[AnGeX]

I open here a discussion about non-monogamy. I know it’s gonna drag a lot of haters, and that I am probably gonna come out as a degenerate to most people in this forum, but I am still interested in knowing your ideas and feelings.

In short, I BELIEVE (this is only my beliefs, I don’t pretend to know the truth for a fact) in 2 ideas:

A-Human beings are naturally designed to be tribal nomadic and polyamorous. Monogamy is a social construction which appeared with agriculture and the resulting sedentary lifestyle where possessions and capital became important. But this lifestyle is against the nature of human beings and make us unhappy and have all sorts of psychological problems and hang ups. We resort to all kinds of artefacts such as consumerism and productivism to try to recreate a sense of purpose and variety in our lives which ultimately fails to bring true satisfaction anyways.


B-Since the advances in widespread availability of effective safe sex and birth control methods and then DNA testing, monogamy is not a necessity anymore, and humans are more and more changing their lifestyles so that technology enables them to live accordingly to their tribal nomadic and polyamorous true nature.

It may be in the form of having 90 one night stands in 3 months in the Philippines, or opening a blog and writing books about banging eastern european women, and then marrying a woman, having children and divorcing or opening up the marriage or cheating. Or it might be that your polyamorous drive is very low and lifelong monogamy works for you. Or it may be that you work a corporate job and change job and neighborhood every 3-5 years and you change girlfriend in similar time frames. Or it may be that you have 3 regular lady friends that you like hanging out with and a rotation of 2 other girls that like to fuck occasionally and that you change more frequently. All with different degrees of effective and spiritual connection. All of these are for me clear signs that we are polyamorous, we just have different ways of living it. Monogamy itself is can be seen as one special case of polyamory.

[AnGeX]

More rambling about the same ideas:

A-sedentary lifestyle and monogamy is a social construction against human biological nature: before agriculture men and women lived most of their life as nomadic tribes where they enjoyed more gender and sexual fluidity. Children were recognized as part of the tribe, nobody cared who was the father they whose woman it came out from, she’s the adult primary responsible for her child. The child has a variety of adult male “parents” and “mentors” in the tribe. Adults engaged sexually with several members of the tribe. And it’s probable that sometimes, once a woman engaged sexually with a male, some other male joined. Yes, I believe women are sexually designed to enjoy being fucked in a gang bang, and this was most probably ensuring the best genetic vitality for the tribe. I believe there was some form of exchange of women between tribes: at some point in his life a man had to go and find a woman from another tribe and bring her back to the tribe.


B-after a transition through sex-negative, slut shaming, whore stigmatizing, sedentary and largely monogamous phase, accelerated after the first industrial revolution, humanity is evolving to more occurrence of relationship styles that are more in line with its biological, non-monogamous nature. I don’t think everybody is gonna become polyamorous, but I believe that with computers and machines, there is always gonna be less need for REAL WORK producing something really useful, and so an ever increasing leftist social program. As a result, society will provide the basics for women to raise their children, and therefore the necessity for a woman to mate and stay with a provider will be lessened. I don’t think this is inherently wrong, as I don’t think men are really as much into procreation as women, I don’t think men are naturally made to spend a lot of time taking care of their children anyways. Men have a strong drive to fuck and then be mentors for older kids and teenagers. Women have a stronger drive for pregnancy, they want to experience what it is to carry and deliver life, they have a strong drive to take care of babies and toddlers. So let them ladies be single moms, what’s important is for some men to provide a mentoring figure at some point but having a father in the sense of the nuclear family, I don’t think it is very important and irreplaceable. For instance I believe there will be a basic income that allows for every adult the most basic housing and feeding and reproducing up to a number that allows demographic equilibrium (yes, I believe there is already enough humans on earth no need to increase the population). If you want more, you can still get a job or start a business, but it won’t be a necessity anymore. I believe it should only provide the most basic essentials. And meanwhile, I think prostitution should be legalized and encouraged as a valid profession for women, and men. I strongly disagree with feminists who are against prostitution (they often are the ones who want wage equality AND men to provide and pay for them) and I agree with feminists who fight for prostitution to be legalized and stigmatized. Prostitution is probably one of the most valuable service women can provide to society. I believe a woman who provide quality sexual services deserves to be acknowledged as an important part of society.

