> We had a period of time where strict monogamy throughout adulthood dominated I strongly disbelieve this, and I think most historians would agree with me. We

> We had a period of time where strict monogamy throughout adulthood dominated I strongly disbelieve this, and I think most historians would agree with me. We had a period of time in which what was written and widely disseminated in the polite (read: legal, and likely to be preserved) media did not include references to anything other than strict monogamy. When such references were included, they were usually scandalous and offered as implied evidence for a person or fictional character later getting his or her comeuppance. It's very easy, especially if you're raised in a religious or just plain awkward household, to latch onto that attitude with apparent reinforcement from historical sources. That doesn't mean that's how people actually lived. It does mean that's how most people wanted others to believe they lived. And there are plenty of private letters and other less public texts from history that show our ancestors to have been every bit as kinky, homosexual, and promiscuous as we collectively are today. There were prudes then, too, and plenty of them, and there were people who were happy in a genuinely monogamous marriage, just as there are today. But what's changed is not what people are doing, nor with whom, but whether they're willing to have others know about it. And even that's still nowhere near as free as many would imagine it: this article used pseudonyms throughout. Temporal exceptionalism is just way too lazy.