her behavior by saying that she can’t help being attracted to more than one person. “And it’s not going to damn me any more than those swear words that slip out on occasion,” she says. Another Christian couple, “Mr. and Mrs. Jones,” are swingers who, upon being exposed as participants in the “lifestyle,” were expelled from their church. “When you grow up in the church, someone else is constructing your faith,” Mr. Jones explains. “Then real life occurs, and something doesn’t make sense, and you have to give yourself permission to deconstruct your faith.” They’ve found clandestine support from a few pastors who themselves are swingers.

Recently, a few Christian ethicists have put forward theological justifications for non-monogamy. Queer theology has described God’s love as “promiscuous.” One Baptist pastor and theologian goes so far as to declare, “The Holy Trinity is a polyamorous relationship.” Duke University ethicist Kathy Rudy has proposed that even forms of non-monogamous sex such as anonymous and communal sex can be understood as embodying an ethic of hospitality. They remain decidedly in the minority, however. Even the advocates of a progressive Christian sexual ethic operate from the assumption that sexual relations occur within the context of monogamy.

Then there’s “polyfuckery,” which entails sex outside a monogamous relationship and without emotional attachment. As the escort mentioned earlier said, “I don’t exactly believe in love. But sex… Sex is something I’ll always believe in.”