Monogamy May Be Even More Difficult For Women Than it Is For Men

[Greoric]

it's not about finding another husband .. they just wanna get fkd by someone else(new) .. the guy doesn't have to be 'better' than the husband in regards to social status/money

Good post. In fact, the criteria often is that her selection is more on the status of his physical attractiveness. In this way women get the best of both world's, where she gets the contribution of one man's commitment via his resources and attention towards her offspring, and the genetic contribution of a more physically attractive, but likely more promiscuous and non-commital male.

 

[all caps]

Without the proper education and choices, we are designed to kill our rivals, enslave or murder their progeny, and mate with their women to their shame.

I somehow think we can do better.

Disagree

 

[Pessimystic]

You know I wanted to add into one of my posts, the phenomenon of incels, like @KONG-D'SNT-TAP has recently discovered to give a term to his own situation, and how that's almost exclusively a problem of men. That is, the people that want sex but cannot get it is effectively an all male problem. Indicating, @panamaican, that females are the choosier sex, and why the term hypergamy is predominantly described for female's sexual selection strategy.

In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the "sexual marketplace" is that it follows a pareto distribution as well, where in crass language ~20% of men are getting the lions share (~80%) of sexual access to women.

Of course a necessary addendum is that the relative promiscuity and choosiness of females also depends, of course, on their relative supply and demand as compared to men, where a majority of females among but a few men promote promiscuity, and the reverse if there are fewer women to men.

Solid post.

 

[Rod1]

Yeah his initial post was sort of right, but he just decided to go off onto the funny farm with the patriarchy shit. Across all the species, homo sapiens are champion dads. That didn't rise out of "modern culture". That extraordinary care by men for their offspring via a pair bond with their female partner was just an adaptive response that ultimately saved our species.

Interestingly, that level of commitment is stratified among the various human populations. Descendants that are privileged to be from more generous ecological environments like @panamaican were able to support larger communities, display less commitment to their female counterparts, and thus also to their offspring. The same pressures as compared to other human populations didn't exist because they weren't necessary. That's why that stereotype among males of African descent are described as "dead beat"... because it was. There just wasn't the need to be as committed to raising your offspring (though still a very high level of commitment as compared to other species). However, compared to males of more northern European descent, where they just weren't privileged with as generous of an ecological environment to yield larger communities, a larger commitment from males to females and their offspring was more necessary. Similarly, that's also why family values is such a predisposition among European descendants as opposed to other descendant populations.

???

First of all, where do you get the idea that Africa is such a heaven of abundance? Sure there is a lot of game, but that game doesnt hunts itself and doesnt certainly allows for large populations.

Monogamy is a trait of sedentary life and civilization which are a result of excess resources that allow people to dedicate to more activities beyond mere survival.

 

[Greoric]

???

First of all, where do you get the idea that Africa is such a heaven of abundance? Sure there is a lot of game, but that game doesnt hunts itself and doesnt certainly allows for large populations.

Monogamy is a trait of sedentary life and civilization which are a result of excess resources that allow people to dedicate to more activities beyond mere survival.

Well first, because it was the original and natural habitat for our species to evolve in. The ecology just supported larger communities than say the climates of northern Europe, with ten month long winters, fewer resources, and which just generally was only able to support much smaller more nuclear communities.

And fundamentally, monogamy was a selection pressure created to allow offspring a better chance of survival, given the vulnerability and immature development of homo sapien neonates immediately outside the womb. It was created out of necessity. Going back to @panamaican's issue, the ancestral size of the communities an ecology was able to support is why different human populations have a stratified affinity for monogamous relationships. Descendents of northern Europe with predominantly smaller communities required that the male have stronger pair bonds with a female and be more attentive to his offspring than descendants of other ecological climates by virtue of the community size their ecologies allowed them to have.

 

[HomerThompson]

What feminine life-form could not like something so buoyant in their deepest yearnings?

@Imbrued Esculence

 

[HomerThompson]

I'd read quite a bit of research on this a while ago. It's pretty straight forward once you think about it. Women are capable of engaging multiple sexual partners with little to no downtime between them. Men require a recovery period. That wouldn't have developed if women weren't more prone to engaging more partners in a short period of time, relative to men.

Most of what we call the patriarchy arose from men's desire to restrict what is a more natural female behavior towards multiple partners so that they, the men, could ensure paternity opportunities over other men. A reasonable social development.

I don't even find it all that controversial. The interesting position that I foresee is that people who insist on gendered stereotypes as justification for male promiscuity based on genetic determinism won't extend the same acceptance to female promiscuity, even if the research says they should.

Instead they'll continue to apply the "they need to be more selective than men" argument even though that's a byproduct of society imposing restrictions on female promiscuity.

AKA:

 

[Rod1]

Well first, because it was the original and natural habitat for our species to evolve in. The ecology just supported larger communities than say the climates of northern Europe, with ten month long winters, fewer resources, and which just generally was only able to support much smaller more nuclear communities.

Norsemen were polygamous.

And survival is harsh anywhere without agriculture, instead of winters, you deal with droughts and animal migrations.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

it's not about finding another husband .. they just wanna get fkd by someone else(new) .. the guy doesn't have to be 'better' than the husband in regards to social status/money .. women can be just as primal as men

Exactly. The amount of financially struggling pool boys and landscapers banging bored rich housewives should be evidence of that.

