A Mature Man is NOT Afraid of Monogamy - He Seeks It on his Own Terms

[Victory Unlimited]

On the subjet of MONOGAMY...I have a question I'd be interested to see how some here would answer:


If, in fact, it is true that monogamy is not a natural, ultimate inclination for most men--------then why do you suppose most men on this site have more trouble fighting themselves OUT of "One-itis" instead of INTO it?

 

[zekko]

If, in fact, it is true that monogamy is not a natural, ultimate inclination for most men--------then why do you suppose most men on this site have more trouble fighting themselves OUT of "One-itis" instead of INTO it?

GREAT question. And I would say that the reason is that it IS a natural state for men. There's been some discussion here about research that has shown that the man is hardwired to bond to a particular woman, at least long enough to see his offspring grow to a certain age. Then the wanderlust takes him again.

 

[Lexington]

I agree with most of what you said except for this:

But human beings are naturally monogamous creatures. It is NORMAL for you to find one you like more than the others and start thinking about making a life with her. And there's NOTHING wrong with this...so long as you go into it with BOTH EYES OPEN.

Monogamy is not natural. In fact it is a fairly recent invention in human history. Even today, polygamy is practiced in some cultures. Most of our close primate relatives do not practice monogamy. In ancient civilizations, polygamy was widely practiced. The earliest homo sapien males to walk this planet were not monogamous....and it's a good thing they weren't because otherwise there's a good chance we may have gone extinct.

That's not to say that monogamy is necessarily a bad thing. But it's not part of our biological nature. If it was, we would have evolved mechanisms that remove the temptation to cheat. In species that form monogamous bonds, this is often accomplished through hormonal changes, humans do not have this to the same extent. This is why there will always be a temptation to get with other women....it's only natural.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Zarky,
The Site to which you drew our attention,is certainly worth a read,it really does as you say "Address your question"...thanks for that.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Zecko,
"research that has shown that the man is hardwired to bond to a particular woman, at least long enough to see his offspring grow to a certain age"....well yeah,but it might also show that Women are prepared to be ultra sexy after child birth to keep their Man around....I doubt both conjectures as in Primitive Societies Children are held in Common...Also where does Post Natal Depression fit in?

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Lexington,
You put a persuasive case.....Tacitus reported that the Celtii a tribe whose genes flow in most Anglos,dwelt in Family groups of about ten Adults,the Women and Children were held in Common.Seems in an evolutionary sense very sensible as you get the dominant genes coming from the strongest Males and yet still allow for diversity in the odd encounters that the less fortunate Guys Had.

 

[zekko]

but it might also show that Women are prepared to be ultra sexy after child birth to keep their Man around....

I've never heard of this.

Monogamy is not natural.

Then what's the cause of oneitis? I just don't buy that it's all put there by social programming. I still think there is a natural impulse to bond with a woman long enough to help your offspring to viability. I've also heard that there ARE primitive societies which practiced monogamy.

I think the truth is that humans are versatile, they are not one size fits all. They can function in monogamous or polygamous conditions.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Women's natural preference is for Hypergamy not monogamy. The overarching imperative is to pair with the best mate their personal conditions (primarily physical attractiveness and sexual availability) will afford them in return for long term parental investment and provisioning. They want the best deal for their investment and to varying degrees will opt out of one monogamous relationship for another (branch swinging) should the overall value of the first drop to a point where her conditions become intolerable or cease to provide what she's accustomed to if the other is more favorable.

Always keep that in the back of your mind gentlemen. It doesn't get easier, you get better. Monogamy only works when it's the frame that YOU insist upon, not her. One "oh sh!t" is worth ten "atta boys", and when you drop the ball, fail a sh!t test, revert to a beta mindset / behavior, you only serve to plant one more seed of hypergamous doubt in her head. Women will NEVER understand or appreciate the sacrifices a Man has made in order to sustain a committed monogamy. Just accept that, and calculate it into your decision to become monogamous.

