Thought Experiment and Question: how much of "enforced monogamy" is actually just "enforced heterosexuality"? How many relationships would exist if genuine romance was the only thing to create them?

Preamble:

A lot of debates and discussions about dating turn to evolutionary psychology, sociology, and history. One of the more popular ideas is that of "enforced monogamy". This is, for anyone who somehow doesn't know, the idea that societies have restricted women's sexuality. Whether through religion, social norms, law, violence, shaming, etc., people have been forced to be with one partner and only one partner for life.

Conversely, when social norms and laws loosen up and people are more free to choose their partners and be independent, it seems as though women just aren't as interested in men as men are in women. I sometimes hear that women are just as sexual and express it differently, but I'm highly skeptical. Do they consume just as much porn? Do they seek out as many sex workers? Do they form parasocial relationships with online content creators (i.e. think Vtuber fans) and "simp" as often as men do? Do they initiate sex more often?

Either way, I was reminded of something I learned in high school: the so-called "demographic transition", where birth and death rates fall as countries become more developed. The definition of developed includes access to birth control and greater women's rights, but why would this cause birth rates to decline, if women truly wanted sex, relationships, and families to the same extent as men?

Sure, women can sometimes prioritize their careers over having kids and that can explain low birth rates when women's rights are such that this is an option, but...men have careers and still want relationships, sex, and even a family too. Indeed, a big motivator for men having careers in the first place is because women either needed a breadwinner to support them (when women didn't have enough rights to be financially independent), because of how attractive money/status is (Red Pill view), or because women can appreciate the virtue of stability and hard work (Blue Pill, I guess?).

Either way, the fact is that when women can reliably get their own money, they don't get with men as often, which seems to indicate that at least some percentage of relationships pre-women-have-their-own-careers were basically for financial reasons and not genuine attraction.

I've also realized that there are tons of reasons why people get into relationships that have nothing to do with actual sexual desire or genuine romantic attraction. If they want to have kids with a partner, women have the dreaded biological clock until their fertility disappears. At least some women are into relationships, marriage, or sex in some part because time was running out for them. Some families or societies may pressure women into relationships, marriage, and childrearing, so at least some percentage of marriages and relationships would not have occurred were if not for that kind of pressure.

Even in truly loving and 100% consensual relationships, there are tons of ancillary and incidental benefits and bonuses that provide an incentive to get and stay together. Everything from some tax laws benefitting married couples to simply having someone around to listen to you complain about work and help clean the dishes.

I'm not saying that anyone marries just for the taxes, but there is grease on the wheels of heterosexual relationships; at least some people out there would not have remained together or gotten together were it not for all the little benefits people get out of relationships that aren't necessarily tied to romance and sex. Having a spouse to come home to and talk about work is great, but theoretically, this could also be done by a cohabiting friend, yet this not-necessarily-romantic thing is something that would often be seen in a romantic relationship.

On the flipside, we already live in a world where there is at least two things women seem to get better outside of heterosexual relationships than inside. Women, as I understand, are better-socialized from a younger age and have stronger social circles, which mean that getting into relationships for sake of companionship is less of an incentive. A romantically lonely man may be lonely, period, and a girlfriend would fulfill many of the same roles as a friend. Genuinely lonely women exist, but I imagine they'd have less of this specific kind of problem.

More maturely speaking, women, as I understand, find it hard to orgasm from Penis-In-Vagina sex, and this difficulty in attaining pleasure is also combined with the risks of a relationship (i.e. dating violence, pregnancy). A vibrator may not offer companionship (already partially fulfilled, see above paragraph), but it seems that a woman who knows what she's doing with a toy can reliably achieve sexual satisfaction on her own without a male in the bedroom.

I can't speak for the female experience and how much women romantically desire men outside of raw sexual pleasure, but I think many men would agree with me that no amount of sexual gratification can ever truly replace real intimacy with women. Sex workers, even if they were 100% legal and there was no stigma, are still ultimately people who just want our money. No toy will ever validate us and no amount of porn is something you can cuddle with. Yes, we want sex, but we want sex with someone who wants to have sex with us, who loves us unconditionally and immaterially.

With all this and more in mind, I invite everyone to embark on a radical thought experiment: is heterosexuality real?

