Let's consider that both men and women have a nature, which makes them act in certain ways. Their nature is an effect of their distinct reproductive functions.
In the civilized world, however, men's nature is increasingly under attack, and women's nature is increasingly under protection.
A man acting according to his instincts is considered a brute.
A woman acting according to her instincts is considered virtuous.
A man wanting a no-strings-attached physical relationship is considered a cad.
A woman wanting a commitment for life is considered the paragon of virtue.
A man wanting to be promiscuous is considered anti-social.
A woman wanting serial monogamy is considered a victim of circumstances.
A man's desire for "just that" is considered animal-like and worthy of condemnation.
A woman's desire for "not just that" is considered family-oriented and worthy of admiration.
If we consider the stability of the family unit as a worthy goal, worthier than the happiness of its constituents, then it is obvious that a long-term commitment (that is, Marriage) which go against male nature is the primary yoke that society is enforcing.
The institution of marriage, and the legal safeguards it offers women, is more commonly a burden and restriction for men than for women. This observation will be rather unacceptable to many modern women, but consider the obvious fact that male mammals want to run away (after impregnating, they lose interest), whereas female mammals want to hold them down to provide for them (their interest continues, and becomes more significant after getting impregnated).
The woman seeking long-term commitments is as much a fact of life as a man seeking to spread his seed far and wide. I don't think this fact is going to change anytime soon as it is in our DNA.
It is easy to see that the female's instincts lead to the secure upbringing of the offspring. On the other hand a question might be asked whether an alpha male contributes to the propagation of the species by his philandering.
Of course he does. He increases the overall fitness of the population by making sure his (better) seed gets wider reception. If the rule of "one man one woman" is strictly enforced, then over time the genetic fitness of the population will wither. It is a rather obvious conclusion of Darwinian selection.
An acceptance of and a mutual respect for each other's distinct sexual nature is getting rarer these days. I wonder sometimes if that is such a good thing.
(to be continued)