Is Monogamy Unnatural?

[Curtis24]

Since the forum seems to be talking a lot about sex and gender lately, I thought this article might be interesting:


Is monogamy unnatural? Is the nuclear family bad for people's mental health? Can a child have more than one biological father? These are some of the provocative questions explored in the new book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, by research psychologist Christopher Ryan and his psychiatrist wife, Dr. Cacilda Jetha. The authors argue, among other things, that human beings have evolved to desire sexual novelty — and that the current cultural conventions of marriage and monogamy, while not wrong, come at a cost to well-being — which would help explain why so many couples have problems with infidelity. I spoke with Ryan recently:

Do you think that early humans were promiscuous, rather than monogamous or polygamous?

I think it looked like casual sexual [behavior], with overlapping simultaneous sexual relationships between different people who had known each other for most of their lives. This is the difficulty of using words like promiscuous. For us, promiscuous means random, cheap, shallow, but these people grew up with each other in most cases. There was some shifting between bands of [hunter-gatherers] but they certainly knew each other very well and depended on each other for everything from child protection to sharing food, for support of every kind. There was a very deep sense of intimacy. (More on Time.com: 5 Little-Known Truths About American Sex Lives)

But if humans have evolved to be more polygamous than monogamous, why do we also have jealousy? In various cultures, people become very unhappy when their romantic partners sleep with someone else.

Depending on the cultural context, jealousy can be a major or minor issue. It varies between individuals to a great extent. I think we're mistaken in generalizing our own sense of jealousy and assuming that what we see around us is an expression of human nature as opposed to perhaps something that is [just] part of human nature. [We all have] insecurity, fear of losing someone important — that's been amplified by a culture that encourages a very immature sense of romantic love.

Are you saying that early humans didn't fall in love — or pair-bond, as the researchers say — or didn't mind when someone they were in love with cheated?

It's like [with] jealousy. The pair-bond does appear to be an expression of some aspect of human nature but I think we make a mistake in assuming that the pair-bond included sexual exclusivity. I wouldn't use the word cheat because it is so loaded.

The fact that these are the words we choose says something about the cultural forces trying to shape our experiences. There certainly is evidence that human beings form very deep, loving, long-term, unique relationships, often between a male-female couple, but not always. (More on Time.com: Can an iPhone App Save Your Marriage?)

So you don't think early humans pair-bonded to raise children?

We're arguing that the pair-bond was not the basis of the family unit and was not, as has been hypothesized, an evolutionary adaptation for raising children.

You are basically agreeing, then, with anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, who claims that parenting requires more than two people and that early human children were raised by extended families and friends.

We're really challenging the whole notion of the traditional family being a mother, father and two kids. We agree with Sarah Hrdy that that's not the nucleus of human organization. The nucleus is a band-level society in which there are many adults taking care of many children. Love flows between all the adults.

The nuclear family is detrimental to both child development and parental mental health. It's too much. It's like wearing shoes that don't fit. Society can force you into [them] or you can force yourself and you're going to suffer.

Are you suggesting that people should not be monogamous?

What we're hoping is that the book will provoke people to reconsider their assumptions about the naturalness of long-term sexual monogamy. We're not encouraging people to abandon the notion of long-term sexual monogamy, we're just encouraging them to educate themselves and have a more realistic sense of what to expect if that's the path they choose.

This is not an indictment of monogamy. Choosing a lifetime of a monogamous union is like choosing to be a vegetarian. It's not necessarily a bad decision. It's very healthy — it's ethically wise, but that doesn't mean that bacon isn't going to smell good any more. (More on Time.com: The Roots of Empathy)

You wrote Sex at Dawn with your wife. I have to ask you, do you practice what you preach?

We have a stock answer for this. Our relationship is informed by our research but we don't discuss the particulars publicly.

Some would argue that people tried having open marriages in the 1970s and it didn't work out too well. There was a massive increase in the divorce rate.

We confront that in the book. First, where's the proof that it didn't work out so well? We don't know, because discretion is such an important part of intimacy. We don't know how many couples experimented and stayed together. We hear about the cases that don't work, but we don't really hear about the ones that did. Who is going to come out and say, "My wife and I were swingers for 20 years and I want to be your governor"? (More on Time.com: Is Altruism Sexy?)

Your book also discusses "partible paternity," a belief common to some South American hunter-gatherers that a child can actually have multiple fathers, that all the men a woman sleeps with play a role in fathering her child.

Yes, it's the notion that any individual child can have multiple fathers, in both the biological and the spiritual sense. [They believe that] the fetus is literally made of accumulated semen.

These cultures have names for the different fathers, things like: the "father who put it in, the "father who mixed it up," the "father who gave the child its essence." But how common is this idea really?

There are many different tribes down there who believe in it. And it's not just in the Amazon, it's found all over the world. It's an idea that has arisen [independently] all over the world.

And because the child is — the fetus is literally made of these men's semen — the woman who wants to have a child that combines the advantages of different fathers will have sex with the best hunter, the best looking [guy], the funniest, in order to get some essence of each of these men into her baby.

Where do you think this idea comes from?

It's another indication that sperm competition was present in human evolutionary times, that we evolved in the presence of sperm competition. There are so many indications of that, so many anatomical and behavioral [signs], it's just another nail in the coffin.

What other evidence is there for human sperm competition?

There's testis size and penis morphology and the fact that the testicles are outside the body rather than inside. (More on Time.com: Forget Pain Pills, Fall in Love Instead)

Um, how does size matter? Smaller size of male organs means less sperm competition?

[Yes.] A gorilla has a penis the size of a human pinky; its testicles are the size of kidney beans*. [Gorilla males have harems, and females in the harem do not have the opportunity to mate with other males.]

It always amazes me when people try to look for deep psychological explanations for why politicians cheat — as if biology has no influence at all.

Did you see the South Park episode with Tiger Woods? It also had Bill Clinton and Charlie Sheen — all the famous philanderers of recent American history. The underlying thesis of the episode was that they formed a commission in Washington to try to figure out what drives successful, powerful men to have sex with young women. [They proposed ridiculous explanations] like the Peter Pan complex or [that the men were] acting out of fear of their own homosexual urges. (More on Time.com: The Real Eliot Spitzer Question)

Do you think there are any models for a successful society that is centered less on the nuclear family or monogamy?

Every culture is sort of developing along its own path. One place to look would be Northern Europe. Marriage rates are very low, but the number of single-parent families is also low. There isn't this economic pressure [to stay together] because the government takes care of mothers and children, so people don't need to worry.

In the U.S., a single mother is thrown to the wolves, whereas in a more collectivist — dare I say, socialist — society, there isn't that pressure. People seem to be much more forgiving and the relationships seem to be more durable, even if they are not official marriages.

This is very much a political issue. It's really breaking down into American versus European notions of what society is. To what extent are we in this together? In America, it's become so fractured. People end up being so lonely. It really comes down to whether or not we are sharing our lives with enough people.

*Corrected: Original sentence said that gorillas testicles are near their kidneys; this is wrong: they are the size of kidney beans.


Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/02/mind-reading-do-humans-prefer-free-love-over-the-bonds-of-nuclear-family/#ixzz1MvVfSCFd

[Agrippa]

Well, today with approach serial monogamy rather, which is one of the worst options.

The normal case is a more loose form of monogamy and facultative polygyny (polygamy of males, access to mistresses etc.), the latter primarily for higher status males.

The rule was also, that there were more females than males in a growing, young population and that the partners, especially the females, died often early, while the pregnancy was early in the relationship.

Today there are many very long relationships which started pretty late, often after various sexual experiences of the females, with just a few or no pregnancy at all, that is essentially an unnatural condition which must cause more partnership problems, even more so since marriage is less fashionable and no longer as much of a "common household and economy" thing of mutual dependency going beyond the "hedonistic view on a sexual relationship".

In the past, especially since the Neolithic cultural revolution, the couples were always an economic and social unit too, it was more than just a sexual relationship, but a bond of trust often between whole clans and tribes, a situation of mutual dependency in daily life - on the workforce and capabilities of the other.

The situation in modern Liberalcapitalism with its pseudo-individualistic tendency and broken up social relationships can't be compared with that.

[Rosenrot]

It's not unnatural. There is some bird species that have one partner for a life-time, like the swans. I would say it's more cultural then natural.

[Aces High]

Do you think there are any models for a successful society that is centered less on the nuclear family or monogamy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris%27s_Hawk

[Agrippa]

Something which worked pretty well for so many people and individuals can't be - per definition - more "unnatural" than something which obviously doesn't work out socially and biologically, like the current pseudo-Individualist promiscuous variants...

[Talvi]

Some of the worlds most loved animals are actually monogamous (those who dont live in captivity) like wolves and foxes!

I also read once that the smaller balls the male of the species has, the more likely it is monogamous. Like Gorillas, chimps and humans. Gorillas have the biggest balls, so they are the most promiscuous, chimps have smaller ones than gorillas and have more rules in their sexual activities and humans have the smallest out of the three...

whether humans are meant to be monogamous or not, I dont know, but since there are monogamous animals, even if its a small minority, its not unnatural.

[Debaser11]

The question is a tainted one in terms of trying to understand sexuality in a way that is useful for human cultural development even if one actually does favor polygamy.


It's just an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy.

[Agrippa]

The question is a tainted one in terms of trying to understand sexuality in a way that is useful for human cultural development even if one actually does favor polygamy.


It's just an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy.

Natural can be viewed as "biologically successful" or at least "biologically sustainable" behaviour.

If a behaviour ruins a bloodline, the carrier acting that way, it is hardly natural, but a degeneration, especially if being at the same time detrimental for the whole population and species as well, because the sacrifice of the individual could be only justified by the benefit for a greater whole.

If it doesn't work out either way, it is a degeneration, as simple as that.

[Wyn]

I also read once that the smaller balls the male of the species has, the more likely it is monogamous. Like Gorillas, chimps and humans. Gorillas have the biggest balls, so they are the most promiscuous, chimps have smaller ones than gorillas and have more rules in their sexual activities and humans have the smallest out of the three...

Are you sure about this? I ask because I recall watching a documentary about sexuality/reproduction presented by a rather famous British scientist (I forget his name, some other members here might know who I'm talking about) in which he said that male gorillas have smaller genitals than male humans and that male humans have genitals disproportionately large relative to their body size.

[Debaser11]

Natural can be viewed as "biologically successful" or at least "biologically sustainable" behaviour.

Right, but that type of thinking is a whole several steps above the naturalistic appeal.

Indeed, we should examine nature to construct a sound culture. (That is why leftist policies always fail; they utterly ignore nature and what it is to be human while rejecting intuition and feeling (they ridcule it as "superstition" at times) in favor of robotic, inorganic self-styled "rationalism.") But there is a difference between taking a sort of quasi-Aristotolean approach to meld natural purpose and ethics (which elevates man beyond nature using nature) and doing what the lousey "flower power" generation did and just sink and degenerate to the lowest common denominator by adhering to the naturalistic fallacy.