That is to say, how many heterosexual relationships genuinely resulted from actual heterosexuality specifically, and not simply the way human biology or society works to ensure that getting together is a way to access certain benefits?

When you remove ALL the incidental or artificial benefits of a heterosexual relationship, all the pressure to get with someone, to get married or have kids, all the stigma of being single, what else is left for both sides to actually want each other?

Do women, on a fundamental level, truly want men romantically and sexually? Do men, on a fundamental level, actually need women? What would the world look like if every woman was 100% financially independent, and would get no additional money or stability from marriage? How much would men's desire to have a female romantic partner be satisfied if they had as much platonic companionship as they could ask for? How much of "I want a girlfriend?" is really just "I want a friend?" How attractive we be if we lived in some moneyless, egalitarian society where wealth and status meant nothing, or some post-scarcity utopia where there's no need for "stability" in a partner? How attractive would anyone be if we could all fully replicate a satisfying sexual experience in VR without the need for any other human?

How much of "heterosexuality" as we know it is really just the enforced coupling of people for economic, social, legal, and political reasons? How much are relationships entered into for the non-sexual, non-romantic benefits we can theoretically get elsewhere but can't for some reason?

If a lot of us already acknowledge on some level that society forced women to marry men (i.e. you can take the Red Pill route of it constraining hypergamy and polygamy, or you can take a more feminist route of seeing it as the patriarchy restricting women's freedom so men can get partners), then how much of relationships, period, are really the result of economics, law, social norms, etc?

In a naked, pure, platonic world, when you remove all the ancillary and incidental benefits of relationships or cohabitation, how much of men is truly left for women to want or need, and of women for men to want and need? When you don't need a protector, or a provider, or someone to raise your kids, or someone to talk to, or a friend, or companion etc, how much is actually left for anyone to want from the opposite sex, purely for romantic or sexual reasons?

The Thought Experiment: what percentage of heterosexual relationships would still exist if the only reasons were sexual or romantic attraction, with absolutely no other strings or benefits attached?

Let us imagine a world where, however unrealistic, heterosexual romantic relationships have absolutely no ancillary or incidental benefits.

The ONLY reason anyone would EVER get with anyone is out of pure eros. Absolutely nothing more. Absolutely nothing less.

Everything that you would get from a romantic relationship, from someone to help with chores around the house, to someone to have kids with, is taken care of or otherwise not an issue through non-sexual, non-romantic means.

Ex: imagine a world where you and everyone else is 100% okay for your kids to artificially born and raised by a cohabitant that you have 0 sexual tension with, and you are 100% financially secure as a single person regardless of circumstance. Marrying or dating a man to be a father or provider would no longer be a motive.