[AnGeX]

More personal ramblings about myself, to give you some ideas about who I am and so that you can expose my biases:

As we know since women have birth control the feminist revolution has destroyed traditional marriage. Nowadays if you are a man in a western country it’s most likely that the laws changed marriage into something where a man can only loose and has nothing to gain from such a contract which sets him for:
- extremely high risk of economical and financial loss
- no guarantee of sex or quality companionship
- loss of independence


I believe most of us in this forum have had sex with a large number of women, and therefore most of us are sluts - or Casanova - same thing I don’t believe men should be praised and women should shamed for it. I believe it's neither a good or a bad thing, it is relative. If it makes someone happier to fuck a large number of people then go for it, men or women. Good or bad is how you treat the people you fuck. If you give fake promises and lies to someone in order to fuck them, then it’s probably unethical. If you fuck raw random people, then it’s probably unhygienic and the risks to catch AND SPREAD some STDs are higher. And expecting women to do different sounds like cognitive dissonance. I love sluts and whores because they maximise their sexual availability (and as long as they fuck ethically and hygienic, I see nothing bad about what they do). I think they provide a great deal of service to society, and I have nothing against traditional wifes who throughly please their husband sexually. However I want to be clear that I deeply despise double standards women who for instance claim to be feminists while letting guys buy them drinks or foods and expecting a guy to provide for her. In my opinion, unless in a traditional marriage where the woman takes seriously her duty to sexually satisfy her husband, and let her be the leader, or in the role of a prostitute, a woman deserve no money or material advantages whatsoever from me. In this regard, she is like another dude to me. If we are friends, we can offer stuffs to each others but globally I make sure that it’s gonna be balanced and we remain financially independent. Most women have actually double standards, but I don’t let them apply me.

Personally, I have never felt that lifelong exclusive monogamy was something I wanted to live. I have never felt that it made sense for me to want to control who somebody else has sex with and I always felt that I would never accept to let somebody else decide who I have sex with. I have always felt that I don’t want to have sex with only one person. Physically, I like all kinds of girls, blonds with blue eyes, brunettes with green eyes, blacks with round ass, asians with smooth skin, etc.... And different women fuck differently. And different people have different personalities and life experiences. If I eat the same thing every day, I end up bored to death about the food I am eating. Same if I fuck only one same girl, meanwhile there are many other different women that I feel I want to be with. Whereas when I eat 2-3 different foods regularly, and 1-2 other foods occasionally or when I fuck 2-3 girls regularly plus 1-2 other girls occasionally, then I feel a satisfying variety. Everybody is different, personally I prefer long term relationships with about 3 regulars plus a rotation of 2 occasionals. I am nomad so that means I try to keep contact with the women who live in the places that I like and want to go back, more than half of them I can fuck again when I come back. I don’t enjoy one night stands, I usually don’t do that, the handful of times this happened it wasn’t me who decided. However I can enjoy paying for some special sexual service.

So when a woman asks me if I have a girlfriend, I answer: I don’t like to have a girlfriend and I want to remain childfree. I like to meet friends. With some friends if we feel like we can share affection and even love, and I like it to remain open: they can see and love other friends, same as I do. Most women who fuck with me pretend they fuck only me and try to shit test me to see if they can get me to be monogamous with them. Some also try to push me to fuck them raw and impregnate them. I don’t let that happen.

On the other hand, I put high emphasis on safe sex, I get tested regularly and I systematically wear condoms unless the other person is able to show me a test which is less than 3 months. There is only a handful of exceptions in my life where I took the risk to fuck a girl raw without seeing her tests results, and I believe each time it was very stupid to have done so. With regards to Roosh’s posts in one of his blog, I am probably a 8 or 9 when it comes to safe sex:
“I think of safe sex as a scale from 1-10. A 1 has never bought condoms and only uses them when the herpes is flaring up while a 10 needs signed laboratory tests from her partner before going raw.”.


I also put a high emphasis on consent. But I believe “affirmative consent” is not the best approach as it does not account for gender passive/active differences. I believe the best approach is the use of a safe word. I simply use “safe word” for the safe word. Many women (about 50% or more in my experience) are indeed reluctant to give affirmative consent or are just turned off by this as it feels awkward to them. But they actually want to fuck, while they also want to know that the guy is gonna stop if it becomes uncomfortable or is not gonna force her into something she dislikes. A lot of girls want to feel “ravished”, if not act some kind of “rape fantasy”, while not actually being raped of course and being able to stop anytime.