I wont condemn monogamy outright, but I will say that you'll never fully appreciate it's value until you have benefitted from experiencing non-exclusive dating. Keep sampling the buffet, keep spinning plates, until such time that you've come to know the difference between a good bet and a bad bet with regards to monogamy.

My concern isn't that guys 'fear' monogamy; on the contrary, far too many guys have limited themselves because they saw monogamy as a goal state, or "feared" some specter of prolonged loneliness if the DIDN'T commit. They bought into the "commitment phobic" mindset that only serves the ends of a feminized entitlement agenda. Monogamy doesn't magically confer wisdom or adulthood, just ask the 19 y.o. kid who married the girl he happened to knock up, who missed out on college, or the military or experiencing more of what life has to offer. The problem isn't guy's unwillingness or fear to commit, the problem is men rushing blindly into it.

 

[DanelMadr]

Thank you squirrels. I was thinking I'm mad or something when I don't feel right promising relationship or spinning plates...and eating of it :-]

I'd say pretty much anybody can say which girl (plate) is the most promising one and concentrate just on her when the magic between you two is somewhat proven.

That is why I haven't understood Exclusivity Talk concept. Why the hell would I talk about it? When we date, kiss, fakk and we have a connection, I mean anything more then Fakk Buddies, it is given we are exclusive, init?
Why would I or her want to risk veneral disease or pregnancy or drama with someone else??? Unless we are sex addict with deep issues?

I feel I would question her character (and she mine) when asking about exclusivity. Or I would give away I have no fakking clue where we stand with each other. And you can tell were you stand with a girl or you don't have a relationship at all. Or she is a cheat, pretending to be in love and in that case she won't tell you the truth anyway.

Exclusivity talk = rubbish promise for insecure people insulting men and women of character and solving nothing.

Spinning plates = at some point you have to let them go and commit or leave. If you dont leave and you still sleep around you are not DJ. Yout are cheater and liar. Simple as that.

 

[squirrels]

My concern isn't that guys 'fear' monogamy; on the contrary, far too many guys have limited themselves because they saw monogamy as a goal state, or "feared" some specter of prolonged loneliness if the DIDN'T commit. They bought into the "commitment phobic" mindset that only serves the ends of a feminized entitlement agenda. Monogamy doesn't magically confer wisdom or adulthood, just ask the 19 y.o. kid who married the girl he happened to knock up, who missed out on college, or the military or experiencing more of what life has to offer. The problem isn't guy's unwillingness or fear to commit, the problem is men rushing blindly into it.

Among males of the species, you are correct...far too many rush into it. But among this forum, I've noticed a disturbing trend toward the other extreme, just for the sake of "being Don Juan".

Don Juan isn't about commitment OR variety explicitly. It's about choosing which YOU want, WHEN you want it.

The man who rushes into a relationship blindly out of a scarcity mentality or fear of "being alone" is the same as the man who finds a woman who's a good fit for his life but shuns the idea of being one-on-one with her because he's afraid of losing his masculinity or "game". Neither is really a "man" at all. Both are living in fear.

There's a difference between being situationally aware and making conscious decisions, and being afraid and making decisions based solely on fear...one way OR the other.

Women realized long ago when the "feminism movement" started out that men just aren't THAT important. It's about time men discovered the same thing about women. Then we can work our way back to righting the damage that's been done to BOTH genders in the name of androgyny.

 

[zekko]

Among males of the species, you are correct...far too many rush into it. But among this forum, I've noticed a disturbing trend toward the other extreme, just for the sake of "being Don Juan".

Right, there are a lot of people here who think you need to be spinning plates your entire life or you aren't being masculine. But as Rollo points out, one of the main purposes to spinning plates is so that you get enough experience to recognize what really makes a good potential partner in a woman. Then you can make an informed decision rather than just jumping on the first girl who makes your weiner tingle (to flip a phrase).

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I'll have been married for 14 years come July, trust me, Game extends well into marriage. I owe a good portion of my relationship success to having applied, both deliberately and unconsciously, elements of Game to my marriage over the years.

