I’m arguing something much more deeper and profound. I am arguing that we do better when we are married and stay married. Not just because that’s what the bible teaches - but evolutionary - because that’s how we were made.
The licentiousness - has always been a poor deal. Since Adam it was a poor deal. It is about using what was made for what it was not made. Why does sex feel good - because of the necessity of children. Why does man try to cut himself off from the responsibility to just enjoy the pleasure? Is contraception an evolutionally sound idea? No - not at all. It’s about one of the most negative inventions out there if the idea is to have children and continue on the species.
If your goal is to pass your genes on the strategy is not hard. Get married young. Stay married. Have children. Raise them. It’s been the strategy forever. It’s what works and it’s what we are made for.
The rest of this? Where does it come from?
But if you're married to one woman, you can only have babies as fast as that one wife can make them.
Further, there is a material limit as to how many babies a given man can help to raise
So whether a man is married or not, he can make far more babies by impregnating as many women as possible, and then walking away, leaving the rearing of those babies to chance: in many cases, the cuckolded husband will unknowingly or knowingly spend his resources to raise them or the unmarried mother will raise them alone or with the aid of her relatives and/or the state.
The other alternative is for the single mother, with illigitimate babies (or divorced mother, in the case of the ex-husband being a serial polygynist) in tow, to find a second-class male to marry (the groom and his family will justify the marriage by telling themselves the bride has now "grown-up" and appreciates a man like the groom: a hard working nice boy geek).
So evolution would seem to favor male promiscuity--and guess which sex is inherently more promiscuous?