Do men exalt the morals of monogamy because they can't get a harem?

[MatureDJ]

I was reading this interesting blog posting

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/results-from-an-online-dating-experiment/

with this comment

It’s different, of course, once women enter a sexual relationship. Then, they find it hard, and soul-crushing, to give themselves over to more than one man at a time. Men, in contrast, will happily screw many babes concurrently if they could get away with it. Most men can’t, so they pretend they have morals to explain their heavenly monogamy.

To me, this sounds like the ultimate beta song, "if you want to be happy for the rest of your wife, never make a pretty woman your wife."

 

[Boilermaker]

Very true.

Men, I find in general, are much weaker than women when it comes to admitting their own weaknesses. They will blame the world, morals, ethics, jerks, assh0les, the rich, the poor, the religions, the culture, the system, you name it, anything, anything to get it off of their own shoulders.

Even in this forum, where we are supposedly enlightened, everybody reads Rollo's "Buffer" chapters and they forget it immediately after reading it.

Addicts will be in denial, beta's will be in denial, older men will be in denial, married men will be in denial ...

I don't have access to 5 different HB's at the moment. I wish I had. But I am not going to fool myself into thinking that I musn't want that in reality, because I don't have that and I won't have that anytime soon. I try to improve bit by bit every day, and that includes a looooot of plateau time. Not another boost. Not another kick. Not another climax. I try and learn to love the plateau, without immediate gratification. [ See my post on Mastery ]

Unfortunately % 99 of us (myself included) behave exactly as Heartiste elaborates, when it burns our asses.

 

[jhl]

In the past, I remember a random conversation that I had with a friend of mine. The conversation was about how there was a positive correlation between wars and an imbalanced sex ratio (more males than females).

I have never checked the facts to determine whether that statement is true. However, it got me thinking a bit more about the origins of monogamy in SOME societies. Did some societies set up a set of rules to maximize the distribution of females to males through monogamy? In some scenarios, I could imagine how chaotic it would be if one male took the vast majority of the female pool for mating. A very disgruntled population of males who were left out from the mating pool and who have no sexual outlet could become a big threat to society.

Was monogamy formed in such societies to keep order and prevent chaos? I always wondered if that was the case.

I know there are plenty of evidence to the contrary because there are clear examples all over the world where alphas had a harem big enough to spread their seed all over the world (Genghis Khan) and it is clear that monogamy was supported/or followed for such types of people. I'm not arguing against this, but I think for the individual who is of an average social status, the system may have been set up to keep order and prevent chaos by ensuring an even distribution of females to all males through monogamy.

 

[backbreaker]

heartiste has some good posts from time to time but the majority of the crap he writes is from the relationship theory classes or some ****, and this is one of those posts.

he's projecting HIS wants on the entire male gender.

Getting a harem of women is just that.. get= the process of obtaining.

Obtain- To come into possession of something, through effort or through request

Effort- a serious attempt



It's too much fvcking work. **** at 23-24 years old, spinning 2, at the most 3 plates at a time was a freaking semi full time job. keeping all of them happy, giving them all attention, taking them out all, buying them all **** from time to time, fvcking them, dealing with all their friends and all the drama that comes with that, dealing with whatever personal drama a woman has and they all have some or else they wouldn't be women, coordinating your home schedule so that you don't have girls run into each other, coordinating your going out with girls to make sure that you don't run into someone else i'm not even talking about just another girl what if the girl's best friend works at red lobster and you go on a date there? welp there goes that.

that's a lot of work. And that's just 2-3! we aren't talking about 2-3! we are talking about a harem lol. How many is a harem.. i would imagine it's more than 2-3. I would assume a good harem would e.. let's call it 5.

this isn't Mesopotamian 600BC where you could marry 10 women, pull out your **** see them once every 2 weeks, fvck their brains out and go about your business. in 2012 you have to manage the women, you have give them time and comfort and all that ****, **** that takes time.


and that's just half the problem. **** that's not even the worst half of the problem

the worst half of the project is that it's a serious point of diminishing returns.