In fact I think in regards of an LTR the concept of "Game" deserves a better term. I think it's a disservice to Men and masculinity to imply that being a Man, thinking like a Man, owning the frame as a Man should, maturely and confidently responding and applying the tenets of what would in any other era be matter-of-fact and expected of him should be reduced to marginalizing it as a game he's playing. I understand the useful simplicity of it, and it is what it is, but I've come to a point in my marriage where I AM the Man, the father, the husband, and respected for it. I understand the mechanics of what that Game is, but it goes beyond that - I am the Game.

There was a time where I would make a conscious effort to pick apart and analyze situations in relationships and when I was single and "try" to ape the behaviors of the Game in response. And I was successful for the most part, but after repeated successes, those elements became part of my personality. I've internalized the actions and I understand the functions that make them work, but it's the step between acting the part and becoming the part that eludes so many guys.

You can mature into this both in and out of a relationship, but you have to lose the fear of experimenting. One reason I advocate that Men not commit to monogamy until after they've experienced non-exclusivity in their dating is because there are lessons you can only learn in non-exclusivity that most guys wouldn't dream of attempting in an LTR for fear of losing their ONEitis. And as much as I'd never wish an LTR with a BPD ONEitis woman on my worst enemy, that too is a necessary step in really coming to terms with what the worst that an LTR has the potential to be. I've been in that situation. I wanted to commit to it, and blindly would've all the while thinking I was doing "the right thing" because it was commitment that made a guy mature. I was very much mistaken then, and I'm thankful that circumstances prevented it.

Far too many guys will make their necessity a virtue. Whether you've run out of option or you never had any, you can always find reasons to believe that the choice you made to commit was the morally correct one, the pragmatically correct one, the emotionally correct one, the responsible one,...and the rationale list goes on. Of the host of guys who discover SS (we don't advertise) or any other forum in the Community there are really only three persistent root problems; how do they get a girl, how do they keep a girl they have, or how do they get an ex back. I don't see an epidemic of men getting too much pussie and wondering how they can pair it down to one special girl. These guys find "special girls" every weekend - keepers, marriage material, Quality Women - that's the monogamy mindset. They're already primed for it by the time they're 12 y.o. courtesy of the Matrix.

As I stated above, there's nothing wrong with monogamy in the long term, but I sincerely doubt the majority of guys seeking advice from the community have the life experience to determine what a good LTR would be that non-exclusivity would teach them.

 

[DanelMadr]

Right, there are a lot of people here who think you need to be spinning plates your entire life or you aren't being masculine. But as Rollo points out, one of the main purposes to spinning plates is so that you get enough experience to recognize what really makes a good potential partner in a woman. Then you can make an informed decision rather than just jumping on the first girl who makes your weiner tingle (to flip a phrase).

Rollo is right too of course but he is missing the point. You can never be sure even with thousands of bed-notches. Sometimes you have to risk in order to gain. And it is fragile ego speaking when men call for polygamy never minding the circumstances.

And the circumstances squirrels laid out are that you and the girl have a connection. Being experienced helps to recognize when the connection is real and not just dreamed of. But it is speaking of another league....the AFC league and I guess squirrels wisdom was aimed at more experienced audience than that.

When you (generaly speaking) are spinning plates eventhough you shared the moment with the girl, then there is something wrong, because it is called cheating. Collecting bed-notches serves for the purpose of feeding ones hungry sense of selfworth.

Flirting with other girls is disrespectful and it hurts. And it is sad when done only because of "training" or feeding ones ego or getting rid of fear of being left with broken heart. Men should be stronger than that.

For AFC's> Yes it is stupid to "be faithful" to a girl you haven't even kissed yet.

 

[DanelMadr]

I'll have been married for 14 years come July, trust me, Game extends well into marriage. I owe a good portion of my relationship success to having applied, both deliberately and unconsciously, elements of Game to my marriage over the years.

