Direct Link to Latest News


Does Monogamy Spell Monotony?

May 11, 2007

monogamy.jpgby Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Monogamy"  is not a real game. It is a clever satirical statement that illustrates the essential difference between homo and hetero-sexuality: monogamy.

Some homosexuals are monogamous and plenty of heterosexuals are promiscuous.

I am using the term "homosexual" to describe what is happening to heterosexual society due to confusion over sexual identity caused by feminism. As a result, people can't form successful marriages and therefore can't be monogamous.

Heterosexuality is about forming a stable monogamous relationship with someone of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation, ie. family. For some time, heterosexual values have been under attack by homosexual and feminist values illustrated by this satirical game.

Monogamy, [i.e. marriage] is boring, the parody implies. "The Classic Game of Frustration based on the popular stable relationship of the same name." "Go to bed early." "Visit the in-laws." "Potter around the garden." "Go to IKEA."

In fact studies show married people have much more sex than single people, and are much more secure and happy. It stands to reason. You feel the passion. What's easier? Going out to find someone, risking AIDS and STD's and rejection, or making love with the person who loves you ? 


Young heterosexual singles now emulate the dominant homosexual pattern. They go to gatherings, "hook up" with relative strangers and have impersonal sex. They have become "hetero-homos."

They have more "variety" but is that what they really seek? I maintain they want what monogamy offers: security, trust and intimacy. This bond is the only thing that satisfies a craving for love which at bottom is not sexual, but spiritual.

Promiscuity is the self-defeating protest of people who can't form a permanent bond because of confusion over their sexual identity.

As my readers know, I believe masculinity is defined by power; femininity by love. Men want power. Women want love. Marriage (or monogamy) is based on the exchange of the two: a woman entrusts her power to a man in exchange for his power expressed as love. This is how two people become one. This is the basis of intimacy and trust. Naturally a woman cannot trust a man without a courtship.

Feminism causes sexual confusion by making women demand "equality" and "independence" effectively neutering both sexes and making marriage less viable.

The sex act symbolizes a woman's surrender of power in return for love and protection. This surrender requires permanence, especially if there are children. The married male and female is the best configuration for raising children because of the natural division of skills. Heterosexual children also need role models.

The sex act enacts the ritual of creation: a woman accepts a man's seed, which represents his spirit. It is an act of love. How did impersonal sex, so humanly degrading, become the norm?

The short answer is that Western culture is secretly guided by central bankers who belong to a Satanic homosexual cult. It seeks to control people by erasing gender roles and eliminating the nuclear family. It seeks to divorce sex from love, marriage and procreation; and enshrine sex as a religion. It also seeks to reduce population. This cult, the
Illuminati, is behind Communism and the New World Order (EU.NAU.)

We see its hidden hand in the promotion of homosexuality (i.e. gender confusion) in the name of "tolerance." Students are being suspended for voicing opposition to homosexuality or for refusing to participate in homosexual conditioning.

We see its hand in "Playboy" magazine which taught a generation of young men to see women as sex objects and marriage and family as a burden. We see it in feminism which encourage women to pursue career and casual sex instead of marriage and family.

We see its hand in the prevalence of pornography. There are four million pornographic sites on the Internet showing nearly identical naked images. Talk about monotony.

We see its hand in the common tendency to choose mates on the basis of sex appeal. Sex is 10% of married life. Shouldn't we choose a mate for the other 90%?

Isn't "variety" an illusion anyway? The best qualities of men and women are pretty universal. We need to find just one person who exhibits some of them.


I've said these things before but heterosexuals need to reaffirm their identity. We are under relentless psychological attack from elite media & social engineers who want to undermine the basic source of social stability- marriage/family.

Ideally, heterosexuality is about mating for life and raising children who represent the best we have to offer the world. It represents the continuity of family down through the generations. For this we need the stability that comes from monogamy.

They make monogamy seem "uncool" but there's nothing boring about a
life devoted to something higher than sex.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Does Monogamy Spell Monotony?"

Matt said (May 17, 2007):

Heterosexuality isn't only about forming stable relationships with persons of the opposite sex, it is also crucial for having healthy fellowship with members of the same sex. Openly sodomist culture precludes genuine brotherly fellowship among men since the motives of male friends become suspect and close male companionship is not
expressed to avoid the drawing of any implications. Even as today's mixed male-female army has taken on the dynamic of a seedy soap opera,so too the sodomites coming out and turning converts in critical mass will serve to degrade society into a rancorous meth & alcohol fuelled
rage-feast of jealous love-triangles and murder (almost all serial killers are sex perverts).

