Are we naturally non-monogamous?

[-Gripz-]

I always pondered this question, but never had a chance for a proper discussion about it. If so many people so called cheat on their partners or have multiple sexual relationships, why then does society frown upon having multiple sex partners. Of course this is nothing new, individuals have been having sex with different people for many years. Now I certainly don't condone just sleeping around with anyone, but biologically monogamy doesn't seem to make sense. Our ancestors were rarely monogamous, what changed?

Also I found this article interesting, considering this subject.

http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/so-we-arent-monogamous-what-are-we/

 

[Lexington]

Something to consider: genetic analysis shows that today's humans are descended from twice as many females as males. But if we need one man and one woman to produce a child, what does that mean? It means that many men had multiple partners. In fact only about 40% of men in the history of humanity have reproduced.

 

[bigneil]

It's not normal for men or women to be monogomous.

So we can't demonize people for having multiple partners. It's just natural so don't fight it. People can still stay in balance even if they occasionally stray. It's when they lie about it that it gets to be a problem, so you can't pressure them into lying (texting to check in on them, etc).

 

[HariPoter13]

Something to consider: genetic analysis shows that today's humans are descended from twice as many females as males. But if we need one man and one woman to produce a child, what does that mean? It means that many men had multiple partners. In fact only about 40% of men in the history of humanity have reproduced.

And I think that about 40% of all men have died a violent death in our early days (usually at the hands of other men). So the homicide rates we witness today are really nothing considering our animal nature. This may seem shocking to some but it actually made us into what we are today.

 

[Deep Dish]

Excerpt from The Handbook Of Evolutionary Psychology (2005), edited by David Buss:

Comparative primate studies sometimes indicate that humans are designed for monogamy. Among the monogamous white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar), the average body weight of an adult male is about 1,000 times the weight of the average male's testes (Dixson, 1998). Among humans, the average man's body weight is about 1,300 times the size of the average man's testes (Schultz, 1938), a ratio similar to the white-handed gibbon. In contrast, the more short-term-orientated common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) possesses extremely large testes with a body-testes ratio of only 350 (Dixson & Mundy, 1994), and the polygynous gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) has small testes with a body-testes ratio of over 5,000 (Hall-Craggs, 1962). Contradictory evidence regarding mating strategies exists in comparisons of primate seminal volume, sperm structure, and sperm quality (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Dixson, 1993; Moller, 1988). Overall, Dixson (1998) concluded that human male reproductive physiology is consistent with both monogamous and polygynous mating, providing only mixed support for the view that humans are monogamous.

Humans display extreme levels of altriciality compared to other primates, requiring large parental investments and possessing a relatively delayed adolescence (T.M. Mueller, 1999). Mate desertion is generally associated with lower infant survival in foraging cultures (Hill & Hurtado, 1996), another indication that humans are designed for monogamy. Finally, humans possess several neurophysiological systems of attachment linked with pairbonding and monogamy across species (Fisher, 1998; Hazan & Zeifman, 1999; Young, 2003).

Fisher (1992) suggests that human patterns of weaning, birth spacing, divorce, and remarriage all point to a system of serial monogamy. It takes about 4 years to wean a child in hunter-gatherer cultures, and birth spacing in a foraging environment averages about 4 years (Blurton Jones 1986). Many divorces occur between the fourth and sixth year of marriage (Fisher, 1989, 1992), and men who practice serial monogamy are more reproductively successful than men who stay married to the same woman for a lifetime. Women who mate serially do not have reproductive advantage over other women (Buckle, Gallup, & Rodd, 1996).​

So, we are biologically wired to be monogamous for upwards of four years, which is when the bonding effect of oxytocin withers away, but there are competing evolutionarily stable strategies: alpha males (or whatever you want to call it) have the capacity for multiple polygynous partners, whereas beta males for monogamy. While women can entertain the interests of many suitors simultaneously, the story changes once she has sexed a guy after a few bangs. Women have much more to lose, in terms of provisioning, because they have the need to secure the providership resources of the best guy they can find. It’s very rare for a guy to possess both good genetics and good dad skills, so the Hobson’s Choice leads to a mating schedule of banging alpha cads in their youth, and then securing a beta male for provisioning.

There’s also the fun of sperm wars.

 

[Nicholas]

Our society is more complicated than a Gorilla’s.

Unlike Gorillas and Hippos and Baboons, we’re really complicated creatures.

 

[Mistic]

Here's how it is. The Alphas do all the fvcking and breeding, and the Beta's raise the kids and listen to all the blah blah blah. Women will monogamously mate with the same Alpha until a bigger alpha comes along. The Betas are monogamously dedicated to being some cvnts yes man.

