...Our Xian influenced social structure runs counter to that Natural programming...
Could you expand on this Xian influence? When I Googled it I found only references to China and Taoism so I am not sure how those are relevant to the West.
It programs males to be ashamed of their cocks, guilty about their libido and it drills this into us from the start. We are raised to believe
1) masturbation is generally sinful (see story of Onan in the Bible, which is the common basis for calling it unnatural and sinful)
It is difficult to see how the story of Onan can justify that view of masturbation given that the act in that story was coitus interruptus, i.e. the withdrawal method of contraception. You could use it as the basis of the (mostly Catholic) view that all wasting of seed is a sin but even then it seems to be the story is more about greed and disobeying God than it is about that.
There are also some other explanations:
1. Following the discovery of the microscope it seems semen was one of the things examined. At the time the egg had not been discovered so this gave new life to an old idea that the woman's body was just the equivalent of "fertile ground" for the man's seed rather than sperm only being half of what was needed to make a baby.
2. It was noted that at least some of the men in mental insitutions would freely masturbate. Some took that as evidence that it was a behaviour with its roots in mental disorders. In fact the only thing their mental health had to do with it was the lack of inhibition. Bored out of their minds they resorted to a very normal and pleasurbale pursuit to fill the time.
2) sex is dirty and sinful, unless it occurs between two people in a monogamous married relationship and then sex is the Ultimate Expression of Pure Love. No one questions how bereft of logic this is that the act of sex somehow magically transforms itself from sinful to saintly because they are raised to accept as so, even though our biology is telling us the opposite.
That is an idea that does seem to me to have religious roots. It's also an idea that has less influence now than it has in the past. Many fewer people expect either to "save themselves" for marriage or for their partner to a virgin on their wedding night. If anything people now want to know that they are sexually compatible prior to marriage.
3) History of Xian era marriage is littered with the disastrous effects of relationships based on physical sexual ownership of the other and the fear and jealousy basis for relationships it created--along with giving us the concept of "cheating"--that has done far more harm than good. Just look at the marriage and divorce rates (and half the country music catalog from "your cheatin' heart" to "the Thunder rolls") and the evidence is clear.
I would say that there is a religious basis for that fact tha relationships are assumed, by default, to be monogamous despite the fact that this behaviour does not come naturally. Yet, despite the numereous reference is culture to people carrying on with others at the same time, some clearly do manage to stay monogamous.
But there is much to be said for encouraging people to do what's right for them. Single people do have sex outside of a relationship and people are free to have open relationships so the idea about cheating, or not, comes down to what one has agreed with the partner concerned rather than the view of the wider society. These are also not new. Harold Nicholson, from the diplomatic service, married Vita Sackville-West. He was bisexual and carried on with other men. She was probably also technically bisexual but definitely more lesbian that straight and carried on with Virginia Woolfe.
But on societal expections it seems that, in the past at least, society at large has taken much too great an interest in people's romantic and sexual lives. It is a thoroughly bad idea for statute to make certain acts between consenting adults illegal and not others just because legistators are personally disgusted by them. This has also worked hand in hand with "It's a sin" and "God will know even if we don't".
Yet it is reasonable to insist that sex is consensual and that when people have children they don't it to the state, i.e. taxpayers, to pay for them.