However, if sodomy were once again punished
by death and driven underground, then brotherly love and fellowship could spring anew between men. Unfortunately the future only portends
sodomites ever more emboldened, inevitably reaching the nadir of projecting unwanted lusts onto straight men and turning the world into a
very violent and wicked place. God help us.

Fred said (May 15, 2007):

I read the letter from Margo [below] and for some reason it pissed me off. Below is my rebuttal.



This is in response to Margo's letter.

Margo, you are a "Sociology and Gender Studies" student? I guess you hope to be employed by some government agency some day? If not, regular
people have no use for your false education and twisted views on human life and history.

You will never be employed by a real company that produces goods for the benefit of others, a company which needs to turn a profit in order to
survive and be useful to other people. Your education is worthless as a commodity to real businesses and you have wasted your time, and possibly taxpayer money, taking the easy way out. You are one of millions that choose these useless fields of study because you are literally
emotionally delicate and could not possibly "cut it" at a job that requires nothing more than washing dishes.

You use your whinning and so-called morals to divert attention from your own lack of human character and your fear of failure and commitment.

You are literally a "Mama's Child" who has been protected all your life. You are faux academic with brainwashed views of the world. I would bet
any amount of money that you have never had a real job for longer than 4 months that requires a small degree of thinking, hard work, and the
ability to follow instructions and LEARN from other experienced people. Instead you choose to learn from speculative, shody theories that fit
your personality and lack of character and allow you to never commit to anything. That's why you chose such a crackpot subject for your higher

Just imagine what the world would be like if it was full of "Sociology and Gender Studies" experts? One thing is for sure, we would all starve to death because none of you would even know the slightest information on how to survive a simple weekend camping trip unless there was a
McDonald's near by. God help us!

Margo said (May 14, 2007):

I'm a Sociology and Gender Studies sudent at Northern Arizona University. I want to know hwo you can be so educated and still believe that traditional Western gender roles are inherent and essential. If you look at other cultures some do not have two genders based on sex, or if they do the temperments are dfifering. Also, how can you assert that homosexuals are promiscious? Isn't this a foolhardy stereotype? And how can you even compare Playboy Magazine and feminism? Feminism is a school of thought which is attempting to better the lives of all human beings through the implementation of equality. Not all men want power and not all women want love. Some people want both and some people want neither. And what if two men or two women exchange this love-power relationship? Why is that not a possiblity? I know many homosexuals many of whom are conservative in their ideas of relationships and many of whom wish for monogamy. Marriage is a human construction. We made it up. There is no reason to exhalt it above all else. As far as population goes, we have TOO MANY PEOPLE AS IT IS. It is not tolerance that is ruining monogamy and marriage, it is the fact that monogamy and marriage are unrealistic social constructions just like gender, sexuality and race. People are explorign their options more in our present day because now peopel don't get disowned, jailed or killed for it. This sort of activety was around long before feminism was even a word. Your cause and effect chain is weak. Monogamy coudl be very exciting and fun if you found the right person, but that doesn't always happen. It's even harder to do now that there are so many people in the world because of marriage and procreation ;). Please respond so maybe I can see your point of view more clearly if I haven't been too rude.

PS As a woman I do not appreciate it when a man tries to tell me about my nature. I never want to exchange my power for love from a man. That would be a fate worse than death. It doesn't take a genius to look around and see that relationships never follow a certain pattern. Some of the best ones I've seen are formed on equality and egalitarian ideas.

Paul said (May 13, 2007):

I only slightly (and I mean like 5%) disagree with
your article. I think monogamy would be somewhat of a challenge or at least require a minimal amount of discipline and commitment due to the male drive for variety regardless of what culture we lived it.That's probably why some cultures have practiced polygamy.

HOWEVER, I agree that the western culture we are under is doing normal marriage (Oh no, did I mean to say that male-female marriage is NORMAL? Yes, I did) is under heavy attack due to the 24/7/12 sexual content in the media. It's ridiculous and even starting to get on MY nerves. They (the elistists) are not just normalizing homosex, they are normalizing behavior that was once associated with sex-workers: skimpy clothing, pole-dancing, tastely-dyed hair, whorish makeup, piercings you name it.

Anytime you can take poledancing classes, you know
Satan's in charge. Next thing you know, pole-dancing will be in the Olympics.

I'm hoping this is a satire site, but it probably

Robert said (May 13, 2007):

In the chapter titled "Marriage for the Millions" the Beechers explain that marriage is for the protection and education of children, it has nothing to do with happiness.

The Greeks had two words for Love; Agape and Eros. Agape is unconditional love and Eros is infantile possessiveness. Most marriages, if not relationships, are based on infantile Eros.

