Women aren’t wired for open relationships?

@Brassm0nk3y: It takes a village to raise a child. That rationale doesn't make sense, because two men could do a much better job protecting and providing for a child than one man.

@IrretrievableObito: But with two men...whoever put his seed into her would win the evolution. The other man would suffer in the DNA spread? While two could protect...the two would have to have a seed.

@okaybut: That's flawed logic, because humans don't exist in a vacuum. We're social creatures and we survive and thrive as groups. Group dynamics are very important to our evolutionary development, it's not just pure genetic exchange.

@okaybut: True, but I meant from the female perspective and OP's specific biological reasoning for why a woman would only want one man.

Even so, there are still multiple men who are with one woman, today. And there would be various reasons as to why a man would share. Perhaps he sees her genes as superior to all other women, and simply having the chance to be with her would be better than banging out a bunch of inferior offspring. Or, perhaps he is insecure in his own ability to take care of a child and thinks it best to enlist the help of another man. And, over time, she could have multiple children, anyhow.

Then, there are also still people. It would certainly be more rare than multiple women with a single man, but it still happens.

But, main point is from a female perspective, wouldn't it be better to have multiple providers and protectors for her child?

I think it's preference most of all. But personally I would only want one man helping me raise an offspring. Not two. And I agree with okaybut. The person who provides the offspring would ultimately win on a biological level. Why would the man who could have other women all day long, stick around to be a third wheel, exhausting his resources to take care of another mans child while there are plenty of options to have his own offspring and pack or family so to speak. He would also have to constantly compete for alpha male title.. Again it's all preference every situation is different all people have their own opinions of what's ideal and what isn't,

@Brassm0nk3y: I mean, if we go back to tribal humanity then it was generally not a one-on-one thing, it was multiple females with multiple males existing as a community. Evidence seems to suggest that there were primarily monogamous pairings but that they were likely short-lived(early human societies had a lot of this, so it probably goes back further) and tended to end once pregnancy had finished, birth was given and the previous suitor had been out-competed by someone else.

In the modern day, though, the social dynamics of it all are very different. And at no point ever was anyone thinking "Boy, I gotta get some of my genes up in there!" Genetics play an evolutionary role but there is no active logical role that genes play in social dynamics beyond their affects on passivity and aggressiveness. One of the standing theories for the rise of genetics that promote homosexuality(not make you homosexual, but cause you to be inclined toward it) is that the genes which cause this also increase empathy and having homosexual members of the group allows for a group of stronger empathic parental figures which are not debilitated for several months at a time by pregnancy.