EPTPolygamy in the Western world - Page 2
| Blogs > nimysa |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Yaqoob
Canada3314 Posts
That is your opinion. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
not yet | ||
|
esla_sol
United States756 Posts
| ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
In a state of nature, women will mate hypergamously, with men mating polygamously. We've all heard of polygamy, but what the hell is hypergamy? Hypergamy is a tendency observed in nearly all mammals among females. Given that females have a much smaller reproductive viability window, and given that they can have fewer children within that window simply due to the nature of their reproductive systems compared to men, the consequences for mating with an "unworthy" male are much higher than a male mating with a genetically inferior female. Men have much greater reproductive capacity than women for obvious biological reasons. Males can theoretically sire thousands of children over a lifetime, while even if a woman intentionally got pregnant every year, the number would be well under 100. Males, in mammal populations, have nothing to lose by using a polygamous mating pattern, it's genetically advantageous for them to do so. The same is not true of women, it's to their genetic advantage to mate with only the males of the highest genetic value in a given population. They can, too, because those top alpha males can produce offspring with much greater frequency than females. This practice, of selecting exclusively males of higher genetic fitness than their own is referred to as hypergamy. It's never observed in male mammals, only females. Male sea lions will compete with each other for mating priviledges, and in this species, 6% of male sea lions will mate with 89% of the females. Humans are no different, except that instead of simply genetic value, we have other factors to consider, like social value, status, occupation, income, etc. Our males still compete with each other for wealth, resources, and social status, and the females select the winners. These males will have access to large numbers of partners, and are given no incentive to marry. Most men will only have 3-10 partners lifetime though, so with the scarcity of women, these beta males are much more likely to establish long term commitments. When women whine of men being "unwilling to commit", what they actually mean is that the alpha males they desire are unwilling to commit, because they have an abundance of partners already. Marriage used to be an important institution in human societies, it prevented males from mating polygamously and women from mating hypergamously. It was a pairing system which forced people into monogamy. Throughout western civilization, monogamy has existed and served us very well. The family unit was useful for regulating the sexual market as well as for more effectively socializing our offspring. It'd be rather difficult to raise psychologically healthy and financially cared for children if a few alpha males were out fertilizing the population and not staying to help rear the children. Factors like the pill, the condom, feminism, and "no fault divorce" are really weakening marriage and making it much easier for most women to mate hypergamously and very few men to mate polygamously. So basically, the instituions which regulated the sexual market kept people in monogamous pairs for their own benefit and for that of the human race's offspring. I'd argue that these institutions are dissolving, and after feminism especially, we're gravitating toward defacto polygamy, even if cheating in a marriage is still illegal/shameful/immoral. Fewer people are getting married and they're doing it later in life. Alright, that's a whole lot of background info and I feel like I still haven't covered everything. I'd encourage anyone who's interested in human mating patterns, polygamy, hypergamy, and monogamy in western societies to read F. Roger Devlin's "Sexual Utopia in Power" http://public.box.net/mensarefugee26388 What I'm trying to say here is that you probably CAN get away with having a shit ton of partners as a male, but only if you're at the very top of the status/wealth/physical fitness ladder. Otherwise you're condemned to an unhappy marriage which will fail 54% of the time and a divorce will be initiated by your female partner 80% of the time and if you have children she'll extract nearly half your income from you for several decades depending on how many children and whether or not they go to college. Don't get married without a prenup, feel free to indulge in multiple partners if given the opportunity. That is all. | ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
Unfortunately, I would be considered such a person. :p | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