To illustrate such differences in thought one might think of the act of sex itself; it is not bad because it is used to build families and perpetuate the species. However, from that it does not follow that the act of gay sex is right or healthy for individuals or society just because animals do it in addition to the other sexual act that we discerned to be beneficial and good. We just get hung up on the word "sex" itself (and find it to be pleasurable so we also rationalize having it and promoting it in unhealthy ways). So there is a sort of discerning and discrimination (a dirty word, these days) that must occur within our examination of nature. In other words, we must be able to make sense of nature and separate what is good, healthy, and desirable within it (in both the short term and long term) from what is simply "just a part of life."

This sort of gets talk gets us back to our previous exchange about teleological ethics in a way. But again, basing one's culture on such considerations is far more sophisticated than equating something with "good" because it is natural which the title of the article (perhaps inadvertantly) conditions one to do.

I'm sure you're aware of all of this. Just putting it out there for the record.


If a behaviour ruins a bloodline, the carrier acting that way, it is hardly natural,

Well, this is a more sophisticated view regarding the word "natural." This is why words are simply not enough. We need to examine the ideas such a word connotes within modern vernacular. Most people think in terms of the individual (which you seem to acknowledge). So when the article mentions "natural," people aren't thinking in terms of "natural goodness for the group," they're thinking like "animals get off to it so I should be able to as well" or in some similarly uncritical view of the word or idea for "natural." It's perverse.

[Talvi]

Are you sure about this? I ask because I recall watching a documentary about sexuality/reproduction presented by a rather famous British scientist (I forget his name, some other members here might know who I'm talking about) in which he said that male gorillas have smaller genitals than male humans and that male humans have genitals disproportionately large relative to their body size.

Ohhh yeah I messed up. You are right. I guess I really wanted the outcome to be whats best for myself... :P


... the size of the testicles is a reliable measure of the level of promiscuity across primate species.

The greater the promiscuity, the larger the testicles relative to body size.

For example, male gorillas have relatively small testicles and the female of the species is highly monogamous.

In contrast, chimpanzees are highly promiscuous and the males tend to have testicles that, in relative terms, are ten times the size of those of gorillas.

Human males are somewhere between chimps and gorillas.

This suggests that ancestral humans were not as promiscuous as chimpanzees - but neither were they entirely monogamous.

Dr Amin Gorgy, clinical director of the London Fertility Centre, said he was yet to be convinced by the concept of sperm competition.

However, he said other scientists believed that men produced two types of sperm - one to fertilise the egg, and another to fight off sperm from other males.

[Falkata]

I dont monogamy is natural in humans. Monogamy exists in the nature as well as homosexuality but both are more the exception rather than the rule.
As far as I know humans are "designed" to be with the same partner around 3 years (enough to raise the baby) and then look for a new partner and spread your genes as much as you can. After those 3 years the passionate and irrational love dissapears and what you feel after it´s different.
Monogamy is more the result of the human wish of stability rathern than a natural impulse

[Agrippa]

As far as I know humans are "designed" to be with the same partner around 3 years (enough to raise the baby) and then look for a new partner and spread your genes as much as you can. After those 3 years the passionate and irrational love dissapears and what you feel after it´s different.

First of all, it is about 7 years, because the 7 year old child can follow the group on its own and collect food for itself to a certain degree. Both means it needs less attention and can already survive better on its own or with little care, than before.

And the usual thing was, that the women got pregnant within this 7year time span, so the phase didn't really stop. Additionally, the other factors have to be considered, especially since the Neolithic culture emerged, but also before, but not everywhere to the same degree.

F.e. in tropical regions women could often raise children easier on their own, than in temperate and cold areas or deserts, where males have to care for the females, at least in certain phases of the year, especially in winter and during their pregnancies.

This is one of the reasons why Eurasians are more intelligent and Eurasian racial forms had usually a higher degree of sexual selection. The females had to compete more for the male care and without it, they were lost. The same wasn't true, to the same degree, everywhere.

Also one has to distinguish between males and females. Males have a much bigger advantage from more female partners than women from more male ones. That's a simple calculation leading to polygyny being, if it was possible, always an option for males, but polyandry an exception and rather some sort of birth regulation than a mode for an expansion.


Monogamy is more the result of the human wish of stability rathern than a natural impulse

It was, for many, the best option and a necessity. People today often don't understand how much they depended on each other in life - one couldn't have made it without the other, it was just much more than just having parties and sex, talking and having fun or something like that.

It was the basic social and economic unity - Romanticism of the modern, especially "Hollywoodesque" kind was known, but of much lower importance in most relationships.

[Blossom]

Monogamy (for humans) its cute. I know its not the right word to describe it but I think its pretty sweet when a pair decides to give it a try. I know someone who did so...and I also know that someone's opposite. I may say both couples, now, are happy together, though one of the couples havent been that monogamous at first, before they married, as many of couples in our actual society.

I dont believe in boredom once you really love your pair. I think that's when you'll figure out if you love or not someone for real. Boredom exists with those ones who you just consider friends with benefits or...a temporal relationship, but not with a person you've tried to get no matter what, with someone you wanted to have no matter what, someone you needed to be yours and...that kind of person you fighted to finally get him/her.

Its about the couple ofc, society, education...most conservative females would prefer monogamy, since they believe in marriage at once, one and only relationship, etc. Its also a way to believe in old stories, a kinda flashback to Romanticism, prince and princess love stories. I know this is probably a weird way to see actual relationships but many disappointments in actual relationships are because females are not satisfied with male's attention, sweetness, details...many of the females still believe in a fairytale love.



And a fairytale love is always tied up with monogamy, innocent love, pure love, first and last love during a lifetime. I'm doing a little psychoanalysis here, excuse me, or maybe its just an interpretation of desires we all got under, subconscious.

I personally think monogamy its fine, natural and sweet once you got the right person. It would be a waste of time, feelings, to try your best, give all your bests and...finally find out the other is breaking the rules.

So I believe in monogamy, but firstly I'd need to believe in my own relationship. Then, why not? In fact, if you want him to be the father of your kids, you want him around you for a long long time..(not saying forever cuz its may be too cheesy).

[Falkata]

Romantic love 'lasts just a year'

The raised levels of the protein tailed off after a year or so
Some couples may disagree, but romantic love lasts little more than a year, Italian scientists believe.
The University of Pavia found a brain chemical was likely to be responsible for the first flush of love.

Researchers said raised levels of a protein was linked to feelings of euphoria and dependence experienced at the start of a relationship.

But after studying people in long and short relationships and single people, they found the levels receded in time.

The team analysed alterations in proteins known as neurotrophins in the bloodstreams of men and women aged 18 to 31, the Psychoneuroendocrinology journal reported.

The love became more stable. Romantic love seemed to have ended

Piergluigi Politi

They looked at 58 people who had recently started a relationship and compared the protein levels in the same number of people in long-term relationships and single people.

In those who had just started a relationship, levels of a protein called nerve growth factors, which causes tell-tale signs such as sweaty palms and the butterflies, were significantly higher.

Of the 39 people who were still in the same new relationship after a year, the levels of NGF had been reduced to normal levels.

Report co-author Piergluigi Politi said the findings did not mean people were no longer in love, just that it was not such an "acute love".

Stable

"The love became more stable. Romantic love seemed to have ended."

And he added the report suggested the change in love was down to NGF.

"Our current knowledge of the neurobiology of romantic love remains scanty.

"But it seems from this study biochemical mechanisms could be involved in the mood changes that occur from the early stage of love to when the relationship becomes more established."

However, he said further research was needed.

Dr Lance Workman, head of psychology at Bath Spa University, said: "Research has suggested that romantic love fades after a few years and becomes companionate love and it seems certain biological factors play a role.

"But while we are a pair-bonding species, there is some doubt over whether this is within monogamous relationships or not.

"Different societies have different practices and trends."


Careful negros in the photo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4478040.stm

[Agrippa]

The first "flush of love" makes people irrational and actually, if living a whole life that way, you are rather "impaired".

I wouldn't even say it must last a year actually.

It is just a phase to bring people together, make them ready to sacrifices and open for engagement, the rest would follow, in practically all traditional societies - or an early break would come.

But latest with the first pregnancy, a decisive phase would have come, usually within a year, that is the time needed for an average couple to get pregnant.

After that, it is "family planning time" - unless the male leaves the female, which is something the female would try to prevent from the start, once being ready to be impregnated. So at the start the male has more to sacrifice, to win the female for a sexual relationship, after that, the roles change in traditional societies and the female has to fight for her male, to keep him throughout the time.

Again, in all progressive races the latter being stronger than in tropical races, leading to a stronger tendency of female faithfulness (Negrid < Europid < Mongolid) in particular and faithfulness, monogamy in general, as well as much stronger female sexual selection. Because the females left alone had much worse chances for bringing their high investment - the offspring - through, than in the tropical area, where gathering was an option throughout the year.

Also the dependency of other group members rose, since the pregnant female was not just dependent from her male, but also from the rest of the group, especially the other women.

This leads to more social adaptation, again the rule is Negrid < Europid < Mongolid.

Fact is, one has to put things into the natural context which was true in most periods of human biological history, rather than spoiling things with comparisons to the modern world.

[mymy]

So I believe in monogamy, but firstly I'd need to believe in my own relationship. Then, why not? In fact, if you want him to be the father of your kids, you want him around you for a long long time..(not saying forever cuz its may be too cheesy).[/B]

Agree in most of things.

But then, i'm bothered by one thing. Is there any spiritual understanding, soul connection, total belonging on inner level possible or it's all illusion. What makes us believe in relation? Just hormones and brains or there is "voice of soul" too? Watching people around, and also my previous relations, it was all somehow empty... like it's okay, buy something is missing. I have feeling that most of people don't believe in it or don't think about it. Same for sex, is it only pleasure and way to create new life, of it has higher purpose(after all tantric sex exist too). Maybe i'm just making things difficult...

[Talvi]

Romantic love 'lasts just a year'



I could go much, much longer than that!

[Blossom]

Agree in most of things.

But then, i'm bothered by one thing. Is there any spiritual understanding, soul connection, total belonging on inner level possible or it's all illusion. What makes us believe in relation? Just hormones and brains or there is "voice of soul" too? Watching people around, and also my previous relations, it was all somehow empty... like it's okay, buy something is missing. I have feeling that most of people don't believe in it or don't think about it. Same for sex, is it only pleasure and way to create new life, of it has higher purpose(after all tantric sex exist too). Maybe i'm just making things difficult...

Well, I know what's your point but...you see..we got 1 lifetime to spend, and if your hormones tell you to move with this one guy, have his children, get into monogamy (or not), and just stay as that as much as you'd want to,..I think I would do. No matter what if love exists as a concept or as a substance. If I'd think that love's just about hormones, I'd probably stay forever alone (trollface yeah) during all my life..and that's senseless. We're humans, made to connect to each other no matter what, with love or hate, we need to do it somehow.

So I will choose, whatever way.:) It's human nature. As monogamy, its just about the couple. I wouldnt insist monogamy with someone who wouldnt be as insistent as me, ofc, cuz that would mean he's not into this...and I'll give my best while he'll be not. But indeed, I think its a cute way to be conservative, loyal, and respectful to your children's father/mother.

