The male desire for both madonnas and whores is easily explained; just not so easily justified.
Quote:Quote:
For a man, women are vehicles that can carry his genes into the next generation. For a woman, men are sources of a vital substance (sperm) that can turn their eggs into embryos. For each gender the other is a sought-after resource to be exploited. The question is, how? One way to exploit the other gender is to round up as many as possible of them and persuade them to mate with you, then desert them, as bull elephant seals do. The opposite extreme is to find one individual and share all the duties of parenthood equally, as albatrosses do. Every species falls somewhere on that spectrum, with its own characteristic “mating system.” Where does humanity fall?
-Ridley, Matt.
The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (pp. 175-176).
The answer, as Ridley goes on to reveal, is that "we are designed for a system of monogamy plagued by adultery."
Just as women have evolved a mating system (alpha fucks & beta bucks) that maximizes their chances of passing their genes on to the next generation, so too have men developed a system suited to their own ends. It goes something like this:
A: If the woman in question is of high quality, commit to the relationship and invest in the children.
B: If the woman is of low quality, impregnate her but do not invest in the relationship or children.
This strategy (call it "quantity AND quality") is man's way of hedging his genetic bets.
Investing in your children, in the form of protection and resource acquisition, greatly increases their chances of survival and reproduction. This is particularly true of human children, with their lengthy time of development, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that long-term pair bonding has always been a part of the human experience. If you want to ensure your genes make it into the next generation, being a devoted father has almost always been the best way to accomplish that.
Male promiscuity, however, comes with an interesting risk/reward ratio. Unlike women, where casual sex and/or cheating has historically risked 9 months of pregnancy, death during labor, and potential violence or abandonment if discovered by her partner, men have little to lose but much to gain by mating with every woman they encounter. All it takes is an orgasm, and a man has continued his genetic legacy.
While the ensuing bastards probably won't stand as good of a chance as his "legitimate" children, their reduced chance of success is more than offset by the low price he pays. Evolutionarily speaking, it's better to play with a shitty hand than not be in the game at all.
...
This all goes to say that men's mating system-of wanting to love and cherish a wife while simultaneously fucking a mistress or two-is entirely natural. That doesn't justify it, though, any more than you can justify woman's propensity towards alpha fucks/beta bucks. The fact that Mother Nature gave us these impulses doesn't justify our acting on them, any more than a natural craving for sugar justifies binge eating junk food to the point of obesity.
The simple truth is that human beings are animals. We're a couple DNA markers away from being chimpanzees, but we've evolved an incredible intelligence that enables rational thought and moral conscience. We still act like animals-murder, rape, theft, and adultery are just as
natural for humans as they are for lions or lizards-but we alone have developed the unique ability to recognize and control our brute impulses.
What we're seeing today, across the board, is denial of this truth. In refusing to admit that we are animals, we are blind to the fact that we have a distinct nature, and this blindness prevents us from tackling the problems our nature presents. Civilization is built upon the restriction of certain behaviors; behaviors which, as we've seen, are entirely natural, yet at the same morally deplorable.
There are a million ways you can rationalize pumping and dumping sluts, or breaking the hearts of "good girls" through serial monogamy, or cheating on your wife with the yoga instructor. But at the end of the day, you're left with the same problem: that of reconciling your animal instincts with the knowledge that these instincts are often diametrically opposed to the very
un-natural idea of morality. You don't get to have your philosophical cake and eat it, too.
I am, however, sympathetic to the posters who insisted that they only turned to the player lifestyle after realizing that their current environment was not conducive to a life of monogamy. It makes sense, biologically-if there are no women worthy of investment (or if investment brings with it risks that outweigh potential gains), then you might as well forget about that half of your strategy and focus on the other half. You can't fight the terrain.
In a perfect world, people would recognize their instincts and desires for what they really are-biological programming designed solely to ensure genetic continuance. They would realize we are designed for survival and reproduction, not happiness, and would fight their internal programming when it acted against the better interests of their family and society. (Replace "internal programming" with "original sin" and you'll see that religion has been attempting to achieve this for millenia.)
Our world isn't perfect, though, and it seems more and more every day that the only rational way to live is to pursue individualistic desires, even at the expense of society and civilization at large. I myself seem to be on that path, and I'm not attacking those who choose to take it. I simply prefer to do so with my eyes open, and perhaps with a hope that if the world changes, I too could change with it.
![[Image: laugh5.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/laugh5.gif)
