I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your gender studies class is behind the times with the research.
It does not actually benefit females to have a single male partner to perpetuate her genetic material. Females in most species, including humans, seek out a variety of male sperm donors to get the most variety of offspring to increase the chances of that offspring surviving.
Some species, including humans, practice SOCIAL MONOGAMY, which is the practice of having a single partner for the purposes of raising the offspring, but that partner is not necessarily the genetic contributor to said offspring.
The oxytocin is also only released for a short time period, just long enough to ensure the babies' survival. This is the New Relationship Energy period, which lasts, on average, 18 months to 3 years.
However, the pairbond caused by those hormones is ALSO formed between the female and the offspring during childbirth and reinforced during breastfeeding. So, clearly, humans are not only capable, but wired for, forming pairbonds with more than one individual at a time.
I also have to contradict you in your last paragraph. It is not, actually, a "fact" that multiple partners increases the likelihood of someone involved fucking up. The number of people is the least important factor in the probability of a relationship going south. By a HUGE margin, the more important factors are the individuals' communication skills and compatibility with each other.
A monogamous couple who does not know how to communicate with each other, who are not compatible with each other, and who are otherwise screwed up have a close to 100% probability of failure.
However, a group of 3 or 4 people who all have advanced communication skills and very compatible personality types are much more likely to succeed.
The number of people is the least important factor in the stability of a relationship, and that has been demonstrated mathmatically in several venues.
If you don't believe that romantic relationships are comparable with friendships, then I suggest you have that conversation with everyone who has ever had to choose between his lover or his best friend, or anyone who has ever been dumped because her lover disapproved of her spending time with her platonic friend, or anyone who has ever had a friendship last 40 years while romantic partners have come and gone.
How they are comparable is that there is the same range of intensity and depth to the emotional connection that there is in romantic relationships. There are acquaintences, casual friends, activity partners, close friends, best friends, "hetero-lifemates", etc. There are also fuckbuddies, casual partners, "just dating", boyfriend/girlfriend, spouse and "soulmates". Just because you have never had a platonic friend that meant the world to you doesn't mean that others haven't. My platonic friends are just as important to me as my romantic partners and I would exert myself to the same extent that I would for my romantic partners. The only thing that is different is that I'm not having sex with them, but the depth of my feelings for them is no more shallow than the depth of my feelings for my loves.
Re: Good response
It does not actually benefit females to have a single male partner to perpetuate her genetic material. Females in most species, including humans, seek out a variety of male sperm donors to get the most variety of offspring to increase the chances of that offspring surviving.
Some species, including humans, practice SOCIAL MONOGAMY, which is the practice of having a single partner for the purposes of raising the offspring, but that partner is not necessarily the genetic contributor to said offspring.
The oxytocin is also only released for a short time period, just long enough to ensure the babies' survival. This is the New Relationship Energy period, which lasts, on average, 18 months to 3 years.
However, the pairbond caused by those hormones is ALSO formed between the female and the offspring during childbirth and reinforced during breastfeeding. So, clearly, humans are not only capable, but wired for, forming pairbonds with more than one individual at a time.
I also have to contradict you in your last paragraph. It is not, actually, a "fact" that multiple partners increases the likelihood of someone involved fucking up. The number of people is the least important factor in the probability of a relationship going south. By a HUGE margin, the more important factors are the individuals' communication skills and compatibility with each other.
A monogamous couple who does not know how to communicate with each other, who are not compatible with each other, and who are otherwise screwed up have a close to 100% probability of failure.
However, a group of 3 or 4 people who all have advanced communication skills and very compatible personality types are much more likely to succeed.
The number of people is the least important factor in the stability of a relationship, and that has been demonstrated mathmatically in several venues.
If you don't believe that romantic relationships are comparable with friendships, then I suggest you have that conversation with everyone who has ever had to choose between his lover or his best friend, or anyone who has ever been dumped because her lover disapproved of her spending time with her platonic friend, or anyone who has ever had a friendship last 40 years while romantic partners have come and gone.
How they are comparable is that there is the same range of intensity and depth to the emotional connection that there is in romantic relationships. There are acquaintences, casual friends, activity partners, close friends, best friends, "hetero-lifemates", etc. There are also fuckbuddies, casual partners, "just dating", boyfriend/girlfriend, spouse and "soulmates". Just because you have never had a platonic friend that meant the world to you doesn't mean that others haven't. My platonic friends are just as important to me as my romantic partners and I would exert myself to the same extent that I would for my romantic partners. The only thing that is different is that I'm not having sex with them, but the depth of my feelings for them is no more shallow than the depth of my feelings for my loves.