So I just want to forget about those hormones, just enjoy life, as we want/need to...getting things to better with those hormones or not. Hormones give us children and children give us future...and future give us time...that's the best about it.

[Agrippa]

Even our consciousness is in a way an illusion created by our brain to keep us stable and functioning, without having to deal with constant stimuli which would be too much to deal with it consciously and other advantages, some of which even unknown to this point.

But in the end, reducing things to what's essential, we come back to this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44ev6Q8AhCw/SRvMsD02F0I/AAAAAAAADDI/AYziy1y4dk8/s400/Eat,+Survive,+Reproduce.jpg

Because no matter what else you do, if you miss this, you die - you personally and/or your germline.

[Sabinae]

Agree in most of things.

But then, i'm bothered by one thing. Is there any spiritual understanding, soul connection, total belonging on inner level possible or it's all illusion. What makes us believe in relation? Just hormones and brains or there is "voice of soul" too? Watching people around, and also my previous relations, it was all somehow empty... like it's okay, buy something is missing. I have feeling that most of people don't believe in it or don't think about it. Same for sex, is it only pleasure and way to create new life, of it has higher purpose(after all tantric sex exist too). Maybe i'm just making things difficult...

My my, you speak my heart. I do believe in a higher connection, but... I must be living in fantazies...or maybe im just too dreamy:)
Hope I dont wake up too late though.

[mymy]

My my, you speak my heart. I do believe in a higher connection, but... I must be living in fantazies...or maybe im just too dreamy:)
Hope I dont wake up too late though.

Uhh... I think i would really get disappointed if someone ruin my illusion or how to call it. :confused:
But I don't know how to run away from this fairytale what my mind created because i live in fairytale all my life. I think it is also reason because I never did anything on way people expected from me.
Unfortunately, it seem to be that life is little different than i'm imagining it. :(

Thinking about monogamy again, I think i'm quite monogamous, and I would even be able to ignore and forgive cheating to future partner in order that he gives me what i dream about. :confused:

[Blossom]

Uhh... I think i would really get disappointed if someone ruin my illusion or how to call it. :confused:
But I don't know how to run away from this fairytale what my mind created because i live in fairytale all my life. I think it is also reason because I never did anything on way people expected from me.
Unfortunately, it seem to be that life is little different than i'm imagining it. :(

Walt Disney got his evil tails here. Haha, ok its half joke, but half truth. We've been raised with fairytales, we're trying to transform our life into a fairytale, searching for the perfect prince, as sensitive beings females are..
As I said before, its just subconscious. But it does exist.

All's about make a balance and...choose the right things you consider right. So about the monogamy.

[Cato]

Let's see what Tacitus has to say about the marital behaviorisms of the ancient Germanic tribes:


The matrimonial bond is, nevertheless, strict and severe among them; nor is there anything in their manners more commendable than this. Almost singly among the barbarians, they content themselves with one wife; a very few of them excepted, who, not through incontinence, but because their alliance is solicited on account of their rank, practise polygamy. The wife does not bring a dowry to her husband, but receives one from him. The parents and relations assemble, and pass their approbation on the presents -- presents not adapted to please a female taste, or decorate the bride; but oxen, a caparisoned steed, a shield, spear, and sword. By virtue of these, the wife is espoused; and she in her turn makes a present of some arms to her husband. This they consider as the firmest bond of union; these, the sacred mysteries, the conjugal deities. That the woman may not think herself excused from exertions of fortitude, or exempt from the casualties of war, she is admonished by the very ceremonial of her marriage, that she comes to her husband as a partner in toils and dangers; to suffer and to dare equally with him, in peace and in war: this is indicated by the yoked oxen, the harnessed steed, the offered arms. Thus she is to live; thus to die. She receives what she is to return inviolate and honored to her children; what her daughters-in-law are to receive, and again transmit to her grandchildren.

They live, therefore, fenced around with chastity; corrupted by no seductive spectacles, no convivial incitements. Men and women are alike unacquainted with clandestine correspondence. Adultery is extremely rare among so numerous a people. Its punishment is instant, and at the pleasure of the husband. He cuts off the hair of the offender, strips her, and in presence of her relations expels her from his house, and pursues her with stripes through the whole village. Nor is any indulgence shown to a prostitute. Neither beauty, youth, nor riches can procure her a husband: for none there looks on vice with a smile, or calls mutual seduction the way of the world. Still more exemplary is the practice of those states in which none but virgins marry, and the expectations and wishes of a wife are at once brought to a period. Thus, they take one husband as one body and one life; that no thought, no desire, may extend beyond him; and he may be loved not only as their husband, but as their marriage. To limit the increase of children, or put to death any of the later progeny is accounted infamous: and good habits have there more influence than good laws elsewhere.

O RLY?!

[Falkata]

In my opinion I think that we want to believe that love is something more than chemical reactions and electric impulses produced by our neurons. Humans want a "deeper" explanation for things like death, love... to give some sense to our lifes. Nobody wants to live like a machine programmed to do certain things during his life, spread his DNA and then dissapear forever. In the Middle Ages they thought that love was a feeling produced by the heart (literally, the organ) so go figure

[Cato]

The Stoics considered a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman to be the highest of all human relationships, being one part love and one part friendship (both of which the Stoics admired very highly).

[Agrippa]

In my opinion I think that we want to believe that love is something more than chemical reactions and electric impulses produced by our neurons. Humans want a "deeper" explanation for things like death, love... to give some sense to our lifes. Nobody wants to live like a machine programmed to do certain things during his life, spread his DNA and then dissapear forever. In the Middle Ages they thought that love was a feeling produced by the heart (literally, the organ) so go figure

What humans want and how life really is, might be, in many cases, two completely different things.

I don't like that fact neither, but I just think it is dangerous and counterproductive to ignore it, because the only way to really better things is to deal with the facts as they are, rather than making something up which just distracts from necessary actions.

[Ugo Tognazzi]

Couple of years ago i went to see a lecture by an Italian etologist, prof. Camperio Ciani.
He observed how polygamy ( divided in poliandry and poliginy) was typical of specific economical and social situation (Poliginy being practiced mainly by nomad herders) on the contrary Monogamy was more tipical of farmer and urban societies. he argued that 1 wife was enough for a man in these socio-economic conditions.

I've got Jared Diamond's ''the third chimpanzee'' i haven't started yet but i think that it might discuss this subject as well.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I believe 100% in monogamy. It's totally natural.


But then, i'm bothered by one thing. Is there any spiritual understanding, soul connection, total belonging on inner level possible or it's all illusion. What makes us believe in relation?
It's not an illusion- it's a natural sense, let me explain,

First, let me show this quote...

"virtue is not absence of vice or the avoidance of moral dangers; virtue is a vivid and separate thing like pain or a particular smell”- G.K. Chesterton.
^This quote means that our conscious is one of our natural senses, it is a natural feeling.

The part of the brain that gives morality has been scientifically found- It's the conscious mind. Love is rooted in morality which is a 6th sense that we all feel as morality similar to taste touch or smell, some feel it stronger than others. This morality is where the root of the idea of monogamy exists- a long term bond to one partner out of respect for him/her, honor for your parents, future children etc.
(except sociopaths who have no morality because they lack a conscious mind which is about 5% of people- read the book "sociopath next door"- if you're interested in how diverse minds can actually think and how morality is a sense we can feel talked about by a Harvard doctor).

A natural sense is not an illusion. Morality, taste, touch, smell, sight are all real senses. This is crystal clear.


"Minds differ more than faces"- Voltiare
^You just need to find people who think like you do and can feel this deep spiritual connection between partners too. Lots of men can feel it- I promise you. Just look for them (and make sure you marry the right person- the feeling is powerful so you'll know it when you feel it).

I believe in that spiritual understanding, soul connection, total belonging too. This is something that I've felt extremely strong my entire life and many of my friends aren't able to feel this feeling as strong as me actually.

I place honor and life long love as the highest spiritual bond- something sacred that should never be tarnished. :thumb001:

Monogamy for LIFE!:)

(and yay I get no thanks- posted a long post correcting peoples mistaken ideas about something as large as morality not being an illusion but a sense using a Harvard scientists book for proof and nobody cares to read my amazing post.... maybe pepole don't have patience- whatever lol.)

[heathen_son]

Let's see what Tacitus has to say about the marital behaviorisms of the ancient Germanic tribes:

Is Tacitus projecting the antithesis of faults he saw in Roman society onto the Germanic people?

[Winterwolf]

Is Tacitus projecting the antithesis of faults he saw in Roman society onto the Germanic people?

Unfortunately that's correct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it’s not a question of monogamy being natural or unnatural. After all both exist in nature and there are certain reasons why our biological preset makes us promiscuous and all serve more less the survival of the species.

Males are programmed to fertilize as many females as possible to spread the genes, while females aim to seduce as many males as possible so that she may choose the best of all and enables the survival of the bearer of the fittest genes. The “Milkman’s child” does also serve the survival, because where the kids of the husband might fail, the child bearing the genes of the lover might survive.

So far for biology, but things are more complex especially on the psychological and sociological level.

Women and men cheat for various psychological reasons like lack of intimacy in the current relationship, feeling of being neglected/underappreciated, desire for romance and companionship, self-esteem, revenge for past wrongs, more security, and, of course, sexual boredom.

Adultery is natural and a reality of society, but it may not be desired in a sociological sense. As a matter of fact most often marriages result in divorce. There is also cultural pressure to be polygamous.
But polygamy undermines set bonds and often leads to bastard children. Being a single mother still has got severe consequences within society, because the risk of poverty rises significantly. It’s also hard to be a good mother in such circumstances, after all who educates and cares for the child while having a full time job? The other option living from social welfare destroys the exemplary function of the single mother for her child.
Statistically the risk to become poor is extraordinarily high as single mother and with poverty come a bunch of other social problems like the production of negative role models, decline of values, lack of education, dependency on social welfare and so on.
Children learn by imitation, so they most often find themselves in likewise circumstances as adults. All of this isn’t desired from a sociological perspective.

Personally I support polygamy in one’s youth. It’s a “necessary” experience, improves your confidence and social skills.
When mature enough you should seek a serious relationship and be loyal to your partner. If you break your horns in your youth, it’s more likely that you’re mature enough later on to withstand temptations and won’t suffer from the feeling to miss something out in a long-time relationship.
I think affect controlling is a very much underestimated skill, for it keeps you on track and brings you farer in life. The lack of affect control is dominant around lower classes and one of the reasons, why they are less successful in society for they will rather seek some short-lived pleasure than working hard for a goal, which might improve their overall situation.

One night stands don’t make you luckier/gladder in the end and the rush associated with a new conquest and new sex, wears off quickly. More importantly you miss out any deeper human feelings and all the caring for each other of a monogamous, stable long-term relationship.

It may be hard sometimes to keep a long time relationship alive, but it’s worth it. Being together with my gf a couple of years now, I have a deal with her that solely flirting is allowed. It prevents the relationship from obdormination and may provide the extra something, when you realise that your partner is still attractive and “valuable” on the single market.
If the relationship broke for whatever reason, I’d become promiscuous again for some time until I’d seek another serious relationship.

