Here's a thought, is advocating for moderation the same thing as hating a thing??
If you bring up the health risks of obesity and promote eating in moderation,
no one makes the absurd claim that you "hate food". But if you bring up the idea of sexuality in moderation, oh then you
hate sex.
consensual adultery (all adultery is bad)
Well, from an social evolutionary perspective, if you think all adultery
isn't bad, then why has
almost every human society decided, often independent of one another, that adultery is bad?? If you want to make the claim that adultery isn't bad, you need to address that question in some manner.
I think we tend to forget, now that we have safer sex technology, how terrible STDs were in past eras. If you caught syphillis you got to watch your genitals and face rot off your body as you went gradually insane. If you cheated on your partner you risked exposing both yourself and your partner to flesh-rotting insanity. Of course, before we understood disease we had no true idea of this risk.
Thus every culture has evolved to create a stigma against adultery. Because if everyone is paired off into groups of sexual partners, many sexually transmitted diseases can't spread except through infidelity. It's almost a quarantine system.
A tribe that has a social stigma against adultery can weather an STD outbreak, whereas a single person with an STD can wipe out an entire tribe that does not have such a stigma. Thus basic "survival of the fittest" has favored societies in which adultery is stigmatized. The societies that failed to stigmatize it
died. For this same reason cultures were able to come up with some means of basic, rudimentary, hygiene without having the slightest understanding of germ theory.
If you don't think adultery is a bad thing, you must give your alternative explanation for why almost every human society disagrees with you, and why they each developed that same idea independent of one another.