In fact I think in regards of an LTR the concept of "Game" deserves a better term. I think it's a disservice to Men and masculinity to imply that being a Man, thinking like a Man, owning the frame as a Man should, maturely and confidently responding and applying the tenets of what would in any other era be matter-of-fact and expected of him should be reduced to marginalizing it as a game he's playing. I understand the useful simplicity of it, and it is what it is, but I've come to a point in my marriage where I AM the Man, the father, the husband, and respected for it. I understand the mechanics of what that Game is, but it goes beyond that - I am the Game.

There was a time where I would make a conscious effort to pick apart and analyze situations in relationships and when I was single and "try" to ape the behaviors of the Game in response. And I was successful for the most part, but after repeated successes, those elements became part of my personality. I've internalized the actions and I understand the functions that make them work, but it's the step between acting the part and becoming the part that eludes so many guys.

You can mature into this both in and out of a relationship, but you have to lose the fear of experimenting. One reason I advocate that Men not commit to monogamy until after they've experienced non-exclusivity in their dating is because there are lessons you can only learn in non-exclusivity that most guys wouldn't dream of attempting in an LTR for fear of losing their ONEitis. And as much as I'd never wish an LTR with a BPD ONEitis woman on my worst enemy, that too is a necessary step in really coming to terms with what the worst that an LTR has the potential to be. I've been in that situation. I wanted to commit to it, and blindly would've all the while thinking I was doing "the right thing" because it was commitment that made a guy mature. I was very much mistaken then, and I'm thankful that circumstances prevented it.

Far too many guys will make their necessity a virtue. Whether you've run out of option or you never had any, you can always find reasons to believe that the choice you made to commit was the morally correct one, the pragmatically correct one, the emotionally correct one, the responsible one,...and the rationale list goes on. Of the host of guys who discover SS (we don't advertise) or any other forum in the Community there are really only three persistent root problems; how do they get a girl, how do they keep a girl they have, or how do they get an ex back. I don't see an epidemic of men getting too much pussie and wondering how they can pair it down to one special girl. These guys find "special girls" every weekend - keepers, marriage material, Quality Women - that's the monogamy mindset. They're already primed for it by the time they're 12 y.o. courtesy of the Matrix.

As I stated above, there's nothing wrong with monogamy in the long term, but I sincerely doubt the majority of guys seeking advice from the community have the life experience to determine what a good LTR would be that non-exclusivity would teach them.

O.K. I see your point. But we can't censor ourselves for the sake of AFCs who wonder to these woods.

The Game....more I know about The Game I come to realize that it is a mere clutch....showing guys that it is OK to make fun of girls, tease them and spicing it up.

The REAL GAME is about to be THE MAN with all the right virtues. And I can tell you I know guys who don't need C&F, neg hits and all that shyt not even a smile and girls drool all over them. (Of course even them come to realize that girls may worship them where they know them well... but it comes in handy to know some tricks when they are among strangers and time is spare.)

I'm sure you are not spinning plates...being happily married. And quite honestly spinning the plates is very close to being addicted to pwssy.
But again I can see the advantage for learning purposes....it certainly makes you learn more in shorter time.

Excuse my English guys. I've been lacking a good practice lately and I've just watched The Spartacus....and those cvnts speak like roman slaves

 

[Lexington]

I've never heard of this.


Then what's the cause of oneitis? I just don't buy that it's all put there by social programming. I still think there is a natural impulse to bond with a woman long enough to help your offspring to viability. I've also heard that there ARE primitive societies which practiced monogamy.

It depends. If you have multiple wives, you have more offspring and therefor there is a greater chance that your genes will be passed on. There is also more recombination of genetic material so that increases the chances of finding a mixture of genes that is closer to the "optimal." Another strategy is to have fewer offspring but invest more time into them to increase their odds of survival. This strategy also necessitates more careful selection of a mate.

I think the truth is that humans are versatile, they are not one size fits all. They can function in monogamous or polygamous conditions.