In other words, say I have my group of 5 backbreaker sluts lol. each one of them requires that i spend/do **** with them that takes up 6 hours a week. that's 30 hours a week... a part time job basically, that offers no additional pay, gets me no closer to my goals, beucase we will be doing a lot of fvcking i would imagine there are like 10-12 little backbreakers running around and if they are anything like my knuckle head son they want to eat **** and play with **** allt he time so i got spend money on their little knucklehead asses, money that i don't have beucase i'm not working beucase i'm managing my harem of women. and they want to all go places like Chuck E Cheese so instead of driving my XJL or mu wife's SL 500 we have to drive a freaking nissan quest to drag all their asses out at the same time. so i'm broke, i'm driving a fvcking nissan quest and i'm tired.

So I have a part time job, that basically I have to pay to go to. It's like going to mcdonalds and just handing them 500 dollars every week.

Not only am I not getting closer to my goals, not only are the little backbreaker rugrats beating the **** out of my check book, I'm not going to be any happaier whatsoever than i would be if i had 1 wife with 1 kid assuming my wife is putting out on as normal basis.

think about it.. i mean if i have 5 backbreaker sluts, i can't fvck them all 3 times a wee. that's about how much my wife and I have sex give or take. i can't have sex 15 times a week. I don't have the time nor the drive honestly to have that much sex. So basically if i had a harem of 5 women and let's say i fvcked them all 2 1 time a week.. if im' having sex 1 time a week with 5 women, how is that really any better than having sex with 1 woman 3 times lol? not only is it more efficient, it's less overhead and less stress.

so that, not beucase of lack of ability, why men don't have "harems" of women. it's inefficient, the overhead is too much and it leaves time to do very little of antyh9ing else.

that is one of the worst posts on his site i have seen in a while. that's why i don't read that crap it's all theoretical bull**** and very little real life practical advice ****.

there was a very pratical reason why men had multiple wives back then.. beucase about half of the kids that were born died before the age of 10, the more wives you have the more childred you can bear. it's really that simple.

If you do some actual (not talking to the OP, just talking in general) research on how everyday life was around that time period, it isn't how guys like to romantizce it now. Actually for the most part, it wasn't all that different from what we have now in a pratical sense. Men didn't go around just gaming women and making all these women happy.

No what you usually had is you had a man, and a wife and if he could afford it, other wives or women he boar children with. Very rarley did a man actually.. seek to give a **** about more than one woman, i.e

Abraham + Sarah = Issac
Abraham + Hagar= Ishmael

Abraham didnt' give a **** about Hagar, he fvcked her and had a kid to better the chances of his genes passing on. Also back in that time, the more kids you had the more people you had that could work and considering everyone for the most part lived off the land that was a pretty big deal. Sarah allowed this not beucase Abrahman was just that pimp lol, though i bet he was but that's not the point i'm trying to make, she allowed it beucse well.. if you read the bible you knew she couldn't have kids utnil she was 95 but i mean from a practical sense, she understood what it was.. in the time period they lived in, men had to fvck multiple women to best secure the chances of everyone around.. it wasn't anything emotional about it. To work the land, to live the life style we live, to ensure everyone can survive, this is what we got to do. And the man didn't give a **** about the woman he was fvcking, and frankly she probably didn't give a **** about him.

most men had a wife, or a favorite wife, then women he fvcked just for the sake of having children, usually the women he fvcked being of lower ranking or peasant/slave status. But it's not like we think of it today. even back then men didn't have the time nor the patience to deal with that man women in the sense of actually trying to make them all happy. Even the biggest pimp in the bible (king solomon) was head over heels in love with Queen of Sheeba

 

[Boilermaker]

I think Roissy is being misunderstood, misquoted, and misinterpreted here.

a) Who says you have to have kids from 5-different women? This isn't BC 600, so if you don't want to have kids, you won't have kids. Period.

b) Who says you have to spin 5-plates at the same time and with the same rate?

You might as well adjust your time; rearrange it, and customize it to your liking. Some like Zarky, like more women at a given time, and some others like to be in LTRs. It's completely based on taste.


Roissy doesn't mean any of that. What he means is:

1) You are meant to be a free man and be able to choose from a harem of women. If you want to juggle more than one at a time, that's fine. Or if you want to concentrate your time and efforts in a non-eternal LTR, that is fine as well.

2) You are free from dogmas, buffers and moral clichés and you truly go after what you want. Rather, you discover what you want. One can only afford that after reaching his prime, without getting married, and having enough experience. "Enough" is subjective here, and will vary from person to person, obviously. If you still want to be monogamous, that's fine. But first you have to prove to yourself that you called the shots yourself, through your own judgement and not through "learned helplessness" and/or mandatory rationalizations.

