Heated Debate with GF over monogamy

[Jukeboxhero]

Ok, backbreaker.

So what is the question?
1.which is more natural?
2. which benefits society more?
3. Which would better support the theory of "survival of the fittest"?

First of all, comparing humans to animals to prove what's natural is rather ineffective. To animals, sex is pure instinct to reproduce and survive. They don't have sex for enjoyment or pleasure. They also don't experience or need to deal with emotions or relationships. Even though reproduction is one of the underlying reasons that motivates humans to reproduce, it gets a lot more complicated because humans are designed to have relationships. Also, some animals ARE monogamous and stay with one mate for their whole life which benefits their odds of survival.
Another big thing is that in today's society, "Survival of the Fittest" and Polygamy are two very different ideas that don't really benefit from each other. Polygamy is about one man being "married" to mutliple women. SotF is just preventing "men with unfit characteristics" from having sex at all.
So let me ask you two questions.

1. First, What do you consider "Unfit Characteristics?"
2. Do you think that all women would agree with you and limit themselves to having sex with those men.
Well, for starters, being fat, ugly and not too bright were some that you mentioned. let's use those as an example.
Can you think of anyone who might have those characteristics and still be able to "mate" with lots of women?
I can think of quite a few that would have "unfit genes" and still be able to mate with lots of women simply because of their wealth and status.
If you can't here are a few examples.
1. Celebrities
2. Musicians
3. Criminals
4. Drug dealers
5. Daredevils and risktakers
Here are a few people that would probably be able to attract and mate with lots of women, but not nessecarily be deemed "Fit" and may pass on Bad genes. Do you know any celebrities or emotional problems that might have mental or emotional issues who should probably be restricted from having kids? Imagine them in Monogamous relationships!
Basically, just because someone can attract females or have sex with many partners and therefore have a polygamous relationship, doesn't nessecarily mean it would benefit society or survival of the fittest.

At the very least, Monogamy limits them to having sex with only one person or being in a relationship with one person at a time.

 

[Phyzzle]

In America, there isn't 1 woman for every guy. that's been talked about at nasium here on this very forum. one guy gets a vast majroity of the available ass..

Yep, a lot of (right-wing) researchers would say that the relative violence and chaos in the streets of America (as opposed to, say, Berlin or Dublin or Tokyo) can all be traced in some way to the break down of simple family units. American women get pregnant, then (sometimes) look for a husband.

Polygamy (marrying multiple people) won't really help this, and it just might hurt the situation.

You see, REAL polygamy (still practiced by cultists in Utah) means a 45 year old gas station attendant marrying a female at the age of consent (16). When the sisters turn 16, he marries them one by one, since he already has an "in" with the family. And they all need welfare checks, since his salary isn't enough. It just results in a lot of ticked off, successful young guys who weren't in the right place at the right time. (I mean, even more so than now.)

Not that I want to outlaw polygamy (or prostitution or homosexuality). I'm just not thrilled about it.

 

[Falcon]

I've posted in a couple of monogamy vs. polygamy threads and one thing that comes up often is why can't we just accept that they are both 'natural'? Why does it have to be one or the other? Is there some unwritten law in nature that tells us we have to follow one? The fact that I can choose to practice monogamy with someone to me already makes it 'natural' in a sense. It doesn't break any of the hard physical laws at least. Take a look at this... we all know that a society itself can't be purely monogamist, where every single person has an opposite. Obviously some people cheat. We also know that society can't be purely polygamist. Obviously a lot of violence will occur and other complications. So is it outrageous to ask that maybe they both can exist?

I think Tazman approaches this question the best when he asks 'what is natural?' That is really the problem here. Who are we to say that we know what is natural? Can anyone confidently say they know the intention of Mother Nature? Or the universe for that matter? If you did, it would be pretty much the same as claiming you know the thoughts of God. Who would, even the wisest person would not.

