In Group Female Promiscuity is natural

[Pandora]

I am reading a book called Sex at Dawn. This book is solidifying many things I have long suspected. Though it does have hints of gynocentric propaganda, the book still makes some great points. The central thesis of the book is the following.

1.) Homo sapiens evolved in intimate tribes of no more than 150 members. Cooperation and sharing of EVERYTHING was strictly encouraged and it was the norm. Sharing of everything was a survival mechanism. Agriculture came and civilization was born. Civilization is actually not normal. Civilization turned all of our survival instincts on its head. Humans evolved in tribes where cooperation was the norm but in civilization competition is the norm . Essentially humans are mal adapted to civilization. Which I 1000% agree with.

2.) The book states that monogamy is not natural at all. This expectation of monogamy is a by product of civilization. In civilization accurate paternity identification is of the upmost importance because you have property to pass down. In tribal units you have nothing to pass down so paternity does not matter. Think Rick Grimes in the Walking Dead. He did not care that the baby was Seans baby. They were a small unit with no property.

3.). Sexual jealousy is actually a by product of civilization. It is socialized. Jealousy is not based on ensuring that your offspring are your genes. This is a common explanation stated by evolutionary biologist. They say that jealousy is an adaptive feature that ensures that our genes are passed down. If this were the case then you would be less angry when your brother has an affair with your wife vs when a stranger has an affair with your wife.

My personal experiences:

I have noticed that women are very promiscuous within a small intimate in group. Hypergamy goes out the window and its almost a free for all. The most beta ugly male can smash the hottest girl if the in group is isolated and small. For example the military. Military girls are the most promiscuous. They are doing what they were designed to do in small intimate groups that depend on each other for survival. This is not a bug. Its a feature.

I have also noticed that if a male is my friend ( i mean true 100% friend) then I do not mind sharing sexual partners with this male. This even applies to women I was in " love" with. The caveat is that I have to really like the male ALOT ( non sexually). There have been times when me and my best friend have shared the same girl. We have also seriously dated the same girl. There was not much jealousy. The jealousy only appeared when our friendship started getting strained.

In conclusion, eskimo brothers is natural and we need to stop expecting women to not be *****s. They are very sexually promiscuous within the group. Its a feature not a bug. This idea that they are sexually chaste has led to a lot of suffering in the modern world.

 

[Jack22]

I'd recommend a follow up reading of "evolution of desire" by David M Buss, I've seen some conflicting ideas here and there.

 

[kavi]

I dont mind decent guys getting laid, if a woman I love is with another guy it has to be a guy I respect who has decent values and I think is cool.

Cant be having women ****ing the wrong ones though this is a strict no no.

It is all about the best guys getting the most, the guys most deserving of love and respect.

A slut is a woman who ****s a guy with low morality ie this is a guy who is not valueble for the group. Its not about numbers its about WHO they are ****ing.

For a woman to have value she has to wanna **** guys who are decent and respected, if she wants to do it with guys I consider low-class then I am not gonna wanna be with her for the simple reason I cannot be in that group.

For the women in my group, for me to respect them, they can only be doing it with guys I respect and value, consider it like a reward thing. At the moment this is not happening in Western society simply because men are too **** scared to call women out and are simping to get some, also many guys are just trying to be the guy that women are currently giving it to instead of just calling women out for giving it to the wrong ones.

 

[SW15]

The book states that monogamy is not natural at all. This expectation of monogamy is a by product of civilization. In civilization accurate paternity identification is of the upmost importance because you have property to pass down. In tribal units you have nothing to pass down so paternity does not matter. Think Rick Grimes in the Walking Dead. He did not care that the baby was Seans baby. They were a small unit with no property.

Sexual jealousy is actually a by product of civilization. It is socialized. Jealousy is not based on ensuring that your offspring are your genes. This is a common explanation stated by evolutionary biologist. They say that jealousy is an adaptive feature that ensures that our genes are passed down. If this were the case then you would be less angry when your brother has an affair with your wife vs when a stranger has an affair with your wife.

I think there's merit to the idea that monogamy isn't natural. I have asked girlfriends about their interest in having another woman join us for a threesome. Most girlfriends were not open to the idea but most were at least able to discuss without getting overly emotional. Men have interest in the act of spreading their seed around, even if they are in a relationship and using protection.