Only 10% or so of men deserve to be fvcking any women at all. That's why, sorry to say this guys, but those of you who are not getting laid often, probably shouldn't be getting laid anyway, and further polluting the gene pool with you Beta genetics. Once I fvck your gf, if you ever manage to get one, she wont think about you again. Sorry. Blame Darwin, or God, the Alpha A$$hole.

 

[Nicholas]

Male behavior CANNOT be analyzed in a simple “He’s Alpha” or “He’s Beta” behavior. Human behavior and motivations are more complex than that.

The Alpha/Beta worldview leads to misogynistic thinking as well, since female behavior is interpreted not through their own thoughts and feelings, but through their reactions to the Alphas/Betas around them. The idea is that women are indelibly attracted and drawn to Alpha’s and repelled by Beta’s, regardless of circumstance, situation, personality, conscience, morals, or preferences. This is simply not true at all.
Emotionally speaking, women may be the most complicated creatures on the entire planet. To claim their motivations exist solely to chase some ephemeral notion of The Alpha sells them (and us) way short. It leads to a dark and narrow and lonely purview of human sexuality. It’s a sad place to be.

If you don’t believe me, scientific research has shown that women’s attraction to men with high testosterone (the ultimate indicator of Alphaness) not only changes with age, locations, and situation, but it even changes within their menstruation cycle. If science has shown us one thing, it’s that the desires and attractions of women are, believe it or not, even more complicated than we originally thought.

But the Alpha worldview pigeonholes women into two simple, robotic drives: pursue the Alpha, use the Beta. This is fantasy.

So then comes a guy who got involved in “Life Changing” PUA/Alfa theories, who just spent the last eight years in Mom’s basement. When the neophyte’s previous lifetime achievement involved a Lvl. 50 Warlock on the Aestimus Craekus server, alfa actions can make him truly feel like a man for the first time.

The problem is that Alpha Male theory, while beneficial in the short-run in helping guys take action, does not reflect actual reality. It’s a means to an end. But once that end is met, once the neophyte gains that confidence and self-assurance and asserts himself, the Alpha Male ideal is not only inaccurate but can become harmful.

 

[Deep Dish]

Nicholas:
Male behavior CANNOT be analyzed in a simple “He’s Alpha” or “He’s Beta” behavior. Human behavior and motivations are more complex than that…. If you don’t believe me, scientific research has shown that women’s attraction to men with high testosterone (the ultimate indicator of Alphaness) not only changes with age, locations, and situation, but it even changes within their menstruation cycle.

It’s true it changes with their menstrual cycle, and women are most prone to cheating with an alpha during her peak ovulation, which is when she is wearing her skimpiest clothing and twirling her hair. But complexity isn’t an argument, it’s a logical fallacy. Exceptions don’t invalid a rule. There are nuances but the complexity of nuances doesn’t mean there aren’t alpha and beta dynamics. It’s akin to arguing the 48 Laws of Power cannot be valid because the laws have complex interactions. It’s akin to creationists arguing for intelligent design because of ‘irreducible complexity.’ If the alpha/beta dynamic interactions were simple, would Roissy and Rollo Tomassi be blogging on a regular daily basis as they do now, no.

Alpha males, men with high social value, men with high psychological-social dominance, whatever you want to call it, have harems. They individually might not, but they are fully capable. Betas, on the other hand, are monogamous, either by condition or environment. You can’t be totally 100% alpha to sustain a relationship, unless maybe if you’re young, when chicks bang *******s, because pure alphaness is corrosive. Women need an emotional connection and pure alphaness, coldness, aloof distance, is too much hydrochloric acid. Too much beta is comfort and familiarity, which breeds contempt. So while alpha and beta is a spectrum embodied in nearly everyone to some varying degree, alphas are more alpha than beta, and betas are more beta than alpha.

In “The Unbearable Triteness Of Hating,” Roissy writes:

4. StrawHate

Hater: You argue a false alpha/beta dichotomy.

What part of dregs –> lesser omega –> greater omega –> lesser beta –> beta –> greater beta –> lesser alpha –> alpha –> super alpha don’t you understand? (Please note the date stamp of that post.)

5. Etymology Hate

Hater: Your definition of an alpha male is false. In the animal kingdom, the alpha male is leader of the pack, not a cad/badboy/jerk who pumps and dumps women.

Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women.​

The Alpha/Beta worldview leads to misogynistic thinking as well, since female behavior is interpreted not through their own thoughts and feelings, but through their reactions to the Alphas/Betas around them.

