That article completely reinforces everything that I've said. You've made my point for me. Quoting from the piece you linked, "Yet, while engaging in sex outside of marriage likely occurs to some extent in all societies, because men and women typically live in long-term pairbonds within the same residential unit, they have been described as practicing social monogamy."
As I've already said (and wrote an entire story about) pair bonding is ancient, but sexual monogamy is very recent, and even today, not all that adhered to, even though it may be expected. Marriage is not the same thing as actual sexual monogamy.
Extra-pair sex is common around the world, even though some cultures do consider it to be bad behavior, many of them don't - and even in ones that do, it's still incredibly common - even in ones where the penalty for doing so is death, it's still pretty common.
Then there's the fact that our biology confirms that we are not "designed" for monogamy (which doesn't mean that people can't still choose that if they wish). The coronal ridge of the human penis is designed to work like a scoop to displace the semen of other men. That would hardly be needed from an evolutionary perspective if we weren't multiple maters. The human cervix also acts to sort genetic material to ascertain which one is the most likely to lead to a healthy and viable offspring. Again, wouldn't need that if monogamy were common pre-patriarchy (6-9 thousand years ago).
Gorillas and other primates that engage in mate competition prior to copulation have tiny genitals. Chimps, bonobos and humans have larger testicles and penises relative to body size because they engage in sperm competition. If we weren't multiple maters, we wouldn't have the body parts that go with that.
So yes, I've made up my mind because that's what all the actual scientific evidence points to. Those who feel uncomfortable with the idea of monogamy being a fairly recent social construct are going to naturally find ways to turn a blind eye to all the evidence to the contrary. That alone doesn't change the science. What's really hilarious is the author of that story kept saying "the jury is still out" all the while presenting plenty of evidence that it really isn't. It seems to me like a CYA maneuver to fend off angry moralists.
