The reality is that people are biased towards their own biological children (on average), and men would in generally really prefer to raise their own child, rather than someone else's (on average). Raising a child requires an immense amount of resources.
If you presume that men who discover that their partner have slept around, and their child is not theirs, and worse, they've sunk like 3 years of resources in keeping this kid alive, are even just slightly more likely to be liabilities to society, then you could see why such a societal strategy might emerge.
The converse situation (men sleeping around) is somewhat different (though obviously related). The reality is that if you want to retain an approximately balanced gender balance in a population (perhaps because uh... you might need to compete in raiding/warfare), then you -cannot- have even a significant minority of men having exclusive access to more than one female without having significant societal stability issues. Combine this with men like knowing that their child is theirs, quickly settles you into "monogamous-ish".
And it's "ish" because there are always exceptions.
There is a famous quote from a Montagnais Native American to a Jesuit priest that tries to tell him that he should prevent his wife from having other relationships or he would risk bringing up another mans child: "Thou hast no sense. You french people love only your own children; but we love all the children of our tribe" - https://sexgendersoc.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/4-montagnai...
It's not just about loving your children, but also about feeding them. Children can't survive on love alone.
The person who raises only others children is not longer expressed in the gene line
It is also worth noting that while they aren't monogamous, Females are still selective, mating primarily with high status males with more to offer.
Not to mention that some STDs are antibiotic resistant now.
So imagine life before this. Sleeping around is going to leave you with constant green discharge or worse.
Notably herpes, hpv and syphilis can still be transmitted
Sounds very much like some Christian agenda bring pushed here.
50% of the population gets herpes and syphilis gets cured with antibiotics. HPV has a vaccine.
The article itself says you won't get anything if you use a condom properly.
But hey -- don't leave the house for fear of a car accident type thing...
You must be kidding. You are accusing the CDC of using a scientific fact (that is pretty obvious) of "Pushing a Christian agenda"?
First of all, you are using HSV1 stats, which aren't the ones we are talking about, we are talking about Genital Herpes, which among adults affects only about 13%.
https://khealth.com/learn/herpes/statistics/#:~:text=is%20le....
And "syphilis Gets cured with antibiotics" isnt that accurate either. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785152/
If you have the money for antibiotics, which many don't and you catch it early enough, which some don't, then yes it can be cured. However, as that link shows there are emergent antibiotic resistant strains that can absolutely destroy your life.
As far as HPV goes there are huge sections of the population who don't have the HPV vaccine, some can't afford it even.
People can do what they want, but objectively being promiscuous is dangerous to your health. It's less a question of it, but rather when.
Yet they do
You can get all of the following (probably 99% of all relevant STD cases recruit from those) via kissing (and blowjobs) alone:
Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, urea/myco-plasma, crabs, HPV, HSV, several borderline-STD bacteria like H. parainfluenca.