Monogamous marriage and the scarcity imposed by poverty are ways of maintaining disciplinary rigor imposed by the mother.
In another article published today (1) tell them that 's probably good for health to live in scarcity, but we have enough to meet our needs and wants it to be undoubtedly pleasurable.
I have already commented on this blog that "we are children of rigor" and that "we oppose harmful changes".
In the first stage of life, and the best, we are rigorously serviced by our mother, who rigorously tells us what to do and what not to do. This would explain why "we are children of rigor".
As we grow we should abandon that maternal monitoring to start taking responsibility for our welfare, but this change, for many, is unpleasant and therefore resist. This would explain why "we oppose harmful changes".
Those who do not want to abandon maternal care, who do not want to regulate itself, independent of maternal administration, will try some other external condition themselves replace the mother.
One of those conditions is economic poverty. To prevent harm arising from abuse (of food, fun, sexual activity), income poverty is usually effective: if we have money we will probably have to adjust our behavior.
Another such condition is monogamy. If voluntarily commit to having intimate life with one person will be replicating the basic format of the mother-child relationship.
The spouse (husband or wife) of a monogamous exclusivity equals monopoly that holds the mother.
Voluntarily acquiesce to this scheme is a way of imposing discipline deemed necessary but impossible to accomplish without some source of external rigor. It is to remain a child.
Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): La monogamia y la relación madre-hijo.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 2.073)