"But while the revolution has not achieved its aims, it has certainly achieved something. It has destroyed monogamy and family stability. It has resulted in a polygamous mating pattern of immodest women aggressively pursuing a small number of men. It has decreased the number of children born, and insured that many who are born grow up without a father in their lives. And, least often mentioned, it has made it impossible for many decent men to fi nd wives. One occasionally hears of surveys reporting that men are happier with their “sex lives” than women. It has always struck me as ludicrous that anyone would take this at face value. First, women are more apt than men to complain about everything. But second, many men (especially young men) experience a powerful mauvaise honte when they are unsuccessful with women. They rarely compare notes with other men, and still more rarely do so honestly. Everyone puts up a brave front, however lonely he may actually be. Hence, men almost always imagine other men to have greater success with women than is actually the case. This situation has worsened since the nineteen-sixties, with the propagation of the illusion that there is “more sex” available to men than formerly. But if women are only mating with a few exceptionally attractive men, and if many women fail to mate at all, there must be a large number of men unable to get a woman. We might, in the spirit of William Graham Sumner, term them the forgotten men of the sexual revolution. I have reason to believe that a growing number are willing to come out of the closet (to use a currently popular expression) and admit that, whoever has been doing all the “hooking up” one reads about, it hasn’t been them. Simple prudence dictates that we give some consideration to the situation of these men. In societies where polygamy is openly practiced (e.g., in Africa and the Muslim world), young bachelors tend to form gangs which engage in antisocial behavior: “It is not good for man to be alone.” In our society, a defi nite pattern has already emerged of “singles” groups or events being composed of innocent, never-married men in their thirties and cynical, bitter, often divorced women. What have the bachelors been doing with themselves all these years? So far, in the West, they have not been forming criminal gangs. (They would probably be more attractive to women if they did: Everyone seems to have heard stories about men on death row being besieged with offers of marriage from bored, thrill-seeking females.) I suggest that today’s bachelors are hardly different from men who, before the sexual revolution, married young and raised families. Natural instinct makes young men almost literally “crazy” about girls. They have a far higher regard for young women than the facts warrant. The male sex drive that modern women complain about so much exists largely for their benefi t. As Schopenhauer wrote: Nature has provided [the girl] with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence.9 I do not see any reason why young men should be less naïve about young women than they used to be. Furthermore, many men assume women value honest, clean-living, responsible men (as opposed, e.g., to death-row criminals). So slowly, patiently, by dint of much hard work, amid uncertainty and self-doubt, our bachelor makes a decent life for himself. No woman is there to give him love, moral support, loyalty. If he did make any effort to get a wife, he may have found himself accused of harassment or stalking. Kick a friendly dog often enough and eventually you have a mean dog on your hands." I believe that when men are unattached, having no family to be devoted to, to work for, and to support, they do become somewhat detached, withdrawn, and possibly even violent. That's why the part I bolded struck me so hard when I read this the first that. But, this also makes the competition for female affection among males much much stronger, which theoretically has some culling effect. Violence being one of the ways all males compete for females in mammal populations, maybe this is why our society has had a giant upsurge in violence after feminism struck a blow to monogamy and encouraged female hypergamy. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On March 30 2009 13:50 koreasilver wrote: You people do know that there are cultures where women have multiple husbands, right? They are extremely rare, but they do exist, and the men just consider all the children they own collectively. Rules trump exceptions, we see this in a few freak instances in primitive human societies and in I'm pretty sure 0 other mammals. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On March 30 2009 14:11 baubo wrote: People who are pissed at those who can bang multiple women at the same time are just jealous. And are simply trying to use social standard to make up for their own lack of ability to get 3somes. Unfortunately, I would be considered such a person. :p That doesn't change the fact that women are predisposed to hypergamy and males polygamy, what the hell is your point? Why would anyone actually be "pissed" at them? If you were in their shoes you'd do the exact same thing. Jealous of course, but that should hopefully serve as a motivating factor. Afterall, a man's sexual market value is dynamic and exponential. How desirable we are to women isn't set in genetic stone, we can raise it through hard work, educational/status attainment, wealth acquisition, etc. Women have a fixed, decaying sexual market value which drops dramatically with age. All they can do is visit the gym, get the latest fashion/cosmetic tips from other women, and hope for the best. | ||