As for marriage, I don't think using today's model for marriage as legit. There was a time when marriage wasn't corrupted by law and feminism and that it did have many benefits. Setting today's marriage system and its fallacies as representative of the past is to me misrepresentation. But moving on...

One fallacy I keep running into is that the seduction community likes to keep using the idea that we have to look at prehistoric type human beings in order to glimpse and see what was 'natural' or intended. But if you shift your perspective into their eyes, you will soon realize they also had ancestors that were different from them. So does that mean they are not natural too, because they evolved from their ancestors and developed new ways of doing things (including mating)? But lets extrapolate this idea. What happens is if you subscribe to this kind of thinking and extend it, you eventually end up with the conclusion that life itself is not natural. After all, when you go further back into time, the earth at one point was just a big rock made of star dust with no life. Isn't that how the earth was in its most natural state?

I've somehow come to the conclusion that people like to force their beliefs and way of living on this forum under the guise of arguing that it is more 'natural'. There are credible arguments on both sides. I'm suggesting now a different approach. Why can't we be more tolerant of everyone's views and accept that we really don't even know what 'natural' is?

 

[Ripper]

Amen.

 

[backbreaker]

I've posted in a couple of monogamy vs. polygamy threads and one thing that comes up often is why can't we just accept that they are both 'natural'? Why does it have to be one or the other? Is there some unwritten law in nature that tells us we have to follow one? The fact that I can choose to practice monogamy with someone to me already makes it 'natural' in a sense. It doesn't break any of the hard physical laws at least. Take a look at this... we all know that a society itself can't be purely monogamist, where every single person has an opposite. Obviously some people cheat. We also know that society can't be purely polygamist. Obviously a lot of violence will occur and other complications. So is it outrageous to ask that maybe they both can exist?

I think Tazman approaches this question the best when he asks 'what is natural?' That is really the problem here. Who are we to say that we know what is natural? Can anyone confidently say they know the intention of Mother Nature? Or the universe for that matter? If you did, it would be pretty much the same as claiming you know the thoughts of God. Who would, even the wisest person would not.

As for marriage, I don't think using today's model for marriage as legit. There was a time when marriage wasn't corrupted by law and feminism and that it did have many benefits. Setting today's marriage system and its fallacies as representative of the past is to me misrepresentation. But moving on...

One fallacy I keep running into is that the seduction community likes to keep using the idea that we have to look at prehistoric type human beings in order to glimpse and see what was 'natural' or intended. But if you shift your perspective into their eyes, you will soon realize they also had ancestors that were different from them. So does that mean they are not natural too, because they evolved from their ancestors and developed new ways of doing things (including mating)? But lets extrapolate this idea. What happens is if you subscribe to this kind of thinking and extend it, you eventually end up with the conclusion that life itself is not natural. After all, when you go further back into time, the earth at one point was just a big rock made of star dust with no life. Isn't that how the earth was in its most natural state?

I've somehow come to the conclusion that people like to force their beliefs and way of living on this forum under the guise of arguing that it is more 'natural'. There are credible arguments on both sides. I'm suggesting now a different approach. Why can't we be more tolerant of everyone's views and accept that we really don't even know what 'natural' is?

winner winner chicken dinner

 

[Chaotixxx]

I think youre looking at this too black & white. Nature is extremely random. 2 MIT grad parents dont automatically mean the child is going to be smart, just like 2 parents from the lower echelons of society dont mean their child is going to be a failure. In a physical sense, traits can be passed on. (Athletes tend to breed athletes) But its 2007, and humans for the most part are measured by their intelligence.

 

[muscleman]

I'm interested in seeing where this thread goes. Backbreaker I've been wondering the same thing for a while now. I've also read a lot of Rollo Tomassi's posts dealing with LTRs and marriage.

It really seems that men get the short end of the stick in the situation. After all, if we follow the (supposed .. I don't know enough myself yet to make that call) theory that a man's imperative is to spread his seed as much as possible and a woman's imperative is to secure a single man to help raise her offspring, we begin to see how this plays into society today.