I agree. But to say that monogamy is "natural" implies that it is an innate quality of humans; it must have a biological component. There is no evidence of that. Humans CAN practice monogamy, but it is not the only "normal" way (biologically and anthropologically speaking) for humans to function.

 

[zekko]

it's the step between acting the part and becoming the part that eludes so many guys.

Well said.

As I stated above, there's nothing wrong with monogamy in the long term, but I sincerely doubt the majority of guys seeking advice from the community have the life experience to determine what a good LTR would be that non-exclusivity would teach them.

I totally agree with that, with this caveat: This is the Mature Man column. I know they let 25 year olds on here, but I would say that most guys here who are in their 40s or 50s (and probably 30s too) have had enough life experience with women to make an educated choice at least.

You can never be sure even with thousands of bed-notches. Sometimes you have to risk in order to gain.

I have to agree with that. That's the way I felt about my marriage. At the time I knew it was a risk, but I thought I would at least try it once. It didn't turn out, but I knew it was a roll of the dice, and it was life experience. I don't regret it.

When you (generaly speaking) are spinning plates eventhough you shared the moment with the girl, then there is something wrong, because it is called cheating.

You might be going too far here. You can have a moment with a girl without having to become exclusive with her. But I do wonder how deep a connection guys here can have with a girl when they're out fvcking random club girls every week. If you find that deep connection, where's the motivation to keep spinning plates, no matter what your age?

The REAL GAME is about to be THE MAN with all the right virtues. And I can tell you I know guys who don't need C&F, neg hits and all that shyt not even a smile and girls drool all over them.

Others have said this, but I repeat it here because it's a good point: Things like C&F and negging are just like training wheels to help you get the right mindset, to help you BECOME that guy instead of just acting like him (as Rollow said earlier).

I agree. But to say that monogamy is "natural" implies that it is an innate quality of humans; it must have a biological component. There is no evidence of that. Humans CAN practice monogamy, but it is not the only "normal" way (biologically and anthropologically speaking) for humans to function.

Not the only normal way, no. But monogamy is not UNnatural either.

And I disagree that there is no biological component. I know I've seen studies of brain activity in men in different phases of a relationship, that help him "settle down" during the time his child woud be raised.

 

[DanelMadr]

I believe Monogamy is in accord with nature of our species.
Offsprings take longer to mature compared to other species and females are not capable of protecting them even when in group.

Eventhough we live in herds, our sofistication (or better viciousness of our opponents) dictates we look after our genes till adulthood.

Of course with developed and prosperous society and overall security you can see examples of men abandoning their offsprings and leaving their protection and trainning to females and the herd (society) but I'd say it is bad juju.

One day I'd like to have MiniMe and I would hate to leave him in the claws of other people. Yeah sometimes you can't help it...wifes tend to change after marriage and more after giving birth and I don't mean getting fat - and life with them can become unbearable. And since it is not OK to whiplash your wife there is little chance you can set them right

If you take LTR as testing phase for having offspings, I believe it is OK to train monogamy. Pills and condoms set us free but it doesn't mean we start to behave like decapitated chicken.

 

[hansol]

On monogamy:

Figured maybe this was a good time to toss this one out there. I know it may not sit well with the general consensus, but seeing as there are a few supportive voices out there, thought maybe I'd give it a shot.

I personally feel monogamy is actually a realistic "trait", if you want to call it that. True, I can't deny that the more mates one has, the greater chance of producing offspring. What I do believe however is that even “limited” by natural laws and evolutionary biology, Men can still rise above our savage upbringings (and I use that in a good way).

The only way to know, and thus rise above, the "savage" aspects of our lives is to live it. To experience it. Rollo alluded to this. These days it seems that men have forgot how to live as Men (for reasons that aren’t important here.) Once one has "re-learned" how to be a Man (through various capacities, of which multiple exposures to women is of HUGE help) however, it is much easier to make a monogamous relationship work. You have a plethora of experiences to draw on, and you also have a better idea of what "you" will/won't put up with as a Man. “Savage” is good: it’s natural, and when it comes to sex/reproduction, women will sniff it out and shag it. But to be able to switch our basic nature on and off, and not be a slave to it, is the key.