You are parroting the female imperative.

With all due respect, if you have a real insight, speak up.

 

[Deep Dish]

(On a side note about alphaness: One thing which just happened with my new girlfriend, you know you’re doing things right when a girl playfully punches you on the arm. For me, it happened after a sarcastic joke about “You have no idea how to dance” was misunderstood and turned into a neg hit. She said, “I can’t believe you have the balls to say that.” She’s now more interested.)

 

[evan12]

this article will answer your question

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature?page=2

 

[bigneil]

You know you’re doing things right when a girl playfully punches you on the arm.

Agreed.

This is why I do NOT use Kino. I will not initiate touch.

When they initiate you know you're in.

 

[zekko]

It’s true it changes with their menstrual cycle, and women are most prone to cheating with an alpha during her peak ovulation, which is when she is wearing her skimpiest clothing and twirling her hair. But complexity isn’t an argument, it’s a logical fallacy. Exceptions don’t invalid a rule.

Some say exceptions prove the rule, but in this case, I think the exceptions are what are important. I agree with Nicholas that humans are too complex to describe with such simplistic notions, it does them a disservice.

See, I keep reading here about how women will marry a beta and then fvck the alpha behind his back. Maybe this is how the majority of women act, it wouldn't surprise me a bit. But I've been fortunate enough to have gone through my life while hardly seeing this behavior at all. The reason is, I seek high quality, decent women, and avoid the lowlife females that exhibit this type of behavior like the plague.

It doesn't take a whole lot of experience with women to be able to see these hosebags who would do this sort of thing a mile away, they give off red flags. So maybe the common girls will do this, but I seek the exceptional, so I don't have to deal with such trashy behavior.

5. Etymology Hate

Hater: Your definition of an alpha male is false. In the animal kingdom, the alpha male is leader of the pack, not a cad/badboy/jerk who pumps and dumps women.

Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women.

Not surprisingly, Roissy completely ignores the fact that the "hater" is right. I've never cared much for Roissy though, he's unnecessarily crass. But I suppose it appeals to his audience.

 

[Solomon]

Here we go with the alpha/beta b.s. again

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

The Alpha/Beta worldview leads to misogynistic thinking as well, since female behavior is interpreted not through their own thoughts and feelings, but through their reactions to the Alphas/Betas around them.

No heterosexual male should EVER use the term "misogynist". At least not in North America & Europe (in India maybe, but that's a totally different culture). Why is it not "misandrist" thinking to characterize ALL men as "alpha/beta" instead of characterizing them through their own thoughts and feelings? Wipe that feminist hate-propaganda word out of your head.

Besides, women in general are COMPLETELY reactionary creatures. So it is completely natural to characterize their behavior through reactionary measures. So much of male behavior has been centralized around this idea for centuries. Women are not leaders. Men are leaders. Leaders act, the rest react. That goes for male followers too, not just women.

 

[Lexington]

And I think that about 40% of all men have died a violent death in our early days (usually at the hands of other men). So the homicide rates we witness today are really nothing considering our animal nature. This may seem shocking to some but it actually made us into what we are today.

I wouldn't say it was only due to homicide (although that was a major cause of male deaths in the early days). It's also due to the fact that males are expected to take greater risks (and they still are). Men would go out and fight wars. They would have to go out and hunt. They would have to do difficult and dangerous labor.

If half of a society's men died, the next generation could still produce a large number of offspring. The same work can be done with half number of penises. On the other hand, if half of a society's women died, it would be pretty much impossible to produce the same amount of offspring.

 

[Mistic]

If you don’t believe me, scientific research has shown that women’s attraction to men with high testosterone (the ultimate indicator of Alphaness) not only changes with age, locations, and situation, but it even changes within their menstruation cycle.

Thats why I fvck girls when they are ovulating, and the Betas go shopping with them while they are menstruating. I dont have time for that crap

 

[bcolon]

Thats why I fvck girls when they are ovulating, and the Betas go shopping with them while they are menstruating. I dont have time for that crap

I'm a newb to this. This might sound embarrassing but I don't give a fvck. How do you know when they are ovulating?

 

[Mistic]

I'm a newb to this. This might sound embarrassing but I don't give a fvck. How do you know when they are ovulating?

With experience, you learn the look and behavior. Women ovulating act like they're buzzed. Happy, upbeat, not *****y, and very forward.

Their faces get smother and fuller and rounder. Their eyes get bigger. They become more attractive. This is a fact. When they're menstruating they shrivel up and look gross.

You can always just ask, once you have fvcked them. I keep tabs on the girls and pay them a vist during that time only.