Caleb Jones (BlackDragon) has said that he doesn't think monogamy is natural for men but he thinks serial/short term monogamy is natural for women. He believes women get eventually bored of their monogamous partners but the boredom comes less rapidly in situations where the primary partner has more alpha like traits. That makes sense to me.

While monogamy has issues, polygamy (including open relationships and swinging) has even more issues, often due to the cultural/civilization programming.

Socialization is a big part of why Krauser wrote the hit piece on Caleb Jones (BlackDragon) below). Socialization is why I've been more inclined toward monogamy than open relationships.

BlackDragon is a pathetic delusional cuck | Krauser PUA

My personal experiences:

I have noticed that women are very promiscuous within a small intimate in group. Hypergamy goes out the window and its almost a free for all. The most beta ugly male can smash the hottest girl if the in group is isolated and small. For example the military. Military girls are the most promiscuous. They are doing what they were designed to do in small intimate groups that depend on each other for survival. This is not a bug. Its a feature.

I have also noticed that if a male is my friend ( i mean true 100% friend) then I do not mind sharing sexual partners with this male. This even applies to women I was in " love" with. The caveat is that I have to really like the male ALOT ( non sexually). There have been times when me and my best friend have shared the same girl. We have also seriously dated the same girl. There was not much jealousy. The jealousy only appeared when our friendship started getting strained.

I was able to have a one night stand with a military woman in my early 20s from a bar/nightclub pickup. I was disappointed that didn't turn into more.

I'm not able to relate to these personal experiences otherwise.

Why do I feel such an innate sense of disgust at the idea of sharing my hypothetical woman with another man, friend or a family member?

It doesn't feel socialized. It feels like a very primal urge in me.

If it is an exclusive girlfriend, it would make sense to feel disgusted about sharing that woman. I think it is possible for 2 guys to have sex with a random woman that they meet at a bar one night most likely (this is not likely to happen via non-bar approaching) and be ok with it. Two male friends having sex with a woman that one of the men is in a relationship with seems to be a recipe for trouble.

I have believed that MFM threesomes are more common than MFF threesomes because more men are down to do threesomes. According to one sex researcher, my belief has been incorrect. This academic researcher found MFF threesome to be the more common variation of threesome. However, his sample size seems low.

https://www.bolde.com/dude-got-phd-threesomes-heres-found/

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Pandora,
Good post...Some of us have an Anglo-Celtic background,two thousand years ago,Tacitus observed of our forbears that they lived in small groups of twelve or so adults with the Women held in common...In that context,the behaviour you describe seems absolutely normal.

 

[Pandora]

I'd recommend a follow up reading of "evolution of desire" by David M Buss, I've seen some conflicting ideas here and there.

Yeh bro i was thinking about doing this very thing. Buss book and this book are at odds. The truth may be somewhere in the middle. But yeh I'ma check out his book for sure.

The one criticism i have against the Sex at Dawn thesis is bacterial vaginosis. If women were designed to have many partners how come they develop this condition? Or is this condition the result of poor hygeine on the male end?

 

[Pandora]

I think there's merit to the idea that monogamy isn't natural. I have asked girlfriends about their interest in having another woman join us for a threesome. Most girlfriends were not open to the idea but most were at least able to discuss without getting overly emotional. Men have interest in the act of spreading their seed around, even if they are in a relationship and using protection.

Caleb Jones (BlackDragon) has said that he doesn't think monogamy is natural for men but he thinks serial/short term monogamy is natural for women. He believes women get eventually bored of their monogamous partners but the boredom comes less rapidly in situations where the primary partner has more alpha like traits. That makes sense to me.

While monogamy has issues, polygamy (including open relationships and swinging) has even more issues, often due to the cultural/civilization programming.

Socialization is a big part of why Krauser wrote the hit piece on Caleb Jones (BlackDragon) below). Socialization is why I've been more inclined toward monogamy than open relationships.

BlackDragon is a pathetic delusional cuck | Krauser PUA



I was able to have a one night stand with a military woman in my early 20s from a bar/nightclub pickup. I was disappointed that didn't turn into more.

I'm not able to relate to these personal experiences otherwise.

We basically agree bro. Women are serially monogamous. They can for certain sporadic episodes sexually entertain multiple men.