Simple as that.

 

[backbreaker]

I think Roissy is being misunderstood, misquoted, and misinterpreted here.

a) Who says you have to have kids from 5-different women? This isn't BC 600, so if you don't want to have kids, you won't have kids. Period.

b) Who says you have to spin 5-plates at the same time and with the same rate?

You might as well adjust your time; rearrange it, and customize it to your liking. Some like Zarky, like more women at a given time, and some others like to be in LTRs. It's completely based on taste.


Roissy doesn't mean any of that. What he means is:

1) You are meant to be a free man and be able to choose from a harem of women. If you want to juggle more than one at a time, that's fine. Or if you want to concentrate your time and efforts in a non-eternal LTR, that is fine as well.

2) You are free from dogmas, buffers and moral clichés and you truly go after what you want. Rather, you discover what you want. One can only afford that after reaching his prime, without getting married, and having enough experience. "Enough" is subjective here, and will vary from person to person, obviously. If you still want to be monogamous, that's fine. But first you have to prove to yourself that you called the shots yourself, through your own judgement and not through "learned helplessness" and/or mandatory rationalizations.

Simple as that.

this is one of those posts that you are just arguing because you can. I doubt you believe anything you actually just typed.

Who says you have to have kids from 5-different women? This isn't BC 600, so if you don't want to have kids, you won't have kids. Period.

Because in this hierarchy of harems, kids are currency. If there is no kids, there is no point from the woman's standpoint. In other words, the only reason that a woman would settle down and marry a guy who has 4 other wife's, is if the man was "man" enough to be the father of a large family and provide a more than adequate life style for her and her off spring. In short, she's giving up some.. personal pride if you will by not having a man to herself, for the 'greater good" which being the welfare of her and her off spring.

if there is no off spring, there is no point. There is no other reason

1. he can't **** her enough to satisfy her sexual needs on a daily basis
2. he can't spend enough time with her to satisfy her emotional needs

the only need that the guy can fulfill is that of the provider/father and if he isn't doing that, WTF is she there for?



lol you aren't the only guy on the forum that took AP lit my friend. I can read and comprehend as well. The motif of the thread is clearly that in today's marketplace , women are cleaning up attention and that avg females get just as much if not more attention then well above avg males.

Because men are not as desirable on the open market, they make the best of a **** sammich and turn scarcity into a virtue by devoting themselves to the one woman who will pay them attention.


And hell, he's not even particularly wrong on the above. That part he nails to a large extent. That's not what I have a problem with above. It's the next Quantum leap jump in logic he attempts to half ass throw together that I have a problem with.

his point by stating this

It’s different, of course, once women enter a sexual relationship. Then, they find it hard, and soul-crushing, to give themselves over to more than one man at a time. Men, in contrast, will happily screw many babes concurrently if they could get away with it. Most men can’t, so they pretend they have morals to explain their heavenly monogamy.

here, he makes a (****ty) assumption logical fallacy.. assuming that because I can't achieve something I want it. there is a lot of **** in life I can't do right now that I don't want to do. I can't buy an NBA team right now. **** i can't buy a ABA team right now lol. And you know what, could care less. I can't buy a fancy yacht. could care less I hate/am petrified of open water. I can't climb Mt. Everest right now, and even if i could you couldn't pay me to do it. Fvck that **** lol.

He's assuming beucase most men will never be able to date / fvck 4-5 women at a time that every man secrety wants this, and while this is true for some men that they wish to have this ability, it's not a fact like he is trying to present it

The vast majority of men, really just want a good looking woman to love and care for them, be a good mother, give them sex without being a **** about it. this really is the extent of most mens, including myselfs, sexual desires. At the end of the day this is all i really want.

