To rephrase more neutrally: there’s a trade off between optionality and the opportunities that can only be unlocked through long commitment (analogous to rabbit hunters vs stag hunters, but over a prolonged period). Assume there’s a Pareto frontier and one’s position on it is morally neutral: high-commiters/stag-hunters are still better off if they pair with each other than with high-optionality-types/rabbit-hunters (although the reverse is much less true). It sucks wanting to stag hunt when everyone around you wants rabbits. Monogamy can be useful as a costly signal of “I want to stag hunt” even for someone who would be fine being poly with another stag-hunter.
I can think of at least one friend who self-describes as not feeling jealousy and being more naturally poly, but chose monogamy for basically this reason.
Not wanting to date habitual defectors
To rephrase more neutrally: there’s a trade off between optionality and the opportunities that can only be unlocked through long commitment (analogous to rabbit hunters vs stag hunters, but over a prolonged period). Assume there’s a Pareto frontier and one’s position on it is morally neutral: high-commiters/stag-hunters are still better off if they pair with each other than with high-optionality-types/rabbit-hunters (although the reverse is much less true). It sucks wanting to stag hunt when everyone around you wants rabbits. Monogamy can be useful as a costly signal of “I want to stag hunt” even for someone who would be fine being poly with another stag-hunter.
I can think of at least one friend who self-describes as not feeling jealousy and being more naturally poly, but chose monogamy for basically this reason.