A lot of posters like to champion "Monogamy isn't natural: It goes against our basic programming as humans" etc. Maybe, but it doesn't negate the fact that it can possibly work out for the better. I could make the argument that it isn't "natural" for humans to stop at red lights on the street. Street lights have only been a part of our society for 50+ years: you can’t get much more “unnatural” than that. Yet it seems to function rather well, us stopping when we see that red light. The “unnatural” argument is nothing more than a crutch, in my opinion; a convenient excuse to shirk the responsibilities of a Man and to not bother to stand above the basic animal instincts that are common too to bugs and monkeys that fling feces at each other. We Men are better than that.

*When I say “better”, I am thinking in terms of children, family unit/support system, property ownership, familial inheritance, etc. If you don’t think these are important, then this post won’t matter at all.*

This isn’t to say that monogamy is always the right choice. As we have seen in the last two generations, it can do more harm than good. Two parties that don’t have the necessary experience and outlook with regards to a singular relationship can do irreparable damage to each other. And when there are kids involved, the results can be infinitely worse. I do have the opinion however that when a monogamous relationship “clicks”, the parties will be much further ahead in LIFE, than they would have been having pursued multiple “natural-based” relationships.

In the end though, it just comes down to what one can and can’t accept. I choose to accept that as Men, we are more than our penises. We are more than the testosterone hormone that courses through our blood. While the barbarians of past were busy wiping their arse with their hand, burning libraries and living with goats, a few civilised gents got together and said “We are better than this.” Out of that Rome grew, and became a shining light amongst the drivel. Philosophy, medicine, architecture, government. This leads me to feel that while it may be difficult to not steal a glance at a nice pair of breasts, it surely isn’t an excuse to slam an individual pursuing a better life with a single good woman.

(And yes, the biggest battle is finding a "good" one, I know)

 

[zekko]

I was reading the news this morning and happened to come across this article, which is pertinent to our discussion:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/23/brizendine.male.brain/index.html?iref=allsearch

This quote tells of how a woman will emit pheromones to encourage her man to stick around when she's been impregnated. This is partially done by lowering his testosterone levels, thus decreasing his tendency to "cat around". So there is a biological mechanism to promote monogamy:

The 'Doting Daddy Brain'

A man in hot pursuit of a mate doesn't even remotely resemble a devoted, doting daddy. But that's what his future holds. When his mate becomes pregnant, she'll emit pheromones that will waft into his nostrils, stimulating his brain to make more of a hormone called prolactin. Her pheromones will also cause his testosterone production to drop by 30 percent.

These hormonal changes make him more likely to help with the baby. They also change his perceptual circuitry, increasing his ability to hear a baby cry, something many men can't do very well before their wives are pregnant.

And a word to the wise for all the young mothers who are reluctant to let your husbands hold and care for your newborn. The more hands-on care a father gives his infant, the more his brain aligns with the role of fatherhood. So, hand over the baby.

Pills and condoms set us free but it doesn't mean we start to behave like decapitated chicken.

It has been argued that the pill is what messed up the balance between the sexes in the first place.

I choose to accept that as Men, we are more than our penises.

Careful. You're going to be accused of being a radical.

 

[WaterTiger]

And a word to the wise for all the young mothers who are reluctant to let your husbands hold and care for your newborn. The more hands-on care a father gives his infant, the more his brain aligns with the role of fatherhood. So, hand over the baby.

The more "bonded" the father is of the child, the more likely he'll feed & protect it. More likely his child will survive long enough to pass on the genes.

A "non-bonded" male will likely kill the blubbering little snot machine. (A common practice in lion prides is to kill all the cubs from the previous male so only the new male's cubs survive. This has also been noted in chimp society, our nearest primate relatives.)