But he knows his view base is full of sexually repressed guys and **** like that reads well to people like that. Of course to a guy who hasn't fvcked a HB5 in his entire life wants to hear how every guy secretly wants to fvck 5-6 women at once beucase that's what he wants to do beucase he has never had tha bilty, but that's not the vast majority of people whatsoever. There is a phase you go through when you just figure out what you are doing but once that is done that's way too much hassle.


and the reason I'm making such a stink about this post he made is beucase **** like this does more harm than it does good. It doesn't matter how much game /DJ material you read if you come out of the mansphere with a distorted sense of morality and reality. Women don't find militantism attractive, women like normal guys, and reading and believing **** like that, is not normal, thus you get more sucked into the web of woman hate becuase you still aren't getting any so the more distorted your point of view comes. it's a never ending cycle with that ****


here's where the logic falls flat on it's face

1. there are plenty of men in the world, in america particular who have the means to live this lifestyle if they so choose. men with status, looks, fame, money, yet the vast majority of men like this chose to live a quite traditional life with a single wife that they are devoted to. So you can't sit here and say the only reason that we don';t do this is beucase we can't when the people who can for the most part don't.


to even take it a step further.,.. some of these men, will get with a wife, have a kid or two, something happens and they get a divorce, they raped by the legal system. Most men would have a very good and justifiable reason to thump their nose at "tradition" but again the vast majority of men, can't wait to put a ring on another woman's finger.

Obviously there is more to this than meets the eye.

2. The entire plate spinning theory contradts his post. If i had 3 plates when I met my wife, how can you explain me dropping all three plates to be with her when by his logic the only reason I have one plate is beucase I can't have 3


it's a ****ty post (not yours his). I mean I respect you trying to dig deeper into the post and all but there isn o thing to dig to. it's a very shallow not well thought out post. He's the freaking Rush Limbaugh of the manosphere. he says **** that he knows will rile his fanbase up

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Men, I find in general, are much weaker than women when it comes to admitting their own weaknesses.

I disagree. Every human on this planet comes pre-wired with ultra ninja skills of self deception and cognitive dissonance. I'm hallucinating even as I write this.

One thing humans are good at, is balancing the need / desire / partial recognition that there is MORE out there to get

WITH

A huge ability to rationalize where we are based on some kind of objective / moral standard when it's really only based on our skill level.

When it comes to male / female relationships, EVERYBODY settles.

All men want young, hot, drama free, submissive women.

All women want powerful, wealthy, generous men.

99.9999% of society will NEVER fall into either category.

We all settle for what we can get, and rationalize the rest.

(or at least according to my psychosis...)

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Was monogamy formed in such societies to keep order and prevent chaos? I always wondered if that was the case.

According to various writers / researchers into history and evolutionary psychology, organized religion was created as a response to larger societies due to the discovery of agriculture.

In order for such few men to maintain control over so many, they had to create a believable and acceptable meme.

One aspect of that meme was "one woman - one man"

That means the VAST MAJORITY of men now had access to SOME pvssy.

Kind of like an AFC union.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The vast majority of men, really just want a good looking woman to love and care for them, be a good mother, give them sex without being a **** about it. this really is the extent of most mens, including myselfs, sexual desires. At the end of the day this is all i really want.

I disagree. While I agree that most men wouldn't want the hassle of maintaining a traditional harem, I don't think most men would settle for monogamy if they had a legitimate chance of banging any woman, anywhere, any time.

If someone had seductive super powers, and could talk ANY GIRL into giving them a hummer ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, with the approval of their wife or gf, I don't think they'd settle for monogamy.

The question here is not whether or not those seductive powers exist, it's that men settle for monogamy because most guys don't think they'd ever get those kind of skills.

In fact, in several studies of sexual desires, the NUMBER ONE fantasy of most me is to sleep with strange women, at will, whenever they choose.

It's like your NBA example. Right now, you can't fathom wanting to buy a team.

But if you had a trillion dollars, and could easily hire people to run it for you, it would be a completely different question.

It's a basic principle of economics. The more resources you've got, the more desires you've got.

 

[Boilermaker]

I disagree. Every human on this planet comes pre-wired with ultra ninja skills of self deception and cognitive dissonance. I'm hallucinating even as I write this.

One thing humans are good at, is balancing the need / desire / partial recognition that there is MORE out there to get

WITH

A huge ability to rationalize where we are based on some kind of objective / moral standard when it's really only based on our skill level.

When it comes to male / female relationships, EVERYBODY settles.

All men want young, hot, drama free, submissive women.

All women want powerful, wealthy, generous men.

99.9999% of society will NEVER fall into either category.

We all settle for what we can get, and rationalize the rest.

(or at least according to my psychosis...)

OK - fully convinced.


Being a man doesn't automatically make someone more susceptible to rationalization.

The rest of your post is gold; and I have nothing more to add on the subject.

Thanks,

BB: I actually meant everything I typed in that post. But I will read your response and think about it.

