Interesting piece. I like and get the points you're making, as they are grounded in the real world, albeit they can be pretty cynical at times

With this statement, I get what you mean and you're not technically wrong, however I would like to suggest and present a more accurate semantic definition. To say that we are not meant to be monogamous can be interpreted and disputed in a multitude of ways. So I think it might be more accurate to say that "we are not monogamous in our biological nature", or "we are have polygamous/hypergamous (non-monogamous) natures"

Still, a very good piece