Sometimes I try to get affirmative consent, often for the first move cuddling her. But more and more, when the girl is shy and I have no clue if she wants to fuck, I will say something like “ok I feel like playing with you now, if you want to stop just say ‘safe word’ and I will immediately stop what I am doing and let you some space. I expect the same from you when I say ‘safe word’.” Then to make sure she understood, I tickle her until it becomes unbearable and at the same time I tell her “No matter what you say I will continue, but as soon as you say ‘safe word’ I will stop.” After a little while, she surely gets it and will say “safe word” and I stop. After that, I just do whatever the fuck I want, probably starting with kissing her in her neck or on the mouth, and every time so far I quickly and fluidly escalate to fucking her. She sometimes says “safe word”, I stop, we talk to know what’s going on, and then resume to fuck most of the time.
I usually don’t mix alcohol with gaming or fucking, it makes me sleepy and stupid, and numbs my senses. When I am drunk I can’t seem to be able to get rock hard with a condom on my dick anyway.

I am all about consent, so as I said, I don’t want to forcefully participate in procreation. So if there is an accident such as a condom broke and the girl is not on any birth control (I personally consider IUD and the pill the only valid birth control methods), I always stay with the woman, go to the pharmacy or family planning center with her and make sure she eats the next day pill. I happily pay for it if needed. And if she is reluctant to do so, I use all possible rationalisations, manipulations and psychological pressures to make her eat the damned pill. I can’t really physically force a woman to swallow a next day pill (let me know if you know how to), and I never had to, but if I could and had to, I would do it. I guess depending how you see it, I have some sort of double standard about “consent” on this matter. It occurred once that I had a very minor accident with a condom in the Philippines, Manila. Most women there are not on birth control and there is no next day pill, you have to make her eat 8 normal pills and the side effects are shitty. I didn’t cum, but there could have been some precum (I often have some white precum, I know some of my friends never have any but I do, I don’t know if it’s fertile but I just don’t want to take any risk to have kids). She was super worried about the side effects and didn’t want to eat the pills, I talked her for hours into eating the pill, and then got really upset at her and went in the other room. After that she took the pill. Later she had strong side effects, knowing the risk she got pregnant was almost zero without the pill, I felt bad for her… But that’s the kind of (hormonal) control I am willing to exert forcefully on a woman’s body for the sake of my own peace of mind, which makes me a fucking patriarch I guess. Well if the law were different and women were more responsible for getting pregnant, I would not have to do that. Meanwhile, I don’t want to mutilate my testicles with a vasectomy. So yeah, I guess this is some double standard.

As far as the protection itself, I feel male condoms suck and are not very reliable. But that’s what most people know, so that’s what I use most of the time. But technically we would be better off using vaginal condom that the woman wears, and anal condoms also.

As far as sex is concerned, I like anal sex. I really like to switch back and forth from the ass to the pussy (caution, she needs to wash down there with water before and after - or if we had anal condoms available, she could wear a vaginal and an anal condom and I could go from ass to pussy to mouth randomly). Or just fuck her ass while I play with her clit and shove my fingers in her pussy. I like pussy too, but it’s the default stuff that you always get anyways. I like group sex, starting with 3 somes. Including with another guy, I’ve had several 3 some with a few good friends, most with one of them (he is 100% straight for those who wonder). I also like 3somes with 2 girls, especially if they are already busy fucking each others. I have been in swingers clubs and met swingers couples at home. If I like how the girl smells, I like to lick her pussy. I like to fuck her, lick her pussy, fuck her again, lick her again, etc…

I like long term relationships, but I don’t like to live with someone (the main problem being this is a logistical cockblock: most girls for the first time want to be fucked at the guys place out of fear of being slutshamed in their neighborhood)

My favourite kind of girl is first a good friend, with whom I also share affection and who has no interest whatsoever in getting money from me or impregnating her. She’s significantly smaller and lighter than my own small stature of 174cm (5’9”) and 65kg (143lbs) probably around 20% bodyfat, possibly less than 50kg (110lbs) and less than 155cm (5’1”) (or she can be taller if she has small body with long legs). She is sexually adventurous and kinky, bisexual and loves anal sex. She arranges for me to fuck some of her females fiends separately or in the occasional MFF 3some and she enjoys that I do the same for her separately or in the occasional MMF 3some. Less than 5-10% of the 45 women (90% from online gaming) I fucked so far in my life (I don’t count here paid fucking prostitutes or women I fucked while swinging, this would probably double the cunts count) resemble this ideal kind of lady friend. A good 30% or more share some components of this ideal kind while having some despicable “wrong feminist” double standards. A good 40% want everything, and are full of cognitive dissonance shit: want to work, want equal wage for women and men, want men to pay for everything (I don’t let that happen with me), want a monogamous lifelong marriage and at the same time want to fuck random guys (but some guys in seem to want to fuck a lot of random girls and at the same time complain that there is no more virgin traditional women to marry: to these guys I say you can’t have both if there is no sluts out there)…