 

[zekko]

I agree with Backbreaker in that
1) Roissy (or Heartiste or whatever his name is) is projecting his own wants on the entire gender. And
2) Polygamy and having large harems are not as practical in the modern world. In older agricultural societies, it was important to have a lot of children to help work the land. Having a lot of children was like having wealth and insurance policies.

It's true you can now date a lot of women and use birth control these days to help avoid having children. But as Backbreaker points out, it's still a big time investment.

I enjoy my monogamous relationship. I've sown my wild oats though, and I don't see it as a moral issue. Been there, done that. I just enjoy having a relationship with some depth to it, that is more than just sex in a can, I would like more facets to it than that.

I've never cared much for Roissy. He doesn't strike me as the type to respect morality in any form. This article just seems like another opportunity for him to wail away at the idea of morality by making this ridiculous connection to monogamy. And attacking guys who don't necessarily want a harem in their lives for practical reasons as being weak.

Taiyuu, I agree that if most guys could just snap their fingers and have 70 virgins come down on a whim to pleasure them at any time, they would. But that bears little resemblence to practical reality and living a real life. And yes, you can always make yourself into a womanizer, but that's not everybody's ambition.

 

[Boilermaker]

I agree with Backbreaker in that
1) Roissy (or Heartiste or whatever his name is) is projecting his own wants on the entire gender. And
2) Polygamy and having large harems are not as practical in the modern world. In older agricultural societies, it was important to have a lot of children to help work the land. Having a lot of children was like having wealth and insurance policies.

It's true you can now date a lot of women and use birth control these days to help avoid having children. But as Backbreaker points out, it's still a big time investment.

I enjoy my monogamous relationship. I've sown my wild oats though, and I don't see it as a moral issue. Been there, done that. I just enjoy having a relationship with some depth to it, that is more than just sex in a can, I would like more facets to it than that.

I've never cared much for Roissy. He doesn't strike me as the type to respect morality in any form. This article just seems like another opportunity for him to wail away at the idea of morality by making this ridiculous connection to monogamy. And attacking guys who don't necessarily want a harem in their lives for practical reasons as being weak.

Taiyuu, I agree that if most guys could just snap their fingers and have 70 virgins come down on a whim to pleasure them at any time, they would. But that bears little resemblence to practical reality and living a real life. And yes, you can always make yourself into a womanizer, but that's not everybody's ambition.

Roissy may be generalizing, but he has a large amount of substance in what he says. Nitpicking his main concept and claiming that there are some outliers is just deliberate demagogy.

The main question is not whether or not we CAN maintain a harem in modern times or not. If you had a NSA way of hooking up with a 20-year old virgin for a night and forget her, would you do it or would you not? You guys keep bringing up how unrealistic it is and how impractical this would be, etc... That's not the point.

As a man, if you desire women and variety (and if you fall under the bulk of the bell-curve you would be biologically wired to desire these) you would want a harem. An ideal harem, with no overhead. This has nothing to do with kids, nor does it have anything to do with how much you would have work to maintain one.

Now if you argue that I don't want one, because I can't get one under my conditions, that's another story. But all of you would want a harem that the Ottoman Sultans had back in the day. If you have to resort to morality to say no to that, I am sorry but you are, more than likely, "rationalizing".

 

[Stagger Lee]

When there existed harems in the past, you had to have a lot of things that supported it-royalty who had more rights than the lower classes, a lower class of men who were not just without women but were slaves, even sometimes cartrasted eunichs, not to mention a lot of men died in wars an fighting so there were less men than women.

The only people who had harems were the most powerful and wealthy, and their harem was out in the open and accepted and enforced by the society. Not analagous to today of just anyone and everyone that may have a job, the best looks and "game", who's hiding his other women from each other.

Almost no men have true harems today. Juggaling several women, plate spinning, being a player is not having a harem.

Monogamy is a natural human drive, just like belief in a god or gods is natural and existed in just about all cultures even nomadic tribal ones. Monogamy and belief in a god is at least partly hard wiring and not just man-made societal creations. Even kings with harems had their favorite wife and the others were just redudnacy.


If harems aren't immoral than nothing is immoral. Even if I had a harem I wouldn't consider it moral. I don't even consider pick up moral but I do it anyway.