So I support both monogamy and polygamy, but the latter only as transition.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Males are programmed to fertilize as many females as possible to spread the genes, while females aim to seduce as many males as possible so that she may choose the best of all and enables the survival of the bearer of the fittest genes.
We are not animals. We have conscious minds that have honor and respect for our family and our future wife and children. Acting in this way dishonors your personal values. Morality is a sense that you should strongly feel.



Adultery is natural and a reality of society, but it may not be desired in a sociological sense.
Adultry is not natural. It completely dishonors your wife- how is totally dishonoring the most important person in your life "natural".


As a matter if fact most often marriages result in divorce.
Who cares. Most people are stupid.


Personally I support polygamy in one’s youth. It’s a “necessary” experience, improves your confidence and social skills.
Ridiculous. You can gain the same confidence by simply going out and talking to lots of girls and having a girl friend every now and then. Why does actually having sex make much of a difference comapred to that? I don't think it makes much difference in ones development socially and in confidence.


When mature enough you should seek a serious relationship and be loyal to your partner. If you break your horns in your youth, it’s more likely that you’re mature enough later on to withstand temptations and won’t suffer from the feeling to miss something out in a long-time relationship.
So if I were to have sex with lots of girls right now while I'm single then that means that when I get married later on in life that I'm less likely to cheat? Ridiculous argument. There is no connection between the two events.


If the relationship broke for whatever reason, I’d become promiscuous again for some time until I’d seek another serious relationship.
Great to know your moral values. What do your parents/siblings think about your plan? If you do go single again, and when you talk to your wife about past relationships are you going to enjoy saying "Well I just got out of a really intense relationship so I messed around with about 5-6 other girls the past few months. No big deal I was just messing around." - That is totally ridiculous.


So I support both monogamy and polygamy, but the latter only as transition.
Ha! I think you're crazy.

[Winterwolf]

We are not animals. We have conscious minds that have honor and respect for our family and our future wife and children. Acting in this way dishonors your personal values. Morality is a sense that you should strongly feel.

Morality has nothing to do with biology. I was lecturing what biologists think about polygamy and monogamy.
Read my post properly, please.


Adultry is not natural. It completely dishonors your wife- how is totally dishonoring the most important person in your life "natural".

Yes, it is natural; it happened and happens frequently in human society and even among animals. You can't say it's unnatural, when it's pretty much a well documented and proven fact.


Who cares. Most people are stupid.

Yeah, right and others close their eyes before reality.



Ridiculous. You can gain the same confidence by simply going out and talking to lots of girls and having a girl friend every now and then. Why does actually having sex make much of a difference comapred to that? I don't think it makes much difference in ones development socially and in confidence.

No, it's not the same, because even if girls find you "nice" (while "nice" is the little sister of "shit") and feel comfortable around you, it doesn't mean they feel sexually attracted to you or would engage in a relationship with you.


So if I were to have sex with lots of girls right now while I'm single then that means that when I get married later on in life that I'm less likely to cheat? Ridiculous argument. There is no connection between the two events.

It's not a ridiculous argument, because it's empirical. Males who cheat, usually have a background of insecurity and lacked sexual partners in their youth. This experience bruised their ego, so they try to catch up as adults.


Great to know your moral values. What do your parents/siblings think about your plan? If you do go single again, and when you talk to your wife about past relationships are you going to enjoy saying "Well I just got out of a really intense relationship so I messed around with about 5-6 other girls the past few months. No big deal I was just messing around." - That is totally ridiculous.

Ha! I think you're crazy.

Why so pissed? My moral codex isn’t at disposition here and I wonder what is it to you anyway?
I wouldn't have any problems with telling a woman, with which I’d like to have a serious relationship, about my past, if asked. I wouldn't let her in on it, but at some point such a question most of the times comes up and I'd answer it honestly.
I’ve always been open and straightforward and don’t play games. There is nothing to it anyway to admit that you had different sexual partners in your past.

I don't know what your problem is, because I support monogamy, I just said at some stage of life polygamy is acceptable.

You think I'm crazy? Well, I think you're either prude or you've got some personal problem.

[Oreka Bailoak]

No, it's not the same, because even if girls find you "nice" (while "nice" is the little sister of "shit") and feel comfortable around you, it doesn't mean they feel sexually attracted to you or would engage in a relationship with you.

That's why in my post I said be in relationship(s) with other girls.


It's not a ridiculous argument, because it's empirical. Males who cheat, usually have a background of insecurity and lacked sexual partners in their youth. This experience bruised their ego, so they try to catch up as adults.

Where's this scientific study that says that I'm more likely to cheat on my wife than you are because you were open to polygamy as a young adult and I wasn't. Ha! You're nuts.


You think I'm crazy? Well, I think you're either prude or you've got some personal problem.
You just got done saying polygamy is a good idea for young single men. That is completely crazy.

[Agrippa]

I think it’s not a question of monogamy being natural or unnatural. After all both exist in nature and there are certain reasons why our biological preset makes us promiscuous and all serve more less the survival of the species.

Males are programmed to fertilize as many females as possible to spread the genes, while females aim to seduce as many males as possible so that she may choose the best of all and enables the survival of the bearer of the fittest genes. The “Milkman’s child” does also serve the survival, because where the kids of the husband might fail, the child bearing the genes of the lover might survive.

So far for biology, but things are more complex especially on the psychological and sociological level.

No, that's not all. Because a male might have a perfect wife, still it makes perfect sense for him to have offspring with other females, because this multiplies his seed, while it doesn't change anything for his "primarily children" with the "perfect wife".

A male therefore doesn't need to be that dissatisfied with his wife, he just needs to have chances and temptations.

Females on the other hand, as a rule of thumb, are more fixated on a male, unless they are in the "bitch mode", which I explained in other threads, is a combination of genetic and early environmental factors leading to a women which will always try multiply support from various males, usually being a bad mother, but good for a mistress or whore in society.

Normal females however cheat on their males primarily when they are dissatisfied or the potential male for the adultery seems to be genetically superiour to the husband or partner.

So there is a fundamental difference in cheating of males and females, because if the male does it, he just does it, it might mean something, or it might mean nothing, it doesn't devaluate the wife, it doesn't threaten her and the children, unless he got a STD or leaves his wife and children.

A female on the other hand always makes a decision not just for another partner, like the male, but AGAINST HER EXISTING PARTNER, and what she does threatens the male partner VITALLY!

So it was always logical to punish female adultery much harder, not just because society was patriarchal, which is the more successful form of organisation on almost all levels, but also because it is fair. Because the cheating wife might actually completely ruin the bloodline of the male, she steals his life and efforts, while the cheating male doesn't, as long as doesn't leave the wife and still cares for her and the children.

Obviously, competiton between females for ressources and good genes is there, too, but it is not as hard as long as the survival is secured, whereas it is always a life or death question for the male, if his wife is cheating on him.
Therefore the punishment for the cheating wife was a life/death question also in many cultures and law systems...


Women and men cheat for various psychological reasons like lack of intimacy in the current relationship, feeling of being neglected/underappreciated, desire for romance and companionship, self-esteem, revenge for past wrongs, more security, and, of course, sexual boredom.

Most of that is, however, rather superficial. Looking behind that, you always come back to what I said before.

If males don't cheat, it is primarily because they agreed on a golden cage, because they don't want to lose the primary wife or fear other kinds of punishment - or simply don't want to hurt their love, so they suppress their desire for the partner. But even if all those and other reasons prevent them from approaching other females, their natural desire is always to have sex with more women, any male which doesn't has that, at least subconsciously, is abnormal.

On the other hand, females have much stronger bonds and control mechanisms, if excluding the "bitch mode variants". Their advantage from having sex with many males is extremely low - since it can be a failure socially and for their health (STD's are even more dangerous for women and punishment was the rule in most societies), it is even detrimental, unless they change completely to the "bitch mode", which makes them outcastes largely, limited to a certain way of life.

The females can only really profit, under normal circumstances, from cheating if their current husband is low level or the other partner is very high level, again, I must stress that, it is always a decision AGAINST THE MALE, while the same must not be the case for men, they can perfectly love their women and still have sex with others...

The profit from additional variation is also pretty low in comparison, especially if their male is high level. Their investment is just to pricy for doing unnecessary risks usually - unless they are more risky females which exploit the desires of various males = "bitch mode".

For the rest:


Adultery is natural and a reality of society, but it may not be desired in a sociological sense. As a matter of fact most often marriages result in divorce. There is also cultural pressure to be polygamous.
But polygamy undermines set bonds and often leads to bastard children. Being a single mother still has got severe consequences within society, because the risk of poverty rises significantly. It’s also hard to be a good mother in such circumstances, after all who educates and cares for the child while having a full time job? The other option living from social welfare destroys the exemplary function of the single mother for her child.
Statistically the risk to become poor is extraordinarily high as single mother and with poverty come a bunch of other social problems like the production of negative role models, decline of values, lack of education, dependency on social welfare and so on.
Children learn by imitation, so they most often find themselves in likewise circumstances as adults. All of this isn’t desired from a sociological perspective.

Personally I support polygamy in one’s youth. It’s a “necessary” experience, improves your confidence and social skills.
When mature enough you should seek a serious relationship and be loyal to your partner. If you break your horns in your youth, it’s more likely that you’re mature enough later on to withstand temptations and won’t suffer from the feeling to miss something out in a long-time relationship.
I think affect controlling is a very much underestimated skill, for it keeps you on track and brings you farer in life. The lack of affect control is dominant around lower classes and one of the reasons, why they are less successful in society for they will rather seek some short-lived pleasure than working hard for a goal, which might improve their overall situation.

One night stands don’t make you luckier/gladder in the end and the rush associated with a new conquest and new sex, wears off quickly. More importantly you miss out any deeper human feelings and all the caring for each other of a monogamous, stable long-term relationship.

It may be hard sometimes to keep a long time relationship alive, but it’s worth it. Being together with my gf a couple of years now, I have a deal with her that solely flirting is allowed. It prevents the relationship from obdormination and may provide the extra something, when you realise that your partner is still attractive and “valuable” on the single market.
If the relationship broke for whatever reason, I’d become promiscuous again for some time until I’d seek another serious relationship.

So I support both monogamy and polygamy, but the latter only as transition

You completely missed the point, because you confused promiscuity with polygamy, both are completely different things.

Promiscuous behaviour is what we have now, with a fluent border to "serial monogamy", which is almost as bad.

Polygamy however doesn't mean everybody can "fuck around like he or she wants", but that there are more than two people in a marriage, in a more or less fix relationship protected and legitimated by law and custom.

So if a male has 2 or more women, like most chiefs of almost all societies had, this doesn't mean he "makes experiences and then changes to monogamy", but that he has to care for these two women and their offspring his whole life, unless there is some kind of divorce.

-gamies always mean a liability, whether you become married to one, two or 50 women.