Men are everything. We are monogamous and polygamous. Just because you wanted commitment from the military girl does not mean you are monogamous. It means you are able to pair bond. If you got into a relationship with her you would eventually want to have some side action too.

I also bond with one night stand girls to be honest. This does not mean I am primarily monogamous. A man can have a main pair bonded chick and occasionally dabble in other vaginas.

Btw I really like Caleb Jones work. I bought his early book. I also thinks it's cool that you can admit that your views on sexuality may be a product of socialization.

 

[Jack22]

Yeh bro i was thinking about doing this very thing. Buss book and this book are at odds. The truth may be somewhere in the middle. But yeh I'ma check out his book for sure.

The one criticism i have against the Sex at Dawn thesis is bacterial vaginosis. If women were designed to have many partners how come they develop this condition? Or is this condition the result of poor hygeine on the male end?

Honestly, life is never static and is constantly evolving so there will never be a concrete system in place. Monogamy is a sexual strategy, it depends on the situation and carries it's own risks, just as any other form of mating. I'd like to quote Rollo on this that all of this is just "theory", in the sense that we're all speaking in abstract concepts and ideas, and although there is truth in what we say, we can't predict something to an absolute certainty as each individual is different. Not all women are the same, if they were the species would quickly die out. More men are different than women however, because mother nature takes more risks with the male sex because "sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive."

You have to think from a situational point of view with each partner, what would play into their best interest? If she has low SMV and is aware of this, she is far less likely to cheat on you. She may try to deceive you so that you may overestimate her worth, or she can be completely honest and forthcoming(this is the ideal, they understand their situation and realize that you're taking on risk with being with her). It doesn't help that social media and daddy gov is there to always give her a foot in the exit, but it is what it is. If you have a good lifestyle that is not easily found or replaced, that will play into whether she has any thoughts of risking leaving you.

 

[Pandora]

Hi Pandora,
Good post...Some of us have an Anglo-Celtic background,two thousand years ago,Tacitus observed of our forbears that they lived in small groups of twelve or so adults with the Women held in common...In that context,the behaviour you describe seems absolutely normal.

It is so wonderful that European tribes shared this in common with tribes all across the world including African tribes. It shows that we are more alike than we are different.

Yes brother everything worked itself out when we lived in small interdependent groups. Non of this feminism stuff. Non of the big daddy gov problems. Just brother hood, hunting, and ****ing shared women lol. Your son was my son etc.

 

[Pandora]

Why do I feel such an innate sense of disgust at the idea of sharing my hypothetical woman with another man, friend or a family member?

It doesn't feel socialized. It feels like a very primal urge in me.

So just because something feels wrong does not make it wrong. I think it's the expectation of monogamy and the subsequent betrayal of expectation that's the issue.

When you go to a strip club you feel no disgust or betrayal at sharing the stripper. When you have a town bicycle you feel no disgust at sharing her. What changed?

Another thing that is different is that you don't view those other men as " brothers". When a man views another man that closely we usually don't let petty sexual issues get in the way. Or do we......

What changed was that our ego is not involved in the two before mentioned examples. In the previous example you knew she was a hoe. So it didn't hurt.

The reason it hurts with regular women is because we still put them on a pedestal of purity. They are not. Most women are closet promiscuous hoes.

 

[SW15]

Women are serially monogamous. They can for certain sporadic episodes sexually entertain multiple men.

Men are everything. We are monogamous and polygamous. Just because you wanted commitment from the military girl does not mean you are monogamous. It means you are able to pair bond. If you got into a relationship with her you would eventually want to have some side action too.

I also bond with one night stand girls to be honest. This does not mean I am primarily monogamous. A man can have a main pair bonded chick and occasionally dabble in other vaginas.

Women's inclination towards serial monogamy does confuse men, especially beta males. A lot of men, especially beta males, will be with a woman 1-3 years and the sex will be frequent and good. That's still inside most women's serial monogamy zone. The man puts a ring on it, hoping to continue to get frequent access to vagina he deems acceptable or better for the forseeable future. There's something like a 6-12 month engagement, then the wedding, and then sex is still frequent for the first 2 years or so of the marriage. After ~2 years of marriage, the couple has been together for about 5 years, which is near the outer limits of women's desired serial monogamy window. I think the window is roughly 7 years long.

