This depends on the circumstances.
I am not saying people can only do that which they are instinctively desiring. Obviously people can put morals above most of their instincts, within the right circumstances.
I was not saying we cannot control it at all. We can. But we have limits.
Just because people aren't humping everything left, right and center, does not mean they are totally in control of their instincts. As long as society gives them enough chance to satisfy their urges, they will behave. As social animals, we balance Society vs Self as to best benefit ourselves.
If you made it impossible for people to have sex, and thus they had no satisfaction towards their instincts, I do believe people will start acting a lot more like apes. If someone is pushed hard enough, or their survival is on the line (and they are aware of it) all morals will go out of the window. If you don't agree, then we will have to settle on that.
As social animals, it is really a case of Society vs Self. Pleasing both in a balance to reach the best result for Self. If pleasing society will result in death/extinction, I will gladly give a nice big middle finger to society. As will any other intelligent Ape or animal.
On the contrary, most of that which I have read suggests the opposite. Human history (which we know a lot more about, than our ancestors) supports my point. The most comon template for families in the History of our species, has been one man, many woman. Pretty hard to refute that fact.
I have read some stuff on Dawkins and how he suggests we are monogomous, but I don't agree with everything he suggests. He raises interesting and good points, but I personally think the evidence is too overwhelming, and it is quite obvious that man prefers to sleep around.
Ultimately, man does what benefits him. That may be different from person to person. Some conclude that it is wiser to please society and gain from that, where as others think its best if they are the boss of everything. Either way, Man does that which he wants to do. So it is circumstancial every time.
Sources please ? As far as I am aware, they do just do that.
To say an Animal is monogomous because they rather please their social hierachy than do that which they selfishly desire, is like saying 'If a homosexual does not come out of the closit out of fear, then he is hetrosexual!' It just doesn't follow.
What evidence ? You didn't provide any. If you do, I might reconsider. All you did was talk about evidence, but failed to give any.
Huh ? Us ? Species ? How are they different ? Same thing at the end of the day.
See my previous post. "Bad effects on your body" may be true, but it is not significant or long-term. So it really does not matter much. It is simply annoying to non-smokers. Nothing more.