|
CatioN
United States136 Posts
| ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On March 30 2009 14:19 CatioN wrote: Honestly I only want one girl. Aslong as we feel the same about eachother then I will forever be a happy man! WALL OF TEXT ON THE FLAWS WITH THIS THINKING COMING TOMORROW!! | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On March 30 2009 12:37 nimysa wrote: Why is it wrong if I share my bed with multiple female partners? Isn't it the purpose of a person to spread his genes? Why not regulate it so that it doesn't get out of hand? I don't understand what is wrong with having multiple girlfriends/wives when people in the Western world divorce or breakup with numerous women on a daily basis, and this happens mostly in the West. Because in eastern cultures its expected that you maintain a single wife, have an arranged marriage, have multiple wives for a single marriage but not breakup, divorce or cheat. Yet in the West divorcing and cheating is the norm. If husbands could be shared by multiple partners, then the emotional stress of the marriage can be spread out and also the husband would less likely confide in another women outside his marriage. The husband wouldn't necessarily have the problem of being in attraction to another women. I'm curious what people here think about this issue, post you're opinions and arguments in favor/disfavor of polygamy. Easier said than done; putting aside all other issues, even in societies were it's socially acceptable only the wealthy can afford it. Having said this, there is an immediate conclusion that should come to you. | ||
|
WindCalibur
Canada938 Posts
On March 30 2009 14:19 CatioN wrote: Honestly I only want one girl. Aslong as we feel the same about eachother then I will forever be a happy man! I feel the same! You are my hero  | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
On March 30 2009 14:21 Drowsy wrote: WALL OF TEXT ON THE FLAWS WITH THIS THINKING COMING TOMORROW!! So, are you trying to say that if you have really one girl in your life this is going to fuck it up even if you love her some much for... let's say 5 to 6 years? | ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
sure there may be a population of true male romantics just dreaming about that one quality girl - i suppose the equivalent of k-selection in this scenario. however, i suspect the majority of us can't deny that despite all this 'love of my life' cutesy shit, at least a tiny part of our beings will think it's fucking sweet that we can go around popping kids out bloop bloop bloop and not have to feel horrible! what do the authors propose then, considering how strongly the current western traditions are upheld even though something clearly is being forced here? a fifty%+ divorce rate is mind-boggling, i can't believe there isn't some prominent concerted effort or movement to address this. between the expectations ingrained in us and the history of marriage i don't see anything that even can be done in this lifetime. divorce rates over the years have stabilized and even decreased, but it's still a large gap from this to <5% in the 1800s that clearly will not fix itself anytime soon. and the thing is we don't even know if this is something that needs to be fixed, however ridiculous that may sound. i suppose a comfort most posters on this forum can take away from all of this is that your chance of getting a divorce dramatically plummets as your education and income increase. so yeah, marry that dream girl of yours, have a great life. though most people here will end up on the fortunate side of the statistics, it will mean that the other side is even worse off than the numbers for the average indicate. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On March 30 2009 14:15 Drowsy wrote: Rules trump exceptions, we see this in a few freak instances in primitive human societies and in I'm pretty sure 0 other mammals. True, but that form of polygamy came to life because it was viable and it made sense to that culture on both a social and economic way. I can think of quite a few mammal species that are matriarchal, but I'm not sure if the alpha females in those species were polygamous in the way of having sexual control over multiple males or whatnot. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 30 2009 13:58 Yaqoob wrote: @ Salv That is your opinion. The writers were men, that's nearly indisputable. Your 2nd point is simply irrelevant as the same can be said for any male dominated polygamous relationship, and the 1st is just representative of the cultures of those Arab countries. That culture is starting to change, especially in the gulf states, and at some point they're all going to need to become more accepting of female workers because limiting half of your workforce is fucking stupid. Drowsy makes a good point. I've seen the national security argument for having a balance between men and women. Countries where the ratio is too high have serious domestic security issues and can become unstable. | ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
| ||
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
| ||
| ||
