We are all conditioned from a very early age to adhere to social norms and niceties. Every book we’re read in school, every movie, reinforces the One True Love paradigm. The ‘he’s the one’ or ‘she’s the one’ ethos of monogamy and love forever. Ahhhhhh.

Of course there’s other books and movies that people (ok, men) watch which paint a different picture. Involving lesbian triplets from Thailand, Serbian nuns and donkeys, beatings given by leather-clad dominatrices wearing nazi insignia… you know, other stuff, but that’s (apparently) deviant and perverse and consigned to the top shelf of humiliation and shame.

Religions generally present monogamy as the only option, other than Mormons, of course, which may account for its popularity. And ‘saving oneself for marriage’ is the party line of all judeo-christianic thought. Except Catholics, who save themselves for Jesus.

Yet there are biological imperatives at force as well, often in direct conflict with these social norms. In that all of nature (even Catholics) needs to advance its dna into future generations. Plants do it, animals do it and we do it. Survival of the fittest, the most misunderstood term in science, means survival of reproductive fitness, its not a measure of how many times you can bench press 100kg. It means the more of your ‘seed’ you can get out there the better the chances of some of it evolving into something worthwhile, even though you might be a sad and sorry loser with buck teeth and and body odour issues who supports Arsenal.

And while this applies to men and women, there are obvious constraints. Women can only bear one child at a time, in a long and protracted process. Whilst men can impregnate thousands of women, pretty much all at the same time. And procreation is what its all about. But practicing is fun.

Thus it benefits women to be monogamous, as they will have a provider, giver, protector and carer whilst in child-making and mothering mode, but it biologically benefits men to randomly distribute their dna to any worthy recipient. Tissues don’t count. Or better still, to any unworthy drunken old slapper from Dagenham, or back-seat Betty from Billericay. Its their duty. To nature.

A new test has now confirmed this in another way. Men who have had sex (it actually said ‘slept with’ but that’s a stupid, quasi-Victorian way of skirting the issue; sleeping is fine, sex, for some, is different altogether) with 20 women or more, (not necessarily at the same time) are 28% less likely to get prostate cancer. Wow. As significant results go, that is fucking massive. In every sense. That’s compared to men who’ve only been biblical with one partner.

And this reinforces what our innate biology tells us already. We owe it to our families to ensure we live longer. And if that is to be achieved, we must become more liberal in our dispensation of affections.

We owe it to our families, to our biology, to the future existence of the VERY PLANET WE LIVE ON, to get out there and have meaningless sex with women. Loads of women.

I shall put this to Mel.

Can I sleep at your house tonight?

Happy wednesday

A xxxx