Other than a tax break and certain financial considerations, I don't (yet) see what a man stands to gain through marriage that he wouldn't already have with a girlfriend.

wutang - very good points also. If you care to share more I'm interested in reading.

 

[ketostix]

I believe sex for humans is about diversity, meaning that every person above a minimum threshold of health and fitness should mate to achieve the most diversity. This would only fully happen through monogamy, or serial monogamy which I think is valid. I also think for the most part people are naturally most attracted to mate with another person who is a best "match" for their own genes. It's a well known fact that historically and in communities where polygamy is the rule inbreeding and conginental defects ineviably occur.

I think this was touched on before, but if the pro-polygamy camp believe it's all about the best men procreating as much and and with as many different women has possible, then how is he going to be able support all these children?

One clue that wasn't mentioned when comparing humans to what animals do (not that I think you can make direct comparisons anyway) is that polygamist species have a short life span and a usually a lower life span then then monogamous species. One good example is Lions, they're polygamist for a short time, then are usually taken over by younger males or killed. Once they lose their pride they usually end up dying.

Bottom line I believe humans are mostly polygamous or possibly serial polygamist and are searching for a best match for their genes

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

The greatest inconsistency that most people discussing Social Darwinism fall into is the "survival of the fitest" falacy. Nowhere in any of Darwin's writtings will you ever see this terminology refered to in the context of natural selection. It's not survival of the fitest, it is survival of the species best able to adapt to it's changing conditions and environments. Dinosaurs ruled the earth as the preeminent species for eons (far longer than humans). Then in the relative blink of an eye, they were extinct because a radical environmental change, for which they were, biologically, completely unprepared wiped them out wholesale. They simply couldn't adapt to that environment.

This is what people fail to see; adaptation is the coin of the realm in evolution. 66% of the population in the U.S. is overweight, not because of bad genes, but because the environment has changed and people have adapted to it. Our bodies naturally store fat. We evolved from a necessity to do so since food sources were scarce in our biological past, however now the environment has changed. Food is too abundant, too convenient, too calorie dense, etc. for us not to be fat. Our metabolism favors carbohydrates over protien and stored fat, why? Because our environmental reality thousands of years ago meant that a good sugar kick made for a better chance of evading a predator. Now this biological legacy only makes us fatter when you can buy ding dongs at any 7-11.

With regards to monogamy or polygamy, essentially what we're observing in this era is a result of a restructuring of adaptive methodologies to account for changes in our environment. Single motherhood, readily available forms of birth control, greater potential for security provisioning for men and women that isn't based on physical prowess, etc. Yet, in light of all that we still struggle with the legacy of our biological pasts.

Men and women, biologically, have different methodologies for reproduction. It is in a woman's biological best interest to mate with the male best able to provide long term provisioning for her and any potential offspring. Again, it is in her best interest to find a man best fitted to share in parental investment. This is due to her comparatively prolonged period of gestation (9 months), the rigors of rearing a child to self-sufficiency (at least adolescence) as well as her own insured survival. They ovulate in a 28 day cycle and are at a peak of feritlity 5-7 years after puberty. They posess a limited number of eggs and become biologically inviable after a certain age (at or around menopause). Their hormone and endorphin biochemistry also reflect this reproductive schema; they produce in bulk oxytocin and estrogen, both responsible for prompting feelings of nurturing as well as serving as buffers for sexual indescretions. At the peak of their menstrual cycles they produce more testosterone in preparation for sexual activity and in the low periods produce more estrogens and progesterones. In addition, both during and after pregnancy they produce high levels of progesterone and oxytocin, both primary in engendering feelings of love and nuturement for offspring.

Men's methodologies are much different. Biologically, we produce 12.5 times the amount of testosterone than women. As a result we have higher accuity of vision, hearing and touch. We have more muscularity, lean towards feelings of aggression in preference to sadness. And of course we are easily prompted to a state of sexual arousal - we're always ready for it in our natural state. We produce millions of reproductive cells daily and are sexually viable until very late in life. Our reproductive methodology revolves around "spreading the seed" as indiscriminately as possible. Ours is quanity, women's is quality.