That is therefore completely different from promiscuous behaviour, where you have changing SEXUAL PARTNERS without too much other commitments at all. In the extreme "one night stand version", people don't even know each other really, don't care and just have sex without any other considerations.

So if you mean that with early experience in the youth, you can't name that "polygamy", because it isn't.

Or do you marry all the "one night stands", control their sexual behaviour, protect them from other males and care for their children afterwards?

Marriage to one or more partners is still marriage and not the same as promiscuous behaviour.

It is the natural desire of males, but was the privilege of the higher status ones in the past in most societies, especially those North of a certain latitude.

That was also part of the higher selection, because only high status males had more often more females than one, with an even stricter selection, again, than in the tropical areas, where, like explained otherwise, the females could often survive by gathering much easier throughout the year, even without too much of a male help.

Simple put, North of a certain latitude, survival was harder and keeping more than one women more expensive and an even greater privilege for the male elite.

[Peasant]

I think monogamy, polygamy and promiscuity are all natural to humans. I don't think genetically everyones 'wired' the same in these regards. I think cultural factors will also pressure people to treat sexual relationships in certain ways.

I've never really read much about such things though.

[Agrippa]

I think monogamy, polygamy and promiscuity are all natural to humans. I don't think genetically everyones 'wired' the same in these regards. I think cultural factors will also pressure people to treat sexual relationships in certain ways.

I've never really read much about such things though.

Winterwolf was right insofar, as for males acting more promiscuous is more normal and on-line in young age, since then they can test out, make experiences for later relationships and create the first offspring with low investment.

Later in life, when they are more settled down and have the ressources to keep up a household, approaching monogamy or polygamy makes more sense, since then they must look for the "secure success", which means to have a grab and the control over the female sexual partners. In the end, that is what marriage is about, control over the partner - the male has the guarantee for fidelity, her work force and fertility, the female for his protection, ressources and fertility as well.

Obviously, for that to work, the male must always have the exclusive right for sexual intercourse and the female fertility, or share only with related males, which is the rule in polyandry.

Young males are more risk taking, must prove themselves, can use many options and are less likely to have the status to settle down on a higher level.

For females the same isn't true, again a reason why often settled, successful, proven males married young, fertile and idealistic women. Let's say about 17-23 female vs. 25-35 of the male.

If you think it through and think about how life was most of the time, this makes sense for a traditional cultural environment.

The males had to prove themselves in society, before they had, they could use every chance for sex for making "a lucky punch".

You can see that in other primates already, with young, lower status males taking every chance for sexual intercourse, once the alpha male is looking away, since they must exploit every situation and can't know whether they will EVER MAKE IT SO FAR. Because not every male makes it up to the alpha male and many don't survive the young age, they might die of diseases, accidents, in war, of hunger - who knows, there were so many ways to die young in the past. So if our male ancestors wouldn't have used every chance they got, they were a failure.

But if the males reached a certain level, they could go the secure way, taking a wife and having the control over her. This is traditional marriage and it was often a privilege, for which a male had to fight and work for quite some time...

Often, in modern couples, with 19 the males don't want kids, but with 30 they want. Many females dream of kids early, but become more frustrated and difficult later, even deeper in "career orientation" and other things.

Females are not "made" to be childless so long, thier later phase is already less idealistic and loving often, but more of a planner and their brain becomes even more "masculine" in certain respects in a lifetime.

Similarly, young males are the greatest risk takers and careless, they have the highest sex drive and go for adventures to prove themselves, while having much less to lose and are materially worse off.

Obviously this is, often, a mismatch at the same age.

The only way you can solve that for monogamy is, that males have no access to females out of marriage at all, so they have to be glad, even as young ones, to get just one for sex.

That is a golden cage and the typical match would be that of the older, proven and settled male with the younger woman, but it can work as well and did so, more or less, with the other tendencies being present of course, for quite some time.

If it is like today, with promiscuous behaviour and serial monogamy throughout life, you have definitely the worst option for a stable family structure and more healthy offspring. Worse both than monogamy and polygamy...

[Winterwolf]

you confused promiscuity with polygamy, both are completely different things.

I think all the confusion goes down to this. I used the terms polygamy and promiscuity as synonym, which is wrong.

I support promiscuity in certain stages of life and not polygamy (having several women at the same time) for the above mentioned reasons in my posts.



If it is like today, with promiscuous behaviour and serial monogamy throughout life, you have definitely the worst option for a stable family structure and more healthy offspring. Worse both than monogamy and polygamy...

I don't think so. You see it solely through a biological perspective, to which I agree for most parts, but I see it more through a sociological one, which is more adjusted to our times.

Promiscuous periods in life, especially in your youth, don't hurt your ability to create a stable and financial sound family later on. At least as a male and it improves your social skills.

When you find the right partner in the end of your twenties or early thirties you will most likely have the resources to start a family and you will hopefully be mature enough to choose the right partner for a long-term if not livelong relationship. There is no guarantee that this relationship won't break of course, but you can still start anew and still care for your children with your first wife.

I also don’t see how this leads to less healthy offspring. My biological knowledge is limited, but with medical advance it’s not that much of a problem that women get their first children in their thirties.
Getting children in your twenties it will only hurt your education and career and therefore your ability to provide your family with financial security. That’s simply a fact within our Western societies and I’m just realistic.

[Cato]

[[/B]
Males are programmed to fertilize as many females as possible to spread the genes, while females aim to seduce as many males as possible so that she may choose the best of all and enables the survival of the bearer of the fittest genes. The “Milkman’s child” does also serve the survival, because where the kids of the husband might fail, the child bearing the genes of the lover might survive.

An utterly repulsive view of male and female relations.

"Males are programmed to fertilize as many females as possible to spread the genes..."

TNB. TNB!!!

[Curtis24]

sexual boredom

This is the only real reason anyone cheats :p

[Oreka Bailoak]

sexual boredom

This is the only real reason anyone cheats
I bet the cheating rate would be about 0% for people who go to the gym often and focus on good nutrition and taking in positive media inputs and being in a positive creative mood, who have a college degree and are very modest in their values and desires, and have a very attractive spouse, are attractive themselves and are very affectionate and believe in deep close connections with people, are funny, have a decent job. (are interesting people and travel a lot and have a lot of great sex)

I'm a genius.

[Curtis24]

I think the single most important factor in whether people cheat or not are social taboos preventing it :p

[supergiovane]

yes, monogamy is unnatural and has been created to prevent conflicts and to pursue social stability. Women are naturally attracted to alpha males and if they were totally free to express their sexuality they would end up clustering around alpha males making beta males envious and fighting each others for mating chances. So monogamy serves the purpose of democraticizing sex and mating chances for every males no matter if beta or alpha.
that goes along with female sexual repression, it's unfair but it was originally conceived as a sacrifice for social stability

[Oreka Bailoak]

I think the single most important factor in whether people cheat or not are social taboos preventing it

Dammit not another liberal hippie response.

You just said the "only real reason why people cheat is because of sexual boredom". So now you've changed your mind and say that it is socially strange (which is what a social taboo is) for a man to cheat on his wife and that that is now the main reason why.
Well gee, no shit it's socially strange!

Where have you been the last couple tens of thousands of years?

A wife will naturally get angry at her husband if he cheats on her. I think this is a good reaction. It shows she honors her husbands loyalty. And the husband should honor that loyalty too.

Not only that but you're not thinking full circle. For one, "real men" don't want to cheat on their spouse because they love them a lot and value the honor they share with each other being the only partners for each other.



yes, monogamy is unnatural and has been created to prevent conflicts and to pursue social stability.
Damn so you must have actually met the cave man 30,000 years ago who first created monogamy. What was he like?

What was the original conflict that made Ug the tribal cave man leader create monogamy?

Since your ethnicity is "grey alien" maybe you could beam me up to your ship sometime and we can travel back in time together and talk about how silly monogamy is with you and your natural polygamous alien alpha male friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1tQFX_9ct0

[Cato]

Damn so you must have actually met the cave man 30,000 years ago who first created monogamy. What was he like?

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/c/caveman.jpg

[Agrippa]

yes, monogamy is unnatural and has been created to prevent conflicts and to pursue social stability. Women are naturally attracted to alpha males and if they were totally free to express their sexuality they would end up clustering around alpha males making beta males envious and fighting each others for mating chances. So monogamy serves the purpose of democraticizing sex and mating chances for every males no matter if beta or alpha.
that goes along with female sexual repression, it's unfair but it was originally conceived as a sacrifice for social stability

You argue like some Feminists and Cultural Marxists about "unfair", as if that would be of importance. How do you define fair and unfair with different sexes, which have different behaviour tendencies, social roles and psychological needs? With your arguments, you make females like males, what they aren't.

That's the wrong perspective, because the females search, as a rule, for more than just the sexual and reproductive act, they need someone to care for and an Alpha male with too many women is simply not the best choice then, for most women - those which easily accept having sexual relationship with different Alph and Beta males are in the "bitch mode", which is however, among progressive races at least, definitely not the majority.

You are right about the stability, but additionally, it is about guaranteeing fatherhood - the male is always in the worse position insofar, as he could be, until modern tests were available, never be sure to be the biological father.

Marriage is therefore, like explained, the deal for: The women bears HIS offspring, the male cares for the women and their children.

Simple as that.

If you don't know for sure, whether this is your child or not, why should you invest in the woman to begin with, rather than trying to impregnate the next one?

And that is exactly the situation we have now too, with this unstable relationships, if there are no guarantees and sexual experiences with various women are easily available for many males, you get the promiscuous and serial monogamous tendencies which are so bad for the group and bloodlines.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Natural or not, I've seen a lot of studies that children who grow up in families that include both biological parents do much better, so that should be encouraged as much as possible.

Also, from my observation competition for sexual partners causes much of society's problems, so adultery and promiscuity should be discouraged, or at least channeled down avenues which keeps it orderly and under control (prostitution for example).

[Winterwolf]

[[/B]

An utterly repulsive view of male and female relations.

"Males are programmed to fertilize as many females as possible to spread the genes..."

TNB. TNB!!!

I agree, but I was just lecturing biological basic knowledge.

[Talvi]

I was watching some slips about some mormons who all had polygamus marriages.. while I can see why a man would want one I dont see why a woman would. So.. Im thinking that women who are into polygamy they dont really care about men... or Im doubting if they even like them. They just want to have kids. And not to work. And since there are many wives they dont have to deal with the man all the time. Nice.

[Agrippa]

I was watching some slips about some mormons who all had polygamus marriages.. while I can see why a man would want one I dont see why a woman would. So.. Im thinking that women who are into polygamy they dont really care about men... or Im doubting if they even like them. They just want to have kids. And not to work. And since there are many wives they dont have to deal with the man all the time. Nice.

There are different reasons, first of all, the question remains, what's better for a woman, a man she really wants and is a good match, but she has to share him with others or a worse man for her alone?

Some will decide this, others that way.

Additionally, in the past there were just more females than males, because males died more often in early childhood in particular, but also later because of diseases and wars.

Females on the other hand had a better survival rate until they had their first pregnancies usually.