 

[backbreaker]

I agree with Backbreaker in that
1) Roissy (or Heartiste or whatever his name is) is projecting his own wants on the entire gender. And
2) Polygamy and having large harems are not as practical in the modern world. In older agricultural societies, it was important to have a lot of children to help work the land. Having a lot of children was like having wealth and insurance policies.

It's true you can now date a lot of women and use birth control these days to help avoid having children. But as Backbreaker points out, it's still a big time investment.

I enjoy my monogamous relationship. I've sown my wild oats though, and I don't see it as a moral issue. Been there, done that. I just enjoy having a relationship with some depth to it, that is more than just sex in a can, I would like more facets to it than that.

I've never cared much for Roissy. He doesn't strike me as the type to respect morality in any form. This article just seems like another opportunity for him to wail away at the idea of morality by making this ridiculous connection to monogamy. And attacking guys who don't necessarily want a harem in their lives for practical reasons as being weak.

that's pretty much my point.

To each his own. There are some guys out there that want their life to be straight out of the book "the game" with mystery and the other dude just banging hot girls every other night. there is nothing wrong with that if that is what you want to do. and i mean that.

I just have a problem with a guy telling me or anyone that doesn't share your exact view points, is only lying to themselves beucase everyone wants this but only a few know how to get it.

What I mean is, i don't care for his all or nothing attitude/way hep resents the stuff he talks about. If that is what you want to do if you truely enjoy it that's fine, but I just think it's something very.. wrong about telling a bunch of guys who aren't getting any that the only way you can be someone in life is to do nothing but chase *****.

For me, what "the game" did for me was allow me to not make every decision in life based on women. I can work more beucase i don't have to spend every other night out looking and hoping someone would look at me lol. i don';t have to walk on egg shells with my wife beucase i know if she left i can and will date again, and i will figure out a way to be happy.In short the game allowed me to chanse my other ambitions with more gusto beucase i have to worry about this part of my life. I didn't make nor ever set out ot make "the game" the sole focus of my life that's what I don't agree with about the blogger.

 

[Boilermaker]

For a guy who married before even hitting 30; you must have had an enormous amount of options and diverse choices to get to the point you are claiming to have got. But I don't know you, maybe you are one in a million and you made it.

Zekko, AS, Jophil, I mean ... guys who have gone through + 30 years compared to you and I have all the rights to say they have sown their wild oats,

but allow me to be a little doubtful when married guys (whatever age they are) claim they "CHOSE" monogamy, and when their single counterparts are out there chasing skirt non-stop one way or another.

Especially at 29. As you said, to each his own, but I personally don't buy your position. I don't. You are fooling yourself according to me.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Taiyuu, I agree that if most guys could just snap their fingers and have 70 virgins come down on a whim to pleasure them at any time, they would. But that bears little resemblence to practical reality and living a real life.

Therein lies the rub. The word "practical" is extremely subjective.

For most guys, making a million bucks isn't "practical."

For most fat people, exercising and losing weight isn't "practical."

I'm 47, never been married, but have been close a couple times (at least according to the girls I was dating), and I don't foresee it happening any time soon.

But I certainly wouldn't rule it out in the future, should the right woman come along.

It's all a matter of economics, really.

Do the benefits of a monogamous relationship NOW outweigh the potential benefits of future non-monogamous relationships, minus all the effort that it would take to get there?

For most, the answer is clearly yes. And as you get older, that future potential gets less and less, and the perceived value of "strange" gets less and less, as you gain more and more experience.

There's no mystery why older guys tend to be more likely to seek longer relationships rather than endless strings of one-nighters.

And yes, you can always make yourself into a womanizer, but that's not everybody's ambition.

That's where I disagree. (Maybe, based on your definition)

Perhaps not every man wishes to be a "womanizer," but I believe within every man is programmed a desire for more sex from more women. That desire never goes away, it merely is suppressed or perhaps ignored.

Some guys might CHOOSE monogamy because it seems an easier choice than doing whatever they imagine it would take to get somebody better.

My ultimate point is thus:

Guys who choose monogamy (based on whatever subjective value system they have) over another style of lifestyle are being a bit dishonest (perhaps with themselves) when they say

"I CHOSE monogamy because I DON'T WANT to sleep with lots of women"

instead of saying:

"I CHOSE monogamy because it was more attractive than the other options, which might mean taking some risks and maybe getting something better, maybe not."

Obviously, I'm not slamming you or any other folks who chose a monogamous lifestyle. Your choices are your choices, and sincerely hope you're happier than you ever hoped.

