Most people seem to think that the term ‘relationship’ automatically implies monogamy. This is despite the fact that a number of recent surveys reveal that over 60 percent of men and women have been disloyal in a relationship on at least one occasion. Because of this palpable conflict, there is a tendency to mask infidelity in a robe of deception. Instead of calling it like it is, both sexes resort to crafting a web of lies to justify behavior that is legitimate on its own terms. What I mean is, rational people are self-interested and autonomous, with the liberty to pursue their ends without obstruction. Try telling that to a cranky, jealous boyfriend and it’s going to be an exhausting evening, to say the least.

A plaguing and timeless million-dollar question has been, why did Adam eat the poisonous apple from the tree of life? Obviously, I cannot enter the mind of the biblical construct, but I can point out that the apple was the one thing ‘God’ put off limits. There is truth to the all too familiar clich√É©s that humans naturally want what they cannot have. Competition, curiosity, ego and Darwinian-like precepts of survival of the fittest propel some people, let us call them Alphas, to seek what they perceive as out of their grasp. Alpha traits are not intrinsic to human life; they depend on both genetic disposition and environmental factors. So all humans may want what they cannot have, but only some venture out in conquest.

Perhaps there is a link between Alphas and infidelity. The Alpha characteristics I noted are compatible with a propensity for risk and reward unrestricted by boundaries. Similarly, there are non-Alpha persons who are disinterested in surveying a wide range of alternatives to the status quo, whether it is in reference to a university, career, relationship or any other area where choice is present. Thus, the latter group theoretically would be more apt to remain loyal in a relationship. In reality, though, it is not so clear-cut. Non-Alphas could and do cheat because they simply don’t care or because the temptation is too alluring.

Why do so many people enter ‘relationships’ and assume an oath of fidelity if they are biologically prone to deviate, don’t care enough or have weak impulse control? One reason is that a ‘relationship’ is a social construct that embodies a standard of ‘rules of engagement,’ if you will. Being that our society is one that is fixated on labeling, the limited paradigms we have for romantic relations leads many to classify themselves as ‘boyfriend’ or ‘girlfriend,’ taking with them the prevailing expectations associated with the label rather than creating their own.

For instance, why is it ‘granted’ that couples engage in monotonous daily phone conversations? Why does the ‘boyfriend’ title come with the protectionist attitude that turns testosterone on overdrive? And why is it that weekends and holidays have to be ‘couple time’? If you have to ask your partner whether you can go out with the girls or the boys, you may as well make him/her your legal guardian. Funny thing is, some people will read the absurdities I pointed out and say, ‘Yeah, and what?’ My answer is that even if they seem normal, they are destructive, counterintuitive and avoidable.

I propose eliminating the assumption of monogamy, not because I’m advocating polyamorous lifestyles, but because it is consistent with the cultural shift toward individualism and autonomy, it prompts a movement away from labeling and onto deliberative judgments, and it opens up people’s schedules and minds to more constructive issues. A conventional standard is only conventional when people conform or adhere to it. I’m bored; let’s change it up a bit.