Also, males usually took younger females, in a growing population this means the younger generation is more numerous than the older, so again, more females for males in their later "marriage age".

This resulted in a simple fact, that a certain portion of the female population was most of the time, in most of human history, "free" or would have been in a monogamous society, which is a waste.

Just imagine especially in Christian times the many nuns and "old maids" - what a waste if wanting to grow at least!

Today, things have changed, because our population is shrinking, so there are more males than females in the "marriage age", even more so because of the immigrants, which are mostly males and obviously take away a lot of indigenous women.

Only in the oldest segment things change again, because women become older than males on average, but then again, that is rather uninteresting of course...

So in today the pressure is more on the males and polygamy less functional than it would have been in the past, when the surplus of females had always an easy solution: The best males get more than one.

And think about yourself, in a traditional society, where being a wife and mother was everything, what would you have preferred, a good husband for you, probably shared with another woman which is not that bad to begin with, or staying alone, being "an old maid" or becoming a bitch and scum for the rest of the village, by just having casual sex with this or that man?

Many options depend on the circumstances, obviously females prefer having "the ideal partner for them alone", but since it is impossible to just have ideal males and it was often not possible to have one for oneself, well, better than being excluded, isn't it...?

Also, the best males should have more offspring, simple as that.

A female can just have a certain amount of offspring, regardless of how many males she has sex with. The same can't be said about the males, so the best genes can be ALWAYS fastest spread by males without using high-tec-modern artificial methods of course.

It would be simply idiotic if an ideal male would just have one woman, if there are many free available, that would be a suicidal tendency for a group, not using that option.

So if there is a surplus of women, the surplus should go for the alpha males. And whether this happens through official polygamy or mistresses is irrelevant.

Obviously the "bitch mode type women" are ideal for that, since they don't quality for the main/first wife anyway...

[Curtis24]

You argue like some Feminists and Cultural Marxists about "unfair", as if that would be of importance. How do you define fair and unfair with different sexes, which have different behaviour tendencies, social roles and psychological needs? With your arguments, you make females like males, what they aren't.

That's the wrong perspective, because the females search, as a rule, for more than just the sexual and reproductive act, they need someone to care for and an Alpha male with too many women is simply not the best choice then, for most women - those which easily accept having sexual relationship with different Alph and Beta males are in the "bitch mode", which is however, among progressive races at least, definitely not the majority.

You are right about the stability, but additionally, it is about guaranteeing fatherhood - the male is always in the worse position insofar, as he could be, until modern tests were available, never be sure to be the biological father.

Marriage is therefore, like explained, the deal for: The women bears HIS offspring, the male cares for the women and their children.

Simple as that.

If you don't know for sure, whether this is your child or not, why should you invest in the woman to begin with, rather than trying to impregnate the next one?

And that is exactly the situation we have now too, with this unstable relationships, if there are no guarantees and sexual experiences with various women are easily available for many males, you get the promiscuous and serial monogamous tendencies which are so bad for the group and bloodlines.

This is all true, but given the realities of welfare and child support, women in today's society don't need financial support from a man. The result is that they then choose sexual partners based mostly on pure masculinity - the result being that often "asocial" men have the best reproductive success.

[Agrippa]

This is all true, but given the realities of welfare and child support, women in today's society don't need financial support from a man. The result is that they then choose sexual partners based mostly on pure masculinity - the result being that often "asocial" men have the best reproductive success.

While the latter is true, the first isn't.

I will tell you a story, to illustrate my argument.

I knew two guys in the past, which both were quite handsome and fairly intelligent, socially capable and charming. From a biological point of view, they were also highly progressive European Europids, really the kind of males of which I would say they should have as much children as possible.

Now guess what, they had a lot of sex, they had a lot of success with the women. One of them had a new bourgeois beauty in his bed almost every week - sometimes more than one a week.

It was not about them having "no success with women", even on the contrary, they had a much higher rate of success than even the more attractive and charming Negroid males FOR SURE.

Fact is however, their girls were usually higher level themselves and used contraceptives and they just didn't wanted children, which they considered just a burden at their young age - probably they still do, I don't know, since I lost contact.

However, many African guys don't care for contraception, they don't use condoms and don't demand contraception from the girls. They even encourage pregnancies and have little to lose, since most of them are rather poor anyway or even if not, they just don't plan into the future.
Also, many of their sexual partners are rather lower level and don't care for contraception at all.

To sum it up, those guys I knew had about 50 times + more sexual "adventures" than many of those which are fathers of 10 children.

Obviously, in the modern context, neither social NOR SEXUAL success is decisive for the biological success!

Because if the males or females, especially the more planned and higher level ones, don't want children, they care for that.

For example by, if something went wrong accidentaly, demanding an abortion from the girl, which one of those guys I knew did, simply because he didn't wanted to pay for it and was raised that way, to keep the money together you know...

If it would have been about sexual success alone, those guys would have had 100 children already, but as things are, they have none, while some Negroids which fucked a single white girl without a condom and then took her as girlfriend might have three already.

Unplanned and stupid people are those with the greater biological success these days, unless you deal with people which really want and plan a family, but those, even if there are many, can't balance out the huge mass of higher level individuals which don't.

[Talvi]

Im sure you have many good things to say Agrippa (or maybe even a little too much, looking at the length of your average post) but humans, at least nowadays, are much more than just biological breeding machines, the vibe which I seem to get from a lot of your very technical, no emotion at all posts.

[Agrippa]

Im sure you have many good things to say Agrippa (or maybe even a little too much, looking at the length of your average post) but humans, at least nowadays, are much more than just biological breeding machines, the vibe which I seem to get from a lot of your very technical, no emotion at all posts.

Fact is you can always discuss the rest as long as the biological and cultural survival and niveau being secured.

Which means there are priorities, those have to be save first and before anything else.

Whether someone lives that in life or not is completely different question, but philosophically and politically, it should be clear, at least for those in charge, otherwise more problems will come up than being solved.

Also, you can think of what I said in a more personal and emotional manner, adapted to the needs of the people in a cosy and friendly way if you like, but again, looking at the base and frame, there can be little discussion.

I have just proven why polygyny is an reasonable option, at least under specific circumstances and why we fail today big, both biologically and culturally.

Many people seem to prefer to ignore the facts and go on as the Plutocrats like it, because they are afraid of changes and reality, well, that is no option and no solution to the problems we're facing.


but humans, at least nowadays, are much more than just biological breeding machines, the vibe which I seem to get from a lot of your very technical, no emotion at all posts.

I don't have to tell people that, because they being stuffed with that, stuffed until they can't think about anything else but "humans being so special", "every individual is so special" and "humans are anything else but breeding machines".

Now that is all sweet & nice, but the wrong message, because if people believe that crap and don't face reality, while everything goes down the drain, our people and race being slaughtered in a systematic demographpic genocide, while we being individually exploited and misguided by a corrupted system, our valuable blood- and germlines die, while humanity just degenerates and people talking about race and Eugenics for good being considered inhumans, while those responsible for these catastrophies are alright...

We are biological beings and while not every average idiot needs to accept that fact, all politically active and thinking people, especially our leadership, should perfectly know and understand this, act accordingly, because otherwise, you get the wrong system, actions and results, dangerous and harmful for the individuals and the collective.

Many people complain about problems and bad fate of people, yet if it is about the solution, they refuse to face reality as it is.

That's a big mistake and one which I want to point to constantly.

Because as I said, I don't have to tell people that they are more than breeding machines all the time, because the true aspects of this other aspects of our life, as well as all those religious and pseudo-religious lies, being spilled all over them day by day to keep them dumb and ignorant anyway.

So it is rather time to bring back some biological reality into their life and politics, rather than ignoring it and failing big, like we do, right now.

But talking about priorities, obviously it is also about memetic inheritance, cultural traditions as well, not just genes.

Now guess what, for this the same is true, because again, the parents and direct social environment, as well as our political and societal system determine most of what we are and inherit culturally.

It is not that much different from the biological aspect and again a better father, which is able to transmit good values and cultural norms to his children, is better than a lower level one, regardless of how many wives he has.

And again, a valuable women, being left alone because of a lack of men, would be a waste, just a waste, from a cultural point of view as well.

So yes, there is another aspect than biology relevant for our development, but for this essentially the same is true like for the biological side.

This is why both the genetic and cultural heritage, genes, general environment and memes should fit to each other and must carefully selected to function on a high level.

Because like there are crap genes, there is crap culture - and there are valuable genes and more valuable cultural traditions. The latter must be saved and the optimum always means to have a genpool and mempool or culture which is fit for survival on a higher level and gives the individuals as much potential and quality of life as possible.


or maybe even a little too much, looking at the length of your average post

I prefer to bring sense into a post and also explain my position thorough rather than making one appealing sentence with a lack of information, clarity and genuine message.

[Debaser11]

Talvi--

Humans are more than biological breeding machines, that is true. But our survival is bound to the same fundamental processes that other animals within the animal kingdom must follow. We don't get to not have children and still carry on our legacy because we're "more than breeding machines" or whatever kind of emotional appeal one wishes to throw out there.

From your post, I see you seem to employ the word "breeding" with a bit of inexplicable derision. In a subtle way, it sums up part of the problem with feminism and its attitude toward reproduction, actually. Just as it has long since been men's responsibility to protect and provide (roles I'll freely admit that men have despicably abandoned), it has been a woman's responsibility to produce children. Within any truly healthy culture, these roles are met with enthusiasm. Men don't have to be persuaded into behaving like men (protecting and providing) and women don't have to be persuaded to have children and be great mothers.

Culture was oriented around mutual gender responsibilities that benefitted the whole group as opposed to individualist aspirations usually centered around what brings them the most pleasure. What the current generations, in particular, the baby boomers and the generation Xers, are doing is simply burning up all the wealth that previous stuggle and adherence to such roles produced in order to live their "modern" lifestyles.

Protest about it all you want, but the post preceding yours outlines a huge part of the West's problem even if it doesn't have enough "emotion" (as if that's a part of an argument).

Lamentations aside...

"Little as we know about the events of the future, one thing is certain: the moving forces of the future will be none other than those of the past -- the will of the stronger, healthy instincts, race, will to property, and power."

--Oswald Spengler

[Curtis24]

thanks for all your responses!

[Nameless Son]

I can't believe I didn't see this thread earlier! This is something I'm very interested in. I've read most of Sex at Dawn, and I can tell you, for anyone who knows anything about evolutionary psychology it's pretty painful to read. It's problem is not that all the arguments are really wrong, it just claims them to be so much more important and controversial than they are, when actually most evolutionary psychologist would agree with many of the book's arguments.

One other problem I think the book has is not exlaining what it means for monogamy to be "unnatural." Natural and unnatural are difficult words to define. The book seems to assume that in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies there were no cultural or societal influences on pair-bonding and sex (or at least that they were different in kind than what we have today), and that this makes these the right conditions to produce "natural" behavior. But because the book never makes any explicit arguments for or against this, their thesis that monogamy is "unnatural" is empty.