• Sex toys and the social norms surround them (and other forms of adult entertainment) evolve to the point where both sexes can more or less fully replicate the full sexual experience by themselves for an affordable price. However, they ONLY simulate the actual sex act itself, NOT a sexual or romantic relationship. Sex toys clearly and undeniably remain toys. In other words, there are no "AI girlfriends" or boyfriends, only machines/Virtual Reality that reliably bring a satisfying orgasm or simulate an experience that, while pleasurable, is still clearly a simulation. In other words, orgasms become decoupled from actually having sex: anyone of any gender can satisfy themselves if they are just horny or looking to experiment. They only seek out sex or romance if they want sex or romance specifically with a human being of the opposite sex, and not a machine.
• All social norms that pressure anyone to have sex, have kids, or marry no longer exist. There is no virgin-shaming, no grandparents asking you when you'll have kids, etc. In other words, there is absolutely no societal, familial, or personally-internalized pressure for men and women to get into relationships or have sex. They are 100% free agents and everyone will 100% respect their choices.
• The world is 100% crime free, or volunteer, live-in bodyguards are normally provided to anyone who requests. Any ancillary benefit of male partners as protectors is 100% redundant.
• Sexuality is no longer commodified in any form, whether sold by corporations/content creators or bought by clients and audiences. There is no sex appeal in advertising, no sex work of any kind, no porn, and non-sexual content creators somehow gain no benefit from being good-looking. All content creators and media personalities become evaluated solely on the merits of their content, and for everyone any "halo effect" from someone's sexual attractiveness somehow disappears. Flirting as a social tool and skill completely disappears outside of actual, good-faith and serious attempts to attract a partner. In other words, romance and sexuality becomes 100% free, genuine, and amateur. The only way men and women interact on a romantic and sexual level is if they are truly attracted to each other. There are no social norms that benefit attractive or seductive people. There is no sex industry, illegal or legal, that people can use to make money or be forced to service others.
• The economic situation is such that every single person has 100% financial independence with absolutely no need for anyone else in their life from a purely monetary point of view. Social norms become such that it is 100% taboo to spend any kind of money on your partner. Marriage and divorce law is such that you get absolutely nothing from entering into or dissolving a marriage. Everyone is 100% on their own financially, but also 100% able to achieve a comfortable living standard on their own as well, and even if they do get with a partner, their financial situation is 100% isolated from their partner's. In other words, everything from people paying for dinner, to being the breadwinner in a marriage, to taking you on vacations, to alimony, etc is all gone. There are 0% financial incentives of any kind to enter a relationship or stay together.
• Somehow, social norms or human biology becomes such that everyone is 100% satisfied by getting a surrogate/sperm bank/donating eggs/etc. As a bonus, reproductive technology becomes so advanced anyone of any gender can have kids through these alternate methods at any age (i.e. men who want kids do not need women, and vice versa). When kids are had through these asexual means, there is plentiful free daycare and volunteer stay-at-home nurses and nannies of any gender you prefer. In other words, any instinctual need to have kids or pass down your genes is 100% satisfied through non-marital, non-sexual means, and any role relationship partners have in rearing kids is 100% redundant. You only get with someone if you want a romantic relationship.
• Birth control and contraception (of your preferred method) is now 100% effective, legal, free, accessible, socially acceptable, and does not negatively impact any other aspect of your life in any way. Sex with a condom is now 100% indistinguishable from sex without, there are no side effects to any procedure or medication, etc. Accidental or unwanted pregnancies never happen. In other words, in combination with the above point, sex is now 100% decoupled from reproduction. Sex is now purely a matter of raw pleasure and romantic expression.
• Everyone has a large, solid social circle with a male/female ratio as they see fit. Men and women alike have as many friends as they want of any gender; these relationships are all totally healthy and awesome, just nothing romantic or sexual. Universal healthcare is free and readily accessible, including mental health care of all kinds. 24/7 emotional support hotlines are ready and willing for you to talk about any issue on demand, no matter how trivial or serious. In other words, all non-sexual companionship, validation, and emotional/mental health needs are 100% met. The only reason to get with a partner is solely to fill a romantic or sexual void.
• Tax/insurance/inheritance laws are such that there are no legal and financial advantages to being married, and divorce law is such that marriage and divorce has no impact on the assets or money owned or earned between the parties. Divorce no longer involves any kind of difficult legal fights, and any taboo about leaving your partner for any reason completely disappears. There is no sunk cost fallacy, or fear of being single after a breakup, etc. People can raise kids together for 30 years and just drop off the face of the Earth the next day no questions asked or hard feelings felt. In other words, relationships can be freely entered and leaved without any financial, social, or legal consequences for either party. The only incentive to leave is if you aren't attracted to them anymore. The only incentive to get hitched or stay is if you are attracted to them.
• Division of labor within a household has absolutely nothing to do with relationships anymore. Everyone does their own laundry, their own cooking, their own cleaning, etc. Alternately, any housework that would be assigned to your opposite-sex partner is now accomplished by volunteer/charity services that offer it to whole communities or performed by a neutral cohabitant of either gender with whom there is no sexual attraction. Not to say anyone marries because they can't cook or open a jar, I'm just making sure I eliminate even trivial non-romantic benefits of a heterosexual romantic relationship, to see what's value the romance and only the romance holds. TL;DR all housework that might be assigned to one-half of a heterosexual pairing would do is now done by free workers or platonic housemates. Traditional men no longer marry with the fantasy of a wife cooking and cleaning for them since their housemate is already a good cook, and any women who'd be happy if their husband cleaned the gutters for them now can get it from a charity or government service for free anyway.
• Any other non-romantic, non-sexual benefit or aspect of sex and romance is somehow obsolete or redundant for whatever reasons you can plausibly imagine. Placeholder and catch-all for everything else, because I'm sure others can think of more.