I gotta run but will give this a try just for laughs -- now, think a minute.
Female monogamy is in the best interests of males. Men have no way of knowing who is the actual father of a woman's child, at least not until DNA testing. Rather than waste their resources on another male's child, males have developed a number of strategies, all of which are designed to ensure that the female doesn't fool him into raising another man's child.
Now, be logical. Why would it be in a female's best interest to adopt the male's strategy? What do females have to gain by limiting sexual congress to only one male?
Reassuring the male ego is the only possible answer, and she can do that about as well by fooling him.
That's why so-called monogamous animals, whether they be humans or geese, have a 10% to 50% rate of having offspring by other than their so-called monogamous mate.
You can blame feminists for this, if it makes you feel better, but facts are facts.
If you're worried, DNA testing is pretty inexpensive these days. ;^)
Lemme try to suggest a scenario. This one isn't human, so it's not personal. I'm thinking of the lovable walrus, who keeps a harem of females. With a species like that, where the female isn't always in season, the male wants -- for whatever reasons -- to assure that he's the one who impregnates her during those rare times when she's fertile. If the male is protecting his females, he's got an investment in them. And presumably they benefit from his benevolent (but authoritarian) devotion. So it wouldn't be in a female's interest to stray. Besides, if she's being kept by the dominant male, she wants his offspring, not some inferior's spawn. Make sense? It seems to work for them. Maybe not. It's up to you.
"Promiscuous" and "monogamous" are not opposites. Only a freaking idiot would suggest that humans or women are monogamous. That's not true, and I never argued this point. Humans are more intermediate; not as "pure" as, say, gorillas; not as "slutty" as chimpanzees.
My point in all of this is to show why women's reproductive strategy does not encompass promiscuity. (That is to say, they do not have sex indiscriminately, like the bonobos you hyped.) Of course I not saying female reproductive strategy is to be exclusively monogamous. On at least two occasions I mentioned that cheating is actually part of the female's reproductive strategy.
But even when females mate outside the pair bond, they are not being promiscuous like bonobos; they are choosy. It is sexual selection at work. It only makes sense, from a reproductive-fitness standpoint, if she cheated with someone who is or appears to be more fit than her current mate and not just some slob off the street.
But, as I also said, it would be done in very limited circumstances, such as when there is the opportunity to mate with a male who is or appears to be a genetically high-value male, where she can not "permanently" bond with this male, and that she can do so without jeopardizing her current pair bond.
The benefit which a cheating female gets is genetic. But she would be worse off if, in doing so, she losses the aid of the male who she must count on to help raise this child that is not genetically his.
So both female and male reproductive strategies work against and in light of the other. Just as pure monogamy doesn't advance the female's strategy, there has to be a base level of fidelity, otherwise there would be no incentive for males to stick around, and females would loose the benefit of having males around to help raise children.
On the other side, there is a benefit to be gained by the female by cheating with a higher quality male, if she can retain the pair bond, so she won't lose the advantage that gives her.
Basically, once the interactions work out, you get a situation where there is a basic degree of monogamy with opportunistic infidelity occurring. But you don't come anywhere near the promiscuous situation like with the bonobos you brought up.