Monogamy Unnatural in the Natural World

No, not contradictory at all.

The social pressures I am talking about involve the expectations in the institution of marriage; a commitment that involves sexual exclusivity "until death do us part".

If people who are not able or willing to keep such a lifelong commitment make this commitment anyway (because of social pressure) it will naturally lead to divorce and infidelity.

Maybe this is a problem of which terms we are using.

Whatever you call it ... pushing people who aren't able or willing to be monogamous long term to commit to long term monogamous relationships is going to cause problems.

The big question is how many people are really up for such a lifetime commitment. I think the evidence says 'not many'.

This brings into question whether our social conventions involving relationships and marriage are rational.

This I'm ready to agree with.

But who is doing this pushing? How?

I think it smacks of excuses. "I was pushed into marriage, so naturally I will not be monogamous."

If we are talking about modern American adults, they have more control over their destiny than that.

(Did you see my "lifelong" edit on my previous post?)

I think it's fair to say that social conventions tend to lock some people into relationships that have run their course. In the absence of those conventions, the couple would part amicably and find new, monogamous partners. Because they are bound in a relationship that is past its due date, they start new relationships anyway. If I were a psychiatrist this would be a great model and I think there are plenty of examples of this in the animal world, but I don't know how good a counselor I would be.

Man: "I found out my wife is cheating on me."
Counselor: "That means your relationship has been over for a while. Time to move on."

This is the issue I have with the original article. It says monogamy is rare, when it is actually very common as a biological principle. It points out that animals have multiple partners in a lifetime, but ignores that they tend to be exclusive over long period (say a breeding season.) And while the article says it is not trying to excuse infidelity, it is using this (I believe faulty) premise to avoid pointing out that infidelity is a sign of a significantly decayed relationship, perhaps one that should be ended, not because of this big trust betrayal, but because both partners are no longer committed to continuing.

If as you claim "it's fair to say that social conventions tend to lock some people into relationships that have run their course" then it's just as fair to say that social conventions tend to lock some people into relationships that have not run their course, thus negating your initial claim through contradiction.

And that’s based on a common understanding and application of the phrase “run their course” in the context given………a dubious proposal.

I could neuter the balance of your text in a similar scalpel-like fashion but my shrimp on rice awaits and I’m not that heartless.

Your superior intellect leaves me in awe as usual. Please wield your neutering scalpel with abandon.

Your rapier wit balances gently on the microtome blade of my incisiveness!

I continue to carry a long time discontinued knife, made by Buck, named "the rancher" it incuded a castrator blade, I don't think they make that knife anymore