The median marriage that fails becomes a failure around the 7th anniversary, which is roughly 10 years of total relationship time. If you break down the 10 years, things are usually good for 5-7 of them (women's serial monogamy window) and then a couple will spend 3-5 years trying to make it work due to socialization/societal pressures before declaring it a failure.

After the serial monogamy window ends, this is how the relationship typically looks:

If the man is more alpha: The serial monogamy window is longer than shorter but will eventually end. When the window ends and the sexual frequency subsides, the man who has more alpha traits will have an affair because he has alpha traits desirable to women. The woman finds out and usually files for divorce. There are some occasions where she'll stay for some socialization based reason, but that seems to be less common than in the past.

If the man is a typical beta or a better than average beta: The woman will dead bedroom him. He'll get resentful. Things will be bad for him in most cases because he is much less likely to be able to cheat. If the woman has dignity, she'll file for divorce before she cheats but she might emotionally cheat or line things up so that she can monkey branch the second she files for divorce. Some women will have affairs and their men won't find out. I think women are better at concealing affairs. If the man finds out, he might file for divorce. She might file too. The occasional beta will agree to an open relationship or swinging arrangement, but this is less common than outright divorce. Some open relationship/swinger couples eventually divorce.

If the man is a lesser beta: He will look like a soy boy and she will routinely cuck him, often times openly. Many times the man will stay around for this.

I didn't necessarily want commitment from the military woman I described earlier. I wanted more than just one instance of sex. This happened as I was entering my senior year of college and I was likely to be moving to a new city after graduation. I was open to remaining in that city and did interview for jobs later on that would have kept me in the same city as my college. My first post college job ended up being in another city as I thought would be the case.

I agree it is possible to be pair bonded and want to dabble in other vaginas.

Btw I really like Caleb Jones work. I bought his early book. I also thinks it's cool that you can admit that your views on sexuality may be a product of socialization.

Caleb has some good ideas but it was difficult for me to take him seriously after Krauser put out that hit piece on him.

I thought this article was well conceived and well written.

The Only 9 Options for Men as They Age - Alpha Male 2.0

-By Caleb Jones As I’ve discussed before, most men, even Alpha Males, have no intention on being players for the rest of their lives. At some point, even the horniest players will want to “settle down” in some form or fashion. Today I’m going to...

alphamale20.com

Caleb Jones is more oriented towards online dating, which I don't agree with it.

He's a poly guy and his now open relationship wife isn't that good looking.

 

[Pandora]

Women's inclination towards serial monogamy does confuse men, especially beta males. A lot of men, especially beta males, will be with a woman 1-3 years and the sex will be frequent and good. That's still inside most women's serial monogamy zone. The man puts a ring on it, hoping to continue to get frequent access to vagina he deems acceptable or better for the forseeable future. There's something like a 6-12 month engagement, then the wedding, and then sex is still frequent for the first 2 years or so of the marriage. After ~2 years of marriage, the couple has been together for about 5 years, which is near the outer limits of women's desired serial monogamy window. I think the window is roughly 7 years long.

The median marriage that fails becomes a failure around the 7th anniversary, which is roughly 10 years of total relationship time. If you break down the 10 years, things are usually good for 5-7 of them (women's serial monogamy window) and then a couple will spend 3-5 years trying to make it work due to socialization/societal pressures before declaring it a failure.

After the serial monogamy window ends, this is how the relationship typically looks:

If the man is more alpha: The serial monogamy window is longer than shorter but will eventually end. When the window ends and the sexual frequency subsides, the man who has more alpha traits will have an affair because he has alpha traits desirable to women. The woman finds out and usually files for divorce. There are some occasions where she'll stay for some socialization based reason, but that seems to be less common than in the past.

If the man is a typical beta or a better than average beta: The woman will dead bedroom him. He'll get resentful. Things will be bad for him in most cases because he is much less likely to be able to cheat. If the woman has dignity, she'll file for divorce before she cheats but she might emotionally cheat or line things up so that she can monkey branch the second she files for divorce. Some women will have affairs and their men won't find out. I think women are better at concealing affairs. If the man finds out, he might file for divorce. She might file too. The occasional beta will agree to an open relationship or swinging arrangement, but this is less common than outright divorce. Some open relationship/swinger couples eventually divorce.

