emanation of psyche

so enforced monogamy is telling a man he can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it yeah, checks out

Babies grow up, though. (Also, the notion of enforced monogamy is repugnant and one can only hope it fades away.)

that's the argument, though, right? the poors need enforced monogamy to be happy so everybody needs enforced monogamy otherwise it's mean to the poors? which at object level means, as always, that non-elite women need to stop thinking they have elite options like divorce?

Or we can read it as "average people for the most part struggle under sexual mores that elites find congenial" -- whatever the intentions of the OP. There are those who want to ban divorce and institute other bad and zany policies, and I do not want any part of that.

yeah. i mean, it's an argument, and there could be something to it. it smells pretty strongly of leaning heavily on condescension, though. my experience of "average people" tends to indicate they can handle complex-as-shit sexual mores without particularly blinking

Fair. Maybe the issue is not so much "can this person handle this particular non-standard arrangement" (they probably can or they wouldn't be in it) but pushing people to be open to all the degrees of freedom "which you would be if you were cool and not a prig"...I don't know.

tbh OP doesn't scan as talking about psychologically handling arrangements so much as "flourish" sounds economic, i.e. the norm being lionized is the one where every man gets a sex/housekeeping/childrearing slave assigned and this provides him a stable base to pursue wealth from

OP may well believe that, but on their face the words could mean that social pressure to pair off (in any kind of pair) in a long-term committed relationship helps to foster the material success of a nation through the emotional stability of its households.