Of course not. I pointed out only that more accurate means of determining pregnancy and paternity were available these days than before, not that screwing had gone out of style.
> Because our psyches were formed by evolution to desire sex for a fulfilling life.
Yes, because desire for sexual activity helps guarantee the continuance of the human species through reproduction. Simple natural selection: those individuals who don't screw, don't reproduce, and their "don't want to screw" genes aren't represented in the next generation. Eventually, the population is comprised of the ones that reproduced successfully. (Which is why homosexuals are selected against naturally, but that's a different point.)
> Just so, the psyches of most men and women would likely have been formed by evolution to place a premium on female chastity.
That's an interesting thesis. I'll have to think about that... offhand, my reaction is this:
Female chastity primarily benefits the male who feels motivated to stick around and provide for "his" family (that way he is putting out his effort in support of his genes instead of some other male's). There's plentiful evidence for this in scores of other species, including of course the primates. Males of some species even kill the offspring of prior male mates of their current female mate, since those earlier offspring compete with their own.
Biologically speaking, chastity only benefits the female indirectly (in that she can convince the male that he's really the father). Mainly she benefits by getting pregnant and bearing offspring successfully, which in humans is helped hugely by the presence of a dedicated male.
Female chastity holds no value to the male who is interested only in screwing and leaving -- indeed, he is a strong force against female chastity. His genes get spread around widely, which benefits him. Until of course, it comes to his own family, at which point he flips 180 degrees and demands chastity from his own mate.
It all makes sense, biologically. It's just that in less civilized societies (I'll include much of the middle East here), it comes out in the violent, abusive, and oppressive forms we normally associate with other "lower" species.
I personally think the psychological and emotional value that we civilized humans place on female chastity is a secondary effect, layered on the biological one. But as I said, you make an interesting thesis and I'll have to give it some thought...
It benefits the woman too.
Because her sons, carriers of her genes and the genes of her astute husband, will be more likely to produce and raise HER grandchildren, and not those of other men.
So it benefits the woman by enhancing her chances of passing her genes on down through the generatons.
After all, what woman is attracted to a sap, unless she already has children (or a pregnancy or eyes for the milkman on the side) in need of a father?
Which brings me to the alternate female genetic strategy:
Some other women would take a different reproductive strategy: get impregnated by "bad boys" and then find a sucker to marry and raise the "bad boy's" child.
This enhances the chances that any sons the woman may have, will impregnate other round-heeled women, who would raise her grandchildren however they can.
No it doesn't.
Not that long ago, it was much more common in America than it is today.
And although we didn't wear burkas, most American women did dress much more modestly than today.
The Mideast is nuts for other reasons, which has caused them to go overboard.
Their violent obession with extreme female modesty must spring from a sense of insecurity from most young men's poor economic prospects,
And from the physical decrepitude of old men wealthy enough for a harem.