 

[Greoric]

Norsemen were polygamous.

And survival is harsh anywhere without agriculture, instead of winters, you deal with droughts and animal migrations.

Of course, especially among the more elite warrior class. The pareto distribution in the market place especially as human populations were growing with tech advancements in the middle ages was certainly in play, and was receptive to men's polygynous nature.

And yes, absolutely every environment has its challenges for survival, hence why the saying survival is the exception and extinction is the rule. In that frame, however, on net the ecologies principally surrounding the equator generally supported much larger communities than harsher environments up north.

 

[Rod1]

Of course, especially among the more elite warrior class. The pareto distribution in the market place especially as human populations were growing with tech advancements in the middle ages was certainly in play, and was receptive to men's polygynous nature.

So why claim that they were a closer family unit?

And yes, absolutely every environment has its challenges for survival, hence why the saying survival is the exception and extinction is the rule. In that frame, however, on net the ecologies principally surrounding the equator generally supported much larger communities than harsher environments up north.

Um no?

 

[Greoric]

So why claim that they were a closer family unit?

Um no?

Because on net, monoganous relationships were still preferred on the whole. Of course the top percentage of men are still going to be getting the majority of sexual access to women.

And, "Um no" what? You just used a modern population density distribution map to counter what exactly? Dude, if you're skeptical look it up.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Exactly. The amount of financially struggling pool boys and landscapers banging bored rich housewives should be evidence of that.

For women it not so much about banging the pool boy because they want to get some 'strange' which is often the driver for men and why Schwarzenegger would do such an unattractive female just because she was there. Women have far less propensity towards sex for sex sake. If she does the pool boy its because he gets her hot.

What it typically is about is her finding some passion in her sex life which she does not have with her loving husband and nest provider who she 'settled' for.

Still many women today will trade off attraction and passion for a man they think will provide security and be a good parent to her children. They genuinely find themselves attracted to the 'provider' male as an ideal and want to 'catch' and marry him but he is not typically the guy who makes her wet and want to fuck. HE can be for a while, during her pursuit stage of him. Catching the rich guy can be exciting for her. But once he is caught and settles into the role of husband and father her passion often wanes. Thus decades of sitcoms and movies about the sex starved husband with the uninterested wife. That was not made up from thin air.

ANd that is why women initiate about 75% of divorces with husbands who often did not feel the same way. After being married and with divorce laws being biased towards women generally, the NEED for the provider male drops precipitously as she can leave him and get control of a large amount of the assets and no longer require him.

It is also why the leading literature by far for women is the Harlequin romance type 'two loves' story. Her inner turmoil as she tries to be loyal to the good man and provider who married her and treats her well, and the pull she feels to the bad boy who she truly desires to fuck and be with.

 

[FightGuyOpenMind]

I think women may have more opportunities for it as well. I may just be speaking from a narrow scope, but from what I've seen, women can get laid whenever they want. There will always be a guy that is down, no matter what she looks like. It doesn't surprise me if they were doing it more than men.

Also society for the longest has told women their role. We're living increasingly in a day, and age where individuals are determining their own paths in life. The pressure to fit society's mold isn't as great nowadays, at least I don't feel it is.

 

[Rod1]

And, "Um no" what? You just used a modern population density distribution map to counter what exactly? Dude, if you're skeptical look it up.

Modern population density is not that far off from ancient population density.

 

[Greoric]

Modern population density is not that far off from ancient population density.

Rod, my man, your video starts in the year 1 A.D. That is not what we're talking about holmes. Groups were leaving Africa and the rift valley at minimum hundreds of thousands of years ago.

 

[Rod1]

Rod, my man, your video starts in the year 1 A.D. That is not what we're talking about holmes. Groups were leaving Africa and the rift valley at minimum hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Most of these humans died out though.

Humans were close to extinction 70,000 years ago.

 

[Greoric]

Most of these humans died out though.

Humans were close to extinction 70,000 years ago.

Right. Go on, why?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Why do so many of your posts include the word 'incel'? You've been spamming it in the Mayberry too.

Has the word taken over your mind?

Incels hate women. Haven't you heard

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You know I wanted to add into one of my posts, the phenomenon of incels, like @KONG-D'SNT-TAP has recently discovered to give a term to his own situation, and how that's almost exclusively a problem of men. That is, the people that want sex but cannot get it is effectively an all male problem. Indicating, @panamaican, that females are the choosier sex, and why the term hypergamy is predominantly described for female's sexual selection strategy.

In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the "sexual marketplace" is that it follows a pareto distribution as well, where in crass language ~20% of men are getting the lions share (~80%) of sexual access to women.

Of course a necessary addendum is that the relative promiscuity and choosiness of females also depends, of course, on their relative supply and demand as compared to men, where a majority of females among but a few men promote promiscuity, and the reverse if there are fewer women to men.

It is funny that someone as strange as Greoric has the audacity to talk about women not wanting other men.

I'm sure the women are flocking to you, waiting to hear about libertarianism in one of your autistic tangents