If the man is a lesser beta: He will look like a soy boy and she will routinely cuck him, often times openly. Many times the man will stay around for this.

This is gold bro. This should be required reading for every man about to pick out an engagement ring. This is pretty much how it goes. This is the timeline.

 

[Pandora]

I used to think that sexual temperance was the norm and promiscuity was the exception. Now I see that promiscuity is the norm and temperance is the exception.

What we are seeing with the thotcapalypse is not merely a result of liberal agendas. It is a revealing of the true female nature. Men have to accept that these creatures are way more sexual than we thought. When we lived in groups of 150 this was awesome. But if we live in groups of 150k with a govt, taxes etc....this is bad.

We blame feminism for female hypersexuality because it is too depressing to just admit that our sacred angels are very nasty sexual yet nurturing creatures.

 

[Bokanovsky]

2.) The book states that monogamy is not natural at all. This expectation of monogamy is a by product of civilization. In civilization accurate paternity identification is of the upmost importance because you have property to pass down. In tribal units you have nothing to pass down so paternity does not matter. Think Rick Grimes in the Walking Dead. He did not care that the baby was Seans baby. They were a small unit with no property.

I don't buy this, for several reasons.

First of all, if the sharing of intimate partners was the norm throughout history, then you wouldn't expect jealousy and mate-guarding to be common human traits. And yet, they very much are. The disgust that one experiences at the idea of some other dude fvcking his woman is such a visceral feeling that it can't be merely a product of social conditioning.

Second, the idea of mate sharing flies in the face of the evolutionary procreation imperative. If you don't care if the children are yours, what's the incentive to procreate in the first place?

Third, human beings are naturally selfish. Selfishness is NOT a product of civilization. On the contrary, civilization tries to impose artificial constraints to limit human selfishness. The kind fo sharing that you describe is not a natural fit with human nature.

 

[Pandora]

I don't buy this, for several reasons.

First of all, if the sharing of intimate partners was the norm throughout history, then you wouldn't expect jealousy and mate-guarding to be common human traits. And yet, they very much are. The disgust that one experiences at the idea of some other dude fvcking his woman is such a visceral feeling that it can't be merely a product of social conditioning.

Second, the idea of mate sharing flies in the face of the evolutionary procreation imperative. If you don't care if the children are yours, what's the incentive to procreate in the first place?

Third, human beings are naturally selfish. Selfishness is NOT a product of civilization. On the contrary, civilization tries to impose artificial constraints to limit human selfishness. The kind fo sharing that you describe is not a natural fit with human nature.

Hey man thanks for the counterpoints. Both sides have great counterpoints. Lemme address them in the way the proponents of the book would.

1.) Jealousy and mate guarding are actually not common. In tribal units ( that we can still observe today) they are very liberal with the females. Actually the females are very liberal with the men. They can sleep with who they want. Tribes view this as forming unit cohesion. Sharing is caring sort of thing. We are referring to foraging hunter gatherer units. We are not referring to tribal untis that use any form of agriculture.

2.) So evolutionary theory does not account for reciprocal altruism. When groups look out for each other then the genetics of the species survives. Darwinism is flawed. A small unit understands that the GROUP and not the individuals genetic code comes first. This is why soldiers will fall on a grenade for their buddies.

The more I learn the more I see the huge holes in this Darwinist/ Dawkin selfish gene theory. Humans cooperate as a rule and fight as an exception. Most wars are due to govts and not true human nature. In your own life how many fist fights do you get into? Very few.

3.) Human beings are not naturally selfish. They are also insanely cooperative when resources are abundant. In the natural world resources are free and abundant. Hunter gatherer societies were not malnourished at all. They had more than enough calories and had excesses of food ( for the most part).

It is when resources are artificially scarce that's when people act selfishly. Civilization leads to capitalism and govts. These institutions create scarcity in the markets. The books Civilized to Death and Tribe explain this better.

We mate guard because of civilization. We mate guard because we don't live in small bands of interdependent men. Mate guarding is for simps. The most RedPill men on earth ( pimps) don't mate guard at all. They know the true nature of the female.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

Read it years ago, it’s psychological bable, totally unproven bullshyte that tows the female imperative. It’s gouche and so badly written, referenced and so agenda driven it’s cliche.