I just don't like it when guys say (or imply) "I don't WANT that" when they really mean "I'm not willing to put in the effort to GET that."

Again, not pointing fingers. Just when guys say "I don't WANT that," the position too easily lends it self to an implied moral superiority, which is in fact a skill deficiency.

Covering up a weakness with an alleged strength, helped along by cognitive dissonance and self deception, the twin evils holding back all human accomplishment.

What's even worse is when people not only deceive themselves, but they actively solicit the buy-in from others, as it strengthens their self deception.

I think if you ever feel you need to rationalize your position, on anything, to others, then it's maybe not the best choice.

Then again, all this is only my deluded opinion, fueled by random hallucinations and the voices in my head.

 

[Boilermaker]

^

Golden.

Everything I wish I could write like that.

Could rep you more if I could.

 

[zekko]

If harems aren't immoral than nothing is immoral. Even if I had a harem I wouldn't consider it moral

I don't know about harems, per se, but I don't see polygamy as being immoral. I don't even understand why it's illegal. In ancient times, the patriarchs had wives and concubines and had relations with them, but they also took care of these women and took responsibility for them. I don't see that as an immoral arrangement.

Do the benefits of a monogamous relationship NOW outweigh the potential benefits of future non-monogamous relationships, minus all the effort that it would take to get there?

For most, the answer is clearly yes. And as you get older, that future potential gets less and less, and the perceived value of "strange" gets less and less, as you gain more and more experience.

There's no mystery why older guys tend to be more likely to seek longer relationships rather than endless strings of one-nighters.

What you're missing is that many older guys seek out relationships because they are tired of the shallowness of the endless string of one-nighters, not because their future options are dwindling. Maybe I'm completely delusional, but I feel that I have more options right now at 52 than at any other point in my life.

But you're right that it's a tradeoff. It's not that I would never want to bang some other girls now and then, it's that my relationship is more important to me than the one night stands. I don't feel it is fair to ask my woman to stay faithful to me if I am not willing to be faithful myself. And don't say men are different, women don't want to fvck around, because the same guys who say that are the same guys who will tell you that your girlfriend is always cheating on you.

To me, monogamy is a practical choice - a preference - I'm not "exalting the morals of monogamy". Roissy can take that sh!t and stick it.

 

[Boilermaker]

What you're missing is that many older guys seek out relationships because they are tired of the shallowness of the endless string of one-nighters, not because their future options are dwindling.

I don't think he's missing that at all. Whenever this topic comes up, practically ALL the older guys who are in some monogamous relationship shout at the top of their lungs: I chose this! I want this! It was my choice!

That's what happens in this forum anyway.

What you never see is an older guy saying " Hey , it's true that my options aren't as good as what they were when I was 35; and I don't think I can sustain a multi-LTR lifestyle at this time. So while accepting the fact that I would love to have a different woman every six months, I know I can never make that happen, so I choose to be content with my life".

Instead, you see this constant talk about morality, men being biologically monogamous ( malarkey) , some cute examples from the animal kingdom, and so on...

I think the point that is raised here is rarely heard. Unlike all the others that have been raised, like morality, and freedom of choice, and maturity, and biology, and so on. The real reason in most cases is "you don't have a darn choice!".... Because if a guy who is 29-years old comes and says "he has had his fair share" , and it just so happens that he was engaged some years ago .... you start to think it's got to do with that "rationalization" disease all of us are infected to some extent.

 

[FairShake]

I look at ANYONE who loudly and constantly proclaim their own happiness while simultaneously discrediting other people's happiness as suspect. This comes from married men but it also comes from single men. In fact I would say the hate and disbelief comes from single men more than the other way around. Put it like this...sites for married men and fathers rarely talk about how horrible and immoral single men are, but PUA and manosphere sites constantly talk about who pvssywhipped and pathetic married fathers are.

Everybody needs to figure out their own path. Humans are a diverse species and what's right for one isn't right for the other. Who cares WHY monogamy fits some men better as long as it helps them be healthier and happier? The same for singlehood for other men.

As for my own biases, personally I think marriage and family have been the goals du jour for many days because it works better for most men and women. It's no secret that married men are healthier and happier than single men, especially as you get older. It seems to be a better fit for most as well as society as a whole.

http://tsminteractive.com/whos-happier-married-men-or-single-men/
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=8260622