Regardless of institution, I don't think anyone would "hoggin' all the women"
There are a great many wealthy/powerful/influential men who have "sown their seed in several fields" going back as far as you care to look, despite the rule being enforced monogamy. Even Ben Franklin basically sperminated every living frenchwoman in his 70s.
I am not saying abolish 1 to 1 marriage, I am just saying why keep promoting them?
You're contradicting yourself, you just might not know it - to stop promoting (or rather, enforcing) monogamous marriage is tantamount to abolishing it.
If people are incline to cheat or have multiple relationship (and not married) there is no stopping them anyways.
It's considered a sin in most religions and the partners of such unions have no legal standing. That's the societal punishment.
If a single person want to have unprotected sex with a bunch of other single person and get them pregnate, nothing stopping them either (in current form)
Not physically, no, but there's still societal disdain for it - from both genders who have been brainwashed from birth to romanticize an evolutionarily stupid system. It all comes from that somewhere along the line, the idea of marriage got corrupted away from its original intended purpose - to promote intertribal stability by creating a union between two groups that otherwise might have been antagonists. Love didn't enter into it. Marriages were arranged, often before those to be wed even had any idea what the commitment meant. Somewhere along the line the message and purpose got garbled to "if you love someone you have to marry them and THAT'S IT FOR EITHER OF YOU FOREVER BECAUSE LOVE IS FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER AND OH YEAH YOU CAN ONLY LOVE ONE PERSON."
It doesn't work out. Love isn't forever, and even when it is in effect, it has little bearing on the success of a relationship. The singer who sang "love will keep us together" was either an idiot or was idealizing codependency... which would also be idiotic. Historically, there have been plenty of successful marriages where love was minimally present (or grew into existence over years afterward), and contemporaneously, plenty of marriages where all the love in the world couldn't make it work out. Saying a marriage is based on love is like saying a car runs on upholstery. It doesn't, it just makes it comfier.
But we're still force fed fairy tales from cradle to grave about twue wuv and how the normal reproductive cycle of the human is uncompromising monogamy, even though 90 percent of us are living proof that this is a false assertion.
"I'm trying to conduct a wedding here which has absolutely nothing to do with love!" - Spaceballs
(at least for my wife and I since combine income we are on the next tax bracket and pay MORE taxes than before)