 

[Pandora]

We are all cucks. Unless you got yourself an 18yr old virgin then you are a cuck. Even with the 18 yr old virgin she will eventually cuck you. This is the nature of the female. Trying to guard their sexuality is like trying to mop the beach. It's pointless.

It's because we pedastalize these females that we care if they fukk other men. Once you get rid of this socialization it frees you up. I am not there yet btw.

Paradoxically it's this indifference that makes them like you more. Do you think Leo DiCaprio mate guards? Hell naw. He moves on.

In college I would see girls get passed around. It was all gravy until one simp caught feelings and tried to lock her down.

You can't turn a hoe into a housewife because being a housewife is unnatural to begin with. The issue is not with female nature. The issue is with civilization. Civilization depends on marriage for it's very existence. Once we get rid of civilization we will be able to enjoy women the way they were supposed to be enjoyed.

 

[Pandora]

Read it years ago, it’s psychological bable, totally unproven bullshyte that tows the female imperative. It’s gouche and so badly written, referenced and so agenda driven it’s cliche.

But you can observe tribes today doing this. Pull up any documentary on tribal living and you see them NOT mate guarding. Even the European tribes were like this before they were taken over by the Roman Empire. So I'm not sure how direct video and anthropological evidence is babble. I am curious to know more specifically what is wrong with the central thesis.

 

[Pandora]

Read it years ago, it’s psychological bable, totally unproven bullshyte that tows the female imperative. It’s gouche and so badly written, referenced and so agenda driven it’s cliche.

And at the end of the book the FEMALE author has chapters devoted to why women should understand when their man cheats. This shocked me. It was a pleasant surprise. She explained it from a man's point of view. She was saying that women need to understand that male infidelity is not an indictment on the wive/gf. It's a natural part of a man having high testosterone etc. So no this is not a feminist book.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Hey man thanks for the counterpoints. Both sides have great counterpoints. Lemme address them in the way the proponents of the book would.

1.) Jealousy and mate guarding are actually not common. In tribal units ( that we can still observe today) they are very liberal with the females. Actually the females are very liberal with the men. They can sleep with who they want. Tribes view this as forming unit cohesion. Sharing is caring sort of thing. We are referring to foraging hunter gatherer units. We are not referring to tribal untis that use any form of agriculture.

2.) So evolutionary theory does not account for reciprocal altruism. When groups look out for each other then the genetics of the species survives. Darwinism is flawed. A small unit understands that the GROUP and not the individuals genetic code comes first. This is why soldiers will fall on a grenade for their buddies.

The more I learn the more I see the huge holes in this Darwinist/ Dawkin selfish gene theory. Humans cooperate as a rule and fight as an exception. Most wars are due to govts and not true human nature. In your own life how many fist fights do you get into? Very few.

3.) Human beings are not naturally selfish. They are also insanely cooperative when resources are abundant. In the natural world resources are free and abundant. Hunter gatherer societies were not malnourished at all. They had more than enough calories and had excesses of food ( for the most part).

It is when resources are artificially scarce that's when people act selfishly. Civilization leads to capitalism and govts. These institutions create scarcity in the markets. The books Civilized to Death and Tribe explain this better.

We mate guard because of civilization. We mate guard because we don't live in small bands of interdependent men. Mate guarding is for simps. The most RedPill men on earth ( pimps) don't mate guard at all. They know the true nature of the female.

1) Which specific tribes are you referring to? I don't think that you can generalize the experience of a few isolated, backward tribes and assume this is how all human societies functioned before the advent of civilization. For example, there are tribes that practice cannibalism. But it would be a stretch to suggest that cannibalism was, at any time, common human behaviour. By the same token, just because some group of weirdos on an isolated island like to share their women does not mean that this behaviour was previously widespread. There are reasons why those tribes are still struck in the stone age and this may be one of them...

2) Soldiers are subjected to extreme mental conditioning. The main purpose of military training is to break you down as an individual and turn you into a machine that would obey orders, and, if necessary, sacrifice itself without question. This type of self-sacrifice is most definitely not natural.

3) If cooperation was a natural human state, you would not be seeing breakdown of social order in the wake on natural disasters, wars, and other calamities. When civilizations collapse, cooperation goes out the window and it's everyone for himself. Thus, cooperation is a product of civilization.