My point is that monogamy is unnatural. Look back through time, it was used as a tool of oppression. We humans are not happily monogamous creatures. We must use this knowledge in our quest to build a greater society.
The problem with sexual liberation as a form of progressivism is that it no longer focuses on questions like "How to best organize society" or "How to best organize one's life" but instead it becomes "What do I want." Living the ideal monogamous life would be difficult for many people. It's about making a long term investment, not just in oneself, but in their posterity. My personal opinions and preferences on the matter are determined by my desire for order in my life and in society, not releases of chemicals, as it apparently is with others. I can grow to accept whichever arrangements make the most sense, but you're not offering any information that we haven't had for thousands of years.
In some ways, the modern view of sexuality (unrestrained) is more natural since individuals are being driven by their instincts. On the other hand, it's remarkably unnatural to copulate so variously and without intended to impregnate. What's the point? Human nature pulls us in both ways - we don't want to have to be exclusive, but we also don't want to share. So saying promiscuity or "open" arrangements are more natural is not true. They conflict with the nature of mating.
As does monogamy, so which resolution is most useful?
Not which do I feel like now.
It is found in all cultures that a small proportion of men are disproportionately laying all of the women; the alpha males, of which studies suggest have a stronger sexual drive due to theory of natural selection.
And in doing this, we encourage selfish behavior in future generations. We need to evolve in more ways than amounts of testosterone. And we're never going to evolve to be more apt at civilization if we focus on developing our latent sociopathy.
And the betas in this scenario aren't very happy; is happiness a relevant decision making factor for you or not?
I feel that human beings are unhappy when monogamous because of our purely functional contemplation of such acts. The idea associated with whether we are happy or not with our sexual practices is not inherent, and thus when we attempt to attribute an absolute meaning to it, whether based in ideal (as in marriage), or function (as in open sexuality with anyone one wishes and can attract), we destroy a sense of accomplishment associated with basing our value of the act within our goals for society.
Overthinking romance steals the magic of it, I know. But I don't believe happiness is found by chasing feelings. Most of our emotions come and go, so basing one's life on chasing them - he will never be satisfied. Look at the ancients, they'll tell you the same thing.
It's value can be very practical, and by filling a practical role, make one happy. Much like having consistent access to food and shelter, having a good spouse gives one consistent access to affection, support and sexual release. If the marriage is done right, which I guess no one knows how to do anymore.
One of the goals of almost every society has been to prosper and have relative peace to raise families. Marriage clearly helps reach those goals. No extra time spent seeking a mate. Family. No conflict over who gets what mate after it's been decided.
Perhaps if we saw the rise of two cultures, one that celebrates marriage simply as a joyous virtue for the sake of it, and one that viewed open sexuality the same way, we could truly see which idea was naturally superior.
I've thought about this experiment in other contexts, and I realize - the second culture did exist, it just died out because it wasn't as organized.
This is where I am left with no solution except maybe establishing some kind totalitarian government that could control people, mass execution for the weak minded or religion.
This always in favor of a solution that vaguely resembles this one. I don't care what the problem is.