The only good review of the book that I've found is this one: http://jseliger.com/2010/07/21/sex-at-dawn-christopher-ryan-and-cacilda-jetha/

I'm not sure how to enter into this discussion because so much has been said already. Since it looks like no one's posted here in a while, let me ask a question to open things up again if anyone's interested.

How should we define "natural" as it applies to humans?

Is what is "natural" some set of behaviors (like monogamy or polygamy) brought about by the environment of prehistoric hunter-gatherers or some other environment (this is what I think is assumed in Sex at Dawn)? Or -- this is what I think -- is it which environmental stimuli cause which behaviors?

Or maybe I have to explain why I think this question is important at all?

[Cato]

Unnatural, hardly. It's the proper way a man relates to a woman.

[Psychonaut]

Is what is "natural" some set of behaviors (like monogamy or polygamy) brought about by the environment of prehistoric hunter-gatherers or some other environment (this is what I think is assumed in Sex at Dawn)? Or -- this is what I think -- is it which environmental stimuli cause which behaviors?

Aye, and we can't forget the way in which the Baldwin effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect) gradually encodes social norms into our genes, making the social environment of evolutionary adaptiveness just as key of a factor in determining an behavior's instinctiveness as the physical environment.

[Moonbird]

The closest relatives to humans among the animals - chimpanzees and bonobos - are promiscous so it's likely that that would be the natural state to humans as well. Monogamy among humans is probably of a cultural foundation.

[Curtis24]

The closest relatives to humans among the animals - chimpanzees and bonobos - are promiscous so it's likely that that would be the natural state to humans as well. Monogamy among humans is probably of a cultural foundation.

Actually, this is untrue. You can guage how naturally promiscuous a species is by the size of their testes - since that is related to sperm potency - and those species which are more promiscuous need very potent sperm. The size of human male testicle is more similar to gorillas than chimps or bonobos - meaning our evolutionary past was actually generally more monogamous(and polygamous) than it was promiscuous.

Like gorillas, human women want to attach to the "alpha male" in a committed relationship. Modern-day promiscuity has more to do with lack of clear hierarchies, social confusion, and the unwillingness of men to commit, then it does some sort of inborn tendency.

[Moonbird]

The size of human male testicle is more similar to gorillas than chimps or bonobos - meaning our evolutionary past was actually generally more monogamous(and polygamous) than it was promiscuous.


But gorillas have a polygynous mating system not a monogamous one.

[_______]

only for skanks :p

[Curtis24]

But gorillas have a polygynous mating system not a monogamous one.

its monogamous for females, since they only attach to one male gorilla.

[beeee]

On polygamy

I have had some feedback from a few of our folk who have expressed distress over recent articles on the subject of polygamy. Particularly as one might expect from our few loyal women. But also from established monogamous families who understandably prefer the security of this tradition.

So please bear with me as I attempt to clear up any misconceptions inadvertently created. And also, again please, recognize that these following concepts are not my egotistical invention. These are the teachings of our indigenous religion based on observance of nature. Be assured that the special romance between one man and one woman, as well as the time tested structure of monogamous marriage are not threatened by the beliefs, practices or history of our Norse, Germanic, European forebears.

Our wise forefathers, and mothers, did indeed structure their social and religious teachings on nature's laws. And nature's laws do indeed declare that superior males should have many mates and many offspring, while inferior males do not deserve the pleasure of either mates or offspring.

However, our forebears also realized that the needs of a structured society required that certain instincts, as well as the most primitive natural law, had to be tempered with reason and common sense.

For example, if all men fought to the death over women with very few surviving the carnage, the number remaining could not defend the tribe or race. So laws and rules of conduct were necessary.

Over eons of time the monogamous family structure proved to be the most beneficial, providing security for women and children, and the basis of an orderly society.

However, this does defy natural law which declares that the best must breed the most. So what was the answer devised by our ancestors?

The solution, as always based on observance of natural phenomena, was to divide men into three classifications: Thralls, Karls and Jarls.

Thralls have always been the slugs of society. Today some examples are government employees, word-twisting preachers, welfare bums and politicians, to name but a few. In a natural world they have no right to the pleasures of a woman, or to reproduce. They should rightfully be enslaved, deported or executed.

The second classification was the Karls. In times past they were farmers, metalworkers and what we would now call a "Citizens militia." They are the salt of the earth and the backbone of a civilization. Today they are ranchers, farmers, inventors and craftsmen. They should and must pass on their genetic inheritance with a wife and children. And monogamy is the time-tested best marriage structure for the Karls who make up the largest mass of an Aryan society.

Although, let me hasten to add, that in a Wotanist society, government does not force structures on the folk. In ancient times if a woman's sister's husband was killed, she might well ask her husband to take her sister as a second wife. We might accurately say that what was "good," was "right."

The third classification was the Jarls. Jarls are few and far between. Jarls are superior men who prove their right to rule by demonstrations of tribal (now racial) loyalty, by service to the folk, by courage, perseverance and determination. The survival of the folk depends on the wisdom, courage, altruism and genetic makeup of Jarls. And because they are so rare, their genes must be passed on in abundance. Thus polygamy is nature's desire for true Jarls.

Instinctively women know this to be true. Thus we see so-called groupies jumping into the beds of rock stars and sports stars or other celebrities, even though they know they are just one of many in a virtual harem. And even though the celebrities of this age are scum.

The true Jarl who sacrifices and fights for the life and welfare of the folk deserves a multiplicity of the most beauteous maidens of the folk. Not only so that his genes and their beauty unite in grand offspring, but also because sexual pleasure is the proper reward for a defender of the folk. Again, all our folk instinctively know this as they forgive the sexual peccadilloes of presidents like Kennedy or Clinton. And again, even though our politicians are falsely perceived as Jarls.

Robert Mathews and George Lincoln Rockwell were Jarls who never received their just rewards in this cycle. Undoubtedly, if our ancestors' teachings on reincarnation and Valhalla are true, their reward is with the Valkyrie. I like to hope that someday some Valkyrie will be mine, although it appears that age and prison deny that possibility in this cycle.

Hopefully the above will clear up any misconceptions or misapprehensions about polygamy. The rewards of multiple beautiful maidens must be earned by exceptional service to the folk, before the pleasures are claimed.

The rewards are necessary in order to inspire our young men to heroic deeds in this desperate age. But this does not endanger the common family structure of our folk overall.

One last point, however. If this is the time of Ragnarok, then the coming chaos will be such that civilization and its structures will be irrelevant. At that time remember, "What is good is right." Morality will consist of reproduction and survival and little else.

David Lane :wink

[Pallantides]

I think it's ok for a man to have many women, but not for a woman to have many men! :)

[Agrippa]

The closest relatives to humans among the animals - chimpanzees and bonobos - are promiscous so it's likely that that would be the natural state to humans as well. Monogamy among humans is probably of a cultural foundation.

Rather not, because human females are much more dependent in pregnancy than males and the bonds between partners being much stronger, sexuality much more of a mean to bind the partners together than in chimps (regular and Bonobos).

But human males are facultative promiscous and polygamous, if having the chance to - what was true mostly for the alpha males in the past.

[Moonbird]

I think it's ok for a man to have many women, but not for a woman to have many men! :)

You're a true gorilla :p

[beeee]

I think it's ok for a man to have many women, but not for a woman to have many men! :)

Fact...We know that since we are 12 years old.

By having many women, one man somehow increases his energetic level. And he will be secretly respected for that, by either men and other women.

A girl who get many men, well...there is the feeling she loses something. And she will be secretly despised for that, either by men and other women.

Logical cause might be that it is very easy for a girl to get laid, even if she looks awfull.
On the contrary, an awfull man will have a hard time trying and probably marry the first woman who accepts him.

But there is more than logic here...

[Agrippa]

The reason is simple: A woman can sleep with as many as she wants, she will never get more children than just 1 in a year and it is always a huge investment. Usually, if taking other factors into the calculation, usually the distance will be about 2 years or more, especially in more traditional, especially in hunter-gatherer societies.

Men on the other hand can have - in theory - unlimited offspring with minimal investment, that means every small chance can be "it" - and they don't have to think too much about it, since their investment is so low - goes it right, goes it wrong? Who cares...

Usually, many monogamous society new the strategy of a main wife, legitimated, full rights, man cared primarily for her and her children, and secondary wives, which don't have all rights, but the man cares for them too and produces offspring with them.

That was the norm for many alpha males in the past.

The main woman was usually the alpha female, coming from a high ranking family and having a high rank herself...


Logical cause might be that it is very easy for a girl to get laid, even if she looks awfull.

It was never about "getting laid", but getting "paid for" - not necessarily directly, but probably indirectly, by a man caring for her and her offspring.

The problem of women, especially in the more progressive racial and cultural groups, was always if she was ignored by the man and father of her child, shunned by the group.

That's what she must prevent.

The only alternative to being a "decent and faithful woman" is being a prostitute, being on the "bitch mode", which means to have sex with many men and getting small presents from them, rather than having one or maximally two guys caring and investing more.

Obviously, neither men nor women liked the "bitch mode women", the men because they were not faithful, the women, because they could be a threat to their provision, if a male being "lured into her trap".
Anyway, males used them, women saw them as bad examples, that was the norm in the past.

Now the "bitch mode" being promoted being "the new norm of the emancipated women", which is sick and wrong, against the social, cultural and biological interests of Europeans, because that kind should always be socially isolated and made a distinct category of women, to keep things together in society...

[Frederick]

Well, I think that wearing clothes is "unnatural".
Living in houses is "unnatural" aswell. At least for ape like creatures like humans. ;)
Eating cooked food is for sure absolutely "unnatural".

So, what would it change if we find out that the sexlife, that most cultures picked since a few thousand years is "unnatural" aswell? ;)

Its: every man needs a women. So no fight over women.
It was needed to invent monogamy to prevent civil war. ;)

[SwordoftheVistula]

Its: every man needs a women. So no fight over women.
It was needed to invent monogamy to prevent civil war. ;)

I don't think that's true at all. If anything, having polygamy could open up the possibility of new warrior class which is not concerned with having to raise children. Also all the Michelangelo types with no interest in women due to pursuit of higher types. Many societies have had priestly castes of unmarried men.

[Argyll]

No, of course not. Monogomist relationships are the closest relationships anyone can have. I don't quite understand polygamy.

[Nameless Son]

I'd say monogamous relationships were "naturally" meant to last about how long they needed to in order to raise a child. It could have been different around the world even on an evolutionary timescale, so perhaps that is all that can be said.

[Piparskeggr]

Let's see...

I am a natural born human, as is my wife.

I have been true to her since 2 February 1978, as she has to me.

Therefore, for us, monogamy is perfectly natural.

[billErobreren]

don't dolphins or penguins mate for life? :confused: seems to me it's pretty natural unless you get sick of your significant other. monogamy isn't for sissies. it isn't easy to keep it from falling apart

[Piparskeggr]

don't dolphins or penguins mate for life? :confused: seems to me it's pretty natural unless you get sick of your significant other. monogamy isn't for sissies. it isn't easy to keep it from falling apart

There are emotional and mental scars, BUT, you keep on trying if the devotion is there.

