As an aside, I wonder what role STDs played in the development of religion and the religious superstitions surrounding sex. Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity?
Much more likely, the problems with promiscuity were related to 'bastard' children and their role in inheritance; and to the father's uncertainty that a child was biologically theirs. In addition, many religious outlooks favor abstinence from bodily pleasures of all kind, so forbidding sexual pleasure and especially promiscuity seems well in tone with this.
Did the old world have gonorrhea, herpes, genital warts, molluscum, trich, or any other visible STD? It seems like any one of those would be sufficient to cause a superstitious, iron age people to suspect something was plaguing the sexually promiscuous.
Notably, when syphilis was introduced into the Old World population, it was described as a very severe acute disease. It only became more chronic after a period of adaptation that took several decades. This might have made the initial societal reaction more extreme.
https://www.everydayhealth.com/syphilis/painful-history-odd-...
Chlamydia rarely has life threatening complications but gonorrhea and hepatitis can kill. And there aren’t any STDs that don’t often cause infertility. Religions favored not screwing around because you’re guaranteed to get an STD eventually if you do, and that will very likely lead to infertility or worse.
The problem is that not everybody likes to share their partner. The likely consequence of a partner sleeping with other people is separation or divorce.
Also, I'm pretty sure that STDs have virtually never stopped anybody from cheating on their spouse if they wanted to. So no, I don't think that a lack of STDs will have much effect on monogamy, if at all.
I guess define consequences? I sure as heck wouldn’t be ok with my wife having sex with other people just because STDs aren’t a problem… the consequence would be divorce with or without the STD.
Well yeah, sex is cool and all but I don't like strangers or sharing.
I've never understood the "promiscuous" lifestyle that a different part of society seems to be natural at. Thankfully that's not the norm, just one of many subcultures.
Ideally you're both monogamous so unless one had STIs before entering the relationship, it's incredibly unlikely either would acquire one and almost certainly not from intercourse but through some other means.
There are people more interested in the low risk stable sexual benefits of a trustworthy monogamous relationship. I personally doubt it's more than the number of people wanting an intimate relationship beyond sex though.
It's certainly not exclusive to monogamy.
Consequences to promiscuity are not limited to STDs. Bad framing of the issue.
Otherwise, have a blast.
From a cold, logical perspective there are certainly evolutionary benefits to having a pair-bond not least of which is future certainty of care, for yourself and your joint offspring.
So maybe natures optimal path is closer to pair-bonding + promiscuity, rather than either on their own?
Pair bonding is crucial to social organization and casual encounters erode the psychological capacity for such bonds, without nullifying the innate human desire for long term companionship. The result in a "sex positive" society is a growing proportion of perpetually lonely and frustrated people, or dysfunctional relationships. One of the few instances in my opinion where ignorance truly may be bliss.
So, to your question, it's quite possible that we will rediscover the purpose of monogamous marriage, if we can reason past the barriers of some recent ideologies.
Do you have any reading material on this to suggest?
Sure, but after how many people get sick? Seems like a very dismissive comment.