Now, having done the break down of this, you can see the conflict in mating methods; thus enters adaptive sociological and psychological mechanisms to regulate this process. Thus, being social animals, we introduce ethics, morality and implied responsibilities to buffer both methodolgies. In our biological past, sexual arousal in both men and women was mitigated by physical prowess. Large breasts in women, an appropriate hips to waist ratio, physical symetry in both sexes, muscularity in men, physical manifestations of testosterone (square jaw for example) etc. we're the call signs for sexual activity. Physicality was (and still is) the primary motivator for sexual activity and this is literally encoded into our genetics.

However, as society progressed, conditions and environments changed, thus social adaptation changed. JUKEBOXHERO made an astute observation in this progression - Why is it that women are still hot for:

1. Celebrities
2. Musicians
3. Criminals
4. Drug dealers
5. Daredevils and risktakers

Social proof began to become a secondary consideration for intimate acceptance (from a woman mating methodology) for woman as society progressed. Physical prowess, while still a primary sexual attractor and indicator of prefered genetics, didn't necessarily ensure a continued committment to parental investment. Men and women's reproductive methodologies have always been in a see-saw balance since we began as hunter-gatherer societies. As society (see environment) changed other factors for parental investment became important. Artists became attractive bcause they possessed creative intelligence and this was manifested in their creative abilities to solve problems. When you see the broke musician with the dutifull GF this is that legacy at work.

Social proof and intersexual competition, while always present, began to move into the psychological. It was far more efficient for women to compete for a desirable male covertly - not confirming his acceptance - than to do so overtly. As society furher progressed male competition moved out of the physical and into a provisioning capacity. A drug dealer and a high powered corporate executive could both be "alpha" males - both have high social proof and provisioning capacity - albeit in different social strata.

BACKBREAKER, both you and the GF are correct. Polygamy and Monogamy are natural human methodologies. Polygamy serves a mans biological imperative better, while monogamy serves a woman's better. The conflict arises when either is compromised. A single man who's non-exclusively dating is essentially in a state of polygamy, while a married woman is her prefered state of secured monogamy. Either sex must surrender their prefered methodology to accommodate the other's. This is why, socially, we have stages in our modern lives where one is prefered over another.

 

[Bonhomme]

I also think that both impulses are natural, and furthermore, vary a great deal from individual to individual.

Also, all the talk about the "alpha" males doing most of the breeding in primate "societies" is a load of bollocks. The fact is, it's the "betas" who wise-assed anthropologists typically refer to as the "sneaky fuckers" who do most of the breeding. These are the ones who don't even care to challenge the alpha monkey for top position, but knock up most of the females while the alphas and alpha wannabes are too busy challenging each other for the top position. They may not get the most desirable of the females, but if they're sneaky enough of fuckers they do pretty good.

In a sense, evolutionary requirements have elevated a lot of the characteristics of the best sneaky fuckers to a similar level of desirability as the primal "alpha" characteristics in human society. Not all those who are regarded as the "sexist men" are "badasses."

Actually, the human social tendency to "pair up" (regardless of the what may be "natural") benefits the most desirable of the "betas" the most, by enabling more of the most desirable women to be available to them.

We evolved from a necessity to do so since food sources were scarce in our biological past, however now the environment has changed. Food is too abundant, too convenient, too calorie dense, etc. for us not to be fat. Our metabolism favors carbohydrates over protien and stored fat, why? Because our environmental reality thousands of years ago meant that a good sugar kick made for a better chance of evading a predator. Now this biological legacy only makes us fatter when you can buy ding dongs at any 7-11.

Yes and no. Actually, the sweet tooth simply enabled primitive humans with a means of judging what is good to eat. The ability to isolate and concentrate those sugars have essentially enabled us to refine foods so they have drug-like effects and addictiveness.