Alexandre Dumas, famed 19 th century French playwright and author, once said "the chains of marriage are so heavy that it takes two to bear them—and sometimes three." While in saying this Dumas was merely trying to explain his own theories on infidelity in his own time, his comments may prove nothing short of prophetic in this day and age.

We've all heard that dreaded statistic: 50 percent of all marriages in the US will end in divorce. The actual number is an issue of some debate, depending upon which so-called pro-family "research" groups you listen to. Marriage and divorce statistics from 2004-2005 show the divorce rate in the U.S. fell slightly over 4 percent, but this was in addition to a drop in the marriage rate of 8 percent, a number that suggests the divorce rate actually more than doubled in just one year. The divorce rate is also double what it was since the 1960s. Traditional marriage is also on the decline globally, with the worldwide divorce rate rising in every industrialized nation.

Whatever the actual numbers are, more and more discussions on marriage recently have been revolving round the morals debate, as it has been closely linked by social conservatives to our collective system of traditional American values. But have we, as a society, assigned qualities to marriage, specifically to monogamy, that might otherwise not exist in it? Are those traditional values that the "Healthy Family" advocates tell us they mean to protect, in fact, traditional at all? Or are we simply going along with the status quo in the hopes that happiness will follow?

So deeply rooted is the concept of marriage in our society that it is regarded by many as a kind of standard protocol. Every Zales commercial for diamond engagement rings display the happy couple, perfectly in love. Bridal magazines and Reality TV advertise not only the virtues of monogamy but also its seemingly endless social necessity to the tune of $18,000-$21,000 per wedding on average in the United States, according to the Association for Wedding Professionals International.

Whether or not we feel jumping the proverbial broom is a necessity, studies suggest that it is more social construction than instinct that leads human beings to stay with one mate instead of several. Dr. David Barash, Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle, and Dr. Judith Eve Lipton, co-authors of The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity In Animals and People, claim that all species, especially upright walking primates such as ourselves, are naturally inclined to cheat rather than keep only one mate in a lifetime.

"In recent years," Barash cheekily observes in a January 23, 2001 article, "[DNA fingerprinting] has surprised biologists with a whole new world of screwing around among animals, with likely implications for that troubled animal, Homo sapiens, the one that tries so hard to be monogamous and finds it so terribly difficult." In studying genetic patterns of animals, Lipton and Barash state that while many biologists used to believe differently, new evidence from DNA fingerprinting shows that sexual fidelity amongst most species of animals is "virtually non-existent."

Some socioeconomic theories of monogamy suggest it more the exception than the rule. The idea of the nuclear family, according to Stephanie Coontz of the Council for Contemporary Families and author of Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, is something of a fallacy. The social-conservative ideal, she says, of creating a more functional family unit through traditional values (i.e. dual-sex marriage) is exactly the problem. That phenomenon was actually not traditional at all. Marriage, and more specifically how it was defined, has always been in a state of flux, according to Coontz. And to assign a singular value to it would be inconsistent with history.

Barash and Lipton would agree, pointing out in their research that of 185 human societies surveyed by anthropologist C.S. Ford and psychologist Frank Beach in the 1950s, fewer than 16 percent restricted their members to only one mate. Ironically, the Bible also offers evidence of routine polygamy as in the case of King David who had more than six different wives [2 Samuel 3:2-5, 5:13]. King Solomon took 700 wives, according to biblical texts, along with 300 concubines [1 Kings 11: 12-3]; so much for Judeo-Christian values.

Coontz goes on to recommend that society's attitudes towards marriage alternatives must change in order to promote a more fulfilling lifestyle for those unsatisfied with marriage as it exists today.

Part of the problem that exists with exclusive relationships is society's antipathy attitudes towards singletons, most especially towards single women. Not gone from our social mentality is the concept that there is something wrong with being single. With all the pomp and circumstance made in the media about celebrity couples, and with our movie screens and pop-literature inundated with Bridget Jones-esque tripe, single people tend to be looked upon as though they were incomplete. Case in point, references in contemporary American vernacular to our "other half.” Dalma Heyn, author of Drama Kings: The Men Who Drive Strong Women Crazy says these attitudes often confuse women and put them at the mercy of unfair social stigmas.

"Women spoke of turning themselves inside out to make even the least satisfying pairings function," Heyn writes. "Obsessing over loves that often limped painfully toward the elusive 'forever' they swore to attain, because to not reach it would have left them with a sense of failure, despair and loneliness." Women Heyn interviewed told her they would often fear speaking candidly about their dissatisfaction in their respective unions for years, even the balance of their adult lives, because their feelings, "did not fit what were told they 'should' be."

Heyn gives the example of "Wendy,” a 22 year old, married to a man increasingly becoming disengaged from her emotionally. Her husband spoke to her less and less as the relationship moved on, and when she would attempt to get him talking, he would shut her out even more. "When do I start being myself?" Wendy told Heyn. "When does this relationship start to be as intimate and easy and happy as it promised to be?" Wendy would eventually divorce her husband, but not until she was 40.

The solution here, says Heyn, is for women not to place a monogamous relationship above themselves, as they have been taught to do. That could be useful advice for everyone. Spending more energy focusing on what makes one happy might alleviate the need to find it in others.

Not having to worry about "finding someone" can liberate people otherwise bogged down by feeling that they are missing something by not being involved. Thus, our sexual needs do not have to suffer while we attempt to locate our elusive "soul mates,” if we even choose to do so at all, and if such a thing even really exists. People can concentrate on being fulfilled in their own lives while sparing themselves the frustration and even self-loathing of searching for something that might not be good for them in the first place. No one can complete another person; that's an individual's own responsibility to themselves.

Whatever our collective preconceptions or stigmas about singlehood, polygamy, and monogamy might be one thing seems certain: people will be people. Whether our need to branch out is a result of millions of years of naturally selective bioengineering or simply one that rises out of sheer sexual boredom, it is a need nonetheless. Instead of forcing social constructs down our own collective gullet, perhaps a more rational, and certainly more compassionate, solution would be to learn to embrace our own passionate and sexual desires, not to stifle them. Who we include to help us do so, be it one person or several, should be left up to us.