Caution “Hot”: My Idealistic Answer might Burn You.

This I am writing in response to Mr. Namazi’s comments on the pervious post

Nothing in modern life is as naturalized as our Stone Age characteristics. So naturalizing female-male relations comes short in explaining the complex nature of these relations. Yes in nature a women “produce” one egg per month, a man “produces” twenty million sperms per millimeter of semen daily. A male is to get rid of his fluid by any means, even force. The female is to protect her egg from bad sperms, and save it for a good one. This is called genetic cost and benefit analysis. Of course this comes short in explaining the male-female relationships in Apes, let alone humans. If you want to naturalize things, primates in general are not monogamous. Researches I have read so far have correlated humans and other primates’ monogamy to social factors, parenting investments, and investments in general. Moral values are intellectual manifestations of these social investments. They reduce the social cost and increase the benefit. Of course love is hard to measure, yet if one may experience such wonderful feeling many many times in a lifetime, why not? It is cost and benefit ain't it?
So, I do not believe we are monogamous creatures by nature; we have evolved to this state for the sake of our social evolution. With all this said, how is a purely physical sex lacking love degrading to the female? What is she being degraded to? My first post on this weblog was on monogamy. Please read it. I am female, I think my thoughts on this issue, and my existence is evidence that we are in need of more accepting moralities where females are not degraded for having sex freely.