[Nameless Son]

don't dolphins or penguins mate for life? :confused: seems to me it's pretty natural unless you get sick of your significant other. monogamy isn't for sissies. it isn't easy to keep it from falling apart

Animals that are more closely related to us tend to be polygamous. Chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives and both are polygamous... but in very different ways: chimps are matriarchal and polygynous, while bonobos have sex with almost every other bonobo of the opposite gender in their group and do nothing resembling human marriage.

Is this a good model of human relationships? Certainly not. For all our genetic similarity to our ape relatives the end result of our behaviors differ so greatly that there is really no worth in comparing our behavior at all. Humans have changed the world so much (industry, civilization, etc), and all it took was a relatively small amount of evolution from other apes. Needless to say, human marital / pair bonding behavior may have taken an equally radical turn.

What is most likely is that our pair bonding behavior is complex and dependent on our environment, so that what is natural is only so relative to environment, and in that case all you have to do is look around you to see what behavior is "natural" (all of them).

[billErobreren]

Animals that are more closely related to us tend to be polygamous. Chimps and bonobos are our closest relatives and both are polygamous... but in very different ways: chimps are matriarchal and polyandrous, while bonobos have sex with almost every other bonobo of the opposite gender in their group and do nothing resembling human marriage.

Is this a good model of human relationships? Certainly not. For all our genetic similarity to our ape relatives the end result of our behaviors differ so greatly that there is really no worth in comparing our behavior at all. Humans have changed the world so much (industry, civilization, etc), and all it took was a relatively small amount of evolution from other apes. Needless to say, human marital / pair bonding behavior may have taken an equally radical turn.

What is most likely is that our pair bonding behavior is complex and dependent on our environment, so that what is natural is only so relative to environment, and in that case all you have to do is look around you to see what behavior is "natural" (all of them).

did I say we HAD to be monogamous? No!!! simply that it is natural. it's up to us on whether we want one partner or several & make it work

[Nameless Son]

did I say we HAD to be monogamous? No!!! simply that it is natural. it's up to us on whether we want one partner or several & make it work

Then what does natural mean?

[billErobreren]

Then what does natural mean?

I can tell you. I'm not meant for monogamy. I'm neither codependent nor like children which is what most marriages are for foundations for raising kids but just because that shit isn't for me. doesn't mean I have to doubt it or say it's unnatural, people choose codependency more power to them they still find each other fuckable after 50 years the same. which is what I meant by it not being for sissies because I suck at monogamy. both polygamy & monogamy seem natural to me. wonder why I didn't say so at first? the tittle of the thread said nothing about it. if you think I'm some sort of prude that is

[rhiannon]

Moreso for men than women. Sociobiological evidence backs this up. Men are programmed to plant their seed in as many baby receptacles as possible because men have never been able to definitively prove their paternity until recent years.

Monogamy is women's way of ensuring protection of herself and her offspring because each offspring requires so much more time investment for her (9mos gestation period, infancy, etc). Basically it's Social Darwinism...:eek:

[billErobreren]

^ thank you

[Boudica]

People say things like "most animals are polygamous" as if it is some ultimate tool of destruction to some how prove the correctness of their pro polygamous views.. However it seems as if they fail to remember that we are EVOLVED HUMAN beings. We are not WILD fucking animals. I don't think that I need to explain the vast amount of complete differences between us and wild animals since I have yet to see a person on our forum which suffers from something beyond mental retardation (although there have been close calls).

If you people want to live polygamous, go for it.. I'm assuming that you are going to bundle your big happy family up into some sort of large living complex? I wish you good luck supporting all of your children and wives as well as your large home that has an environment similar to a suppressed whore house/adoption center.. After all I'm sure that you can afford the living expenses of all of your children and women, the economy is fantastic and I'm sure you make loads of money!

Or do you plan on barely having a commitment to your women aka (breeding tools) & children and just plan on letting them do their own thing apart from each other and being something that is quite common in the negro culture, a "baby" daddy? That will be good as well. Hopefully you are able to clone your self or have the ability to make some sort of holograph generator of sorts because guess what? All of your children are going to grow up like bastards and question their life in general. What questions will they ask? Gee I don't know, questions like where is daddy? Why does he go off spending a bunch of time with other kids and women and so little with me? Why do I have a childhood which is the complete opposite of my peers? But hey, who gives a shit about that kid right? He can just grow up feeling culturally confused with absolutely no self identity, he'll be alright.

But wait! Your definition of polygamy isn't to have a bunch of wives and get married! It is to live the life of a bachelor and to make sure you never have a child! Once again, I wish you good luck living with a sexually transmitted disease, watching your intermediate family die around you and not having a family that you created your self to turn to, being 60 and alone (don't worry you'll still be dead sexy, so will the chicks ;)), and dying all alone, sadly with no one left to go to your funeral..

All of the above are excellent and healthy choices if you ask me.. After all, they do it in the healthy societies of the middle east and it is even done by very prestigious groups in America such as the latter day saints! :) After all, you are a European preservationist, I'm assuming, since you are a member of the forum.. I'm positive that your European ancestors would have wanted you to follow in the opposite of their foot steps :D! They would want you to make foot steps of your own which crushes the old traditional ways of European culture even more than it is currently being! Anyway, I seriously wish you good luck once again.. After all that is what the majority of animals do right? Well, if you are going to go back quite a few steps in evolution and go back to the ways of animals, I suggest you do it 100%, good luck living like an animal! At least you can take a shit where ever you want and won't have to worry about useless things such as toilet paper :D

edit:For those of you that just don't want to have children, that is fine. But not wanting to have children or a wife is not the definition of polygamy. It is the definition of a person who doesn't want any responsibility, that isn't ready to grow up, that will have possibly ended his family line, and will realize that they made a large mistake when they are 70, alone, and have dust for semen.

[Sahson]

At the present time, reason is not held in any too great esteem; "Rationalism" is deprecated in most intellectual circles. "to believe in reason" is to be behind times, to give evidence of a mode of thinking that is out of date, out of contact with what today is called "progress."

The "belief in reason" is now replaced by all sorts of psychological and sociological sciences: the psychology of the unconscious, of the subconscious, of behaviour, of suppressed desires and conditioned reflexes. The variety of sociologies is no less disconcerting - not should we forget sociological psychologies, and the psychological sociologies. Formerly man was considered to be an Animal Rationale, a rational being; now he has become simply a vital being, not further qualified. Since man lives in community with his fellows, it was formerly the practice to inquire into the structure and organisation which society ought to have in order to correspond to the rational and human nature of it's members. But today no such question is raised; it is taken for granted that man, as a social animal, must adjust himself to his environment or suffer the consequence to his well-being and his happiness. It is no longer a question of whether one may or one should adjust oneself to certain social conditions: it is only a question of what is the most effective means or technique of adjustment.

Let us look a little more closely into this naturalistic philosophy. We are told that man, like any other being, comes into the world equipped with a certain organisation; he has what are known as "instincts": primitive modes of behaviour, elementary reactions. The human organisation is more plastic that that of animals: this plasticity allows for the development of new reactions which are grafted upon the primitive modes of behaviour. Depending upon the circumstances, the organisation undergoes alteration and reconditioning; new modes of behaviour make their appearance in increasing complexity. But however great this complexity, every human action will forever be what it was in it's most primitive form: simple reaction, behaviour, produced by the functioning of the organism, and conditioned by the exterior stimulations.

So while it can be argued that polygamy is more natural, humans have developed over the millennia's as an animal rationale. The plasticity has allowed for humans to develop beyond the vital being with more complex behaviours and societies. Monogamy however today is merely a conditioning of man as a vital being because of it's cultural importance. Promiscuity again is not where man uses their reasoning which is what separates us from other vital organism. Promiscuity is merely man choosing to live as a vital being, and not an animal rationale; like wise for polygamy.

[Tony]

I believe that, deep inside, if we leave out culture environs and imprintig, the man is driven by the Quantity principle i.e. inseminate as most women as he can whereas the woman is driven by the Quality principle i.e. try to get impregnated by best men as she can.

And this difference is due to our inner biology, males produces millions of small fast speed spermatozoons a day, our sperma is somewhat inflated, we work on large numbers, so to speak...
while women produce a giant energetic ovum just once a month, not to mention the great energetic burden of a 9 months pregnancy, differently from us they cannot afford to waste their ova by breeding with the first man met around...

that's why it is us who seek for every woman while they instead select the best men to breed with.

All this, I repeat again, ceteris paribus, if a strong culture says otherwise it's possible for women to absorb manly sex/mating patterns and viceversa, but on a instictual base it's like I said.

[Argyll]

I believe 100% in monogamy. It's totally natural.


It's not an illusion- it's a natural sense, let me explain,

First, let me show this quote...

^This quote means that our conscious is one of our natural senses, it is a natural feeling.

The part of the brain that gives morality has been scientifically found- It's the conscious mind. Love is rooted in morality which is a 6th sense that we all feel as morality similar to taste touch or smell, some feel it stronger than others. This morality is where the root of the idea of monogamy exists- a long term bond to one partner out of respect for him/her, honor for your parents, future children etc.
(except sociopaths who have no morality because they lack a conscious mind which is about 5% of people- read the book "sociopath next door"- if you're interested in how diverse minds can actually think and how morality is a sense we can feel talked about by a Harvard doctor).

A natural sense is not an illusion. Morality, taste, touch, smell, sight are all real senses. This is crystal clear.

^You just need to find people who think like you do and can feel this deep spiritual connection between partners too. Lots of men can feel it- I promise you. Just look for them (and make sure you marry the right person- the feeling is powerful so you'll know it when you feel it).

I believe in that spiritual understanding, soul connection, total belonging too. This is something that I've felt extremely strong my entire life and many of my friends aren't able to feel this feeling as strong as me actually.

I place honor and life long love as the highest spiritual bond- something sacred that should never be tarnished. :thumb001:

Monogamy for LIFE!:)

(and yay I get no thanks- posted a long post correcting peoples mistaken ideas about something as large as morality not being an illusion but a sense using a Harvard scientists book for proof and nobody cares to read my amazing post.... maybe pepole don't have patience- whatever lol.)

Finally, someone else who understands that the conscience is the natural feelign of people.

[Nameless Son]

Let us not forget that statistically humans a roughly polygynous or promiscuous. Most cultures permit taking multiple wives, and in ones that don't extra marital affairs are pretty common. If Western culture isn't one of the former, it is one of the latter.

[Phil75231]

Yes, we humans are animals, but as I've said MANY times before, we also transcend the animals thanks to our raw brain power, combined with our vocal and verbal skills. This necessarily puts us in a radically different plane of existence from the other animals. Therefore, it's natural that we should be radically different from even our closest cousins the chimps (we were [they're now extinct] even very markedly different from the Neanderthals, but that's a different topic). Therefore, doesn't it make sense that we should consciously and deliberately use our higher cognitive skills to will us into a mating patterns that are the best for us? (I happen to think monogamy is the ideal mating pattern for humans - never mind that the deep animal side of our brain contradicts that. Monogamy is better for the family unit and childrearing in the long run)