You need to read "Beyond Sussess and Failure", by Willard and Margarette Beecher. As for your understanding of the International banking cabal you are right on, and you do a great service by exposing their manipulations. But you do need to brush up on your psychology and a good place to start is the book just mentioned.

Dan said (May 12, 2007):

I'm in complete agreement with Jean from Hungary [below]. Once Bertrand Russell's scheme of promoting sex as a recreational activity was deployed by social engineers and public relations, Trotsky's thesis that undermining
the family unit to produce isolated persons dependent upon the State proved correct.

Jean identifies the natural context of human sexuality, and as importantly spells out that the elite have always had their own separate
standards of their sexuality than the 'masses'.

The elite's well known promiscuous lifestyle is far darker than most people think. Marriages are arranged only for alliances of wealth and power between powerful families. Many of those are generational, so there's a lot of inbreeding within the elite. But it's not random inbreeding, it's scientifically worked out by specialists who plan these unions from the
moment children are born.

Brittany Spears is presented to the public as 'poor trailer trash girl makes the big time'. The elite breed slave lines too, as well as
perpetuating their ruling bloodlines. Brittany has always been sold to the pubescent daughters of the 'profane' classes as something they can
be. Brittany Spears is a mind controlled slave of the occult elite,(all former Disney Micky Mouse Club child stars are), and Paris Hilton
is one of her handlers. For the public, Brittany is presented as a buddy of Paris Hilton, as if they're on the same level, which they are
not. Paris will live to a ripe old age and become a 'Dark Mother'within the elite hierarchy of the Illuminati. Slaves like Brittany are
generally killed before they reach age 36.

Brittany's been bred already, but this year we've seen before our eyes some of the workings of the Illuminati system in broad daylight.Brittany's programming was beginning to break down, and she recognized what the death of Anna Nicole Smith is really all about. Brittany rebelled by shaving her head, and was quoted by witnesses to have said, 'I don't want them touching me, I don't want them putting things in me anymore'. This clearly wasn't behavior that Brittany was authorized to be doing.

Paris Hilton's recent conviction and sentencing to 40 days in LA country jail may be a hierachical punishment of Paris for letting Brittany get publicly out of control. Especially at a suspicious and critical time as Anna Nicole's ritual sacrifice.Can anyone imagine Paris Hilton being sentenced by a judge for any
traffic violation, unless her own family approved it?

Among the network of thus who've researched the Illuminati and know a lot about how they operate, Brittany Spear's crackup coming in the same
frame as Anna Nicole's murder lit up the board. It was an astounding fumble on their part for so much of this to go public. The tabloid media
did the usual double back-flips to spin over the reality of what all this was about, but the cat's out of the bag for those who know what
they're seeing.

I think that's the real reason Hilton has to spend a little time in jail. That in itself is a major rarity--witnessing a high Illuminati witch punished in public by the Illuminati is quite a treat for us 'profane' watchers!

Jean from Hungary said (May 12, 2007):

Thanks for your new post. I like your conclusion that "Ideally, heterosexuality is about mating for life and raising children who represent the best we have to offer the world. It represents the continuity of family down through the generations. For this we need the stability that comes from monogamy."

One of the main reasons why monogamy creates psychological stability is that it prevents us from focusing our life on sex. From this point of view, sexual promiscuity can be described as a destructive dynamic which drives us to continuously change sexual partners in order to feed sexual excitement.

Focusing on sex is self-destructive not only because of the health risks involved (AIDS) but even more because it acts like most drugs in that the person has to continuously raise the dose in order to get the same amount of excitement. This mechanism implies two kinds of psychological destructiveness:

1. The more the person needs to change partners (raise the dose) in order to get the excitement, the more she/he will have to spend time to that purpose and, fatally, the less time she/he will have to invest in social relations (sex is only a part of social life) and professional life.

Sooner or later the social and the professional activities will sufferr resulting in feelings of personal failure and depression or other mental problems.

2. If the sexual promiscuity dynamic goes on, after a while the mere change of partners will not suffice to keep up sexual excitement and the person will also have to find new ways of performing sex. Then the door is opened to perversions like sado-masochism, zoophilia, rape and, yes, pedophilia. No need to elaborate on the psychological and self-destructiveness of these.

While the first of the above mentioned often destroys the lives of poor or middle-class people, the second is more common in the "high society" because the sexual perversions are, just as other drugs, a lucrative market and thus expensive to purchase.

As most Western politicians belong to the social upper class, they have the financial background to become addicted to expensive sexual perversions and this, of course, is fully exploited by those who know how to provoke such addictions and create political puppets from the addicted subjects.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at