I have never ever met a single woman who had any remote idea of what it is to have the role of a man in seduction, what it is to have to be the active partner of seduction. Women have 0 empathy about that, and when they realize what kind of efforts a man puts in game it totally freaks the shit out of them. They cannot even grasp that the mere fact of sharing a roof with a woman is a huge logistical cockblock, even if she is 100% cool with me banging other chicks in the same bed. Exception to the cockblock would be if the girl actively seeks swingers couples and set me up to fuck some of her hot female friends... the latter happened once.

I am French. I have been rather sedentary in the french riviera for 6 years with a corporate job after I graduated a 5 year university degree in science and technology. In 2011, aged 28, I quit and organized a more and more minimalist nomadic lifestyle. I currently change city and country about every 3 months carrying only a flight cabin bag. I was introduced to Roosh's blog in august 2014 by a woman friend I was visiting in Vancouver BC.

[Akwesi]

TL; DR, but I smell a troll here. You seem to think men and women should be held to the same standard sexually despite obvious biological differences.

[AnGeX]

Can you develop?
I do think men and women should not be judged on the number of people they fucked. I do believe it's better if they are "fair play", that means: safe, hygienic and ethical.

Example A1: a guy is married and occasionally raw-dogs some random chicks: unhygienic he is a potential vector of STDs. He then hides it to his wife: dishonest therefore unethical.

Example A2: a guy is married and occasionally raw-dogs some random chicks: unhygienic he is a potential vector of STDs. He then tells it to his wife (I guess it helps if they have an open marriage): honest therefore more ethical. They decide to use protection until he gets tested: he stops being a potential vector.

Example B1: a woman fucks 1000 dudes, always using safe sex and letting each guys know of her being a slut. It's ethical and hygienic. I like this woman's attidude and I think it's cool that she fucked so many guys if that made her happy.

Example B2: a woman fucks raw a guy that she met 2 weeks ago and let him cum in her pussy. It's her first, she's not on birth control, she has no proof this guy has no STD: this girl is unhygienic. He behavior is also retarded and will probably get pregnant and have to raise the child alone. If she repeats the same process with other dudes, she becomes a potential vectors for STD infections. This could result in her and the guys she then fucked getting HIV infected and her subsequent bastard be born HIV infected himself. Already from the first fuck, this woman is in my opinion a mess and needs to be teached how to take care of herself and other peoples.

Example C1: a woman asks upfront to be paid to get fucked, she is open to negotiate what kind of service she will provide and what is the exact price, she refuses to get fucked raw. I am cool with this woman, I hope she enjoys her job and makes a lot of money. She's honest with her intentions and she's also hygienic.

Example C2: a woman goes out and let guys buy her drinks letting them hope for something when she already knows she won't fuck or befriend them. She goes on diner dates the guys always pay. She has many orbiters who she doesn't fuck but make them buy her stuffs and invite her to diner, ask them for various services and she pretends to be going on dates with only one, each hoping to have a relationship with her. I can't bear this behavior, I find it very hypocritical therefor unethical.

However I don't believe they are "equals". I believe for instance that this is particularly true in reproduction, sex and seduction: women can't grasp what it is to have a dick and penetrate someone, they have no idea of what it is to seduce a woman, even if they are a butch tomboy seeking girly lesbians, they have it much easier than us dudes. Men cannot grasp what it is to have a vagina, they cannot know what it is to have the pussy penetrated (they can try to be fucked in the ass, but that's about it), they can't grasp what it is like to be pregnant (it seems to be a fucking trip with all the hormones and body transformation from what I heard and read, but I can't really grasp fully what it is, and I will never experience it myself).

That's why I believe the desire to fuck is mostly male while the desire to procreate is mostly female. The male seduces (eventually manipulates or forces) the woman into having sex, the woman seduces (eventually manipulates or forces) the man into procreating and raising babies.

In term of personality, to simplify, I believe women have in average higher EQ while men have higher IQ. Physically we all know that men are in average taller and stronger than women.

There may be some exceptions. Some women particularly gifted with mathematics and physics. But in average, I believe women bring better value to the society by making themselves sexually available to men (this is taking the roles of sluts and whores who are for me some of the most valid aspirations for women) and by taking care of raising their children (this is taking the role of mother).

[AnGeX]

By the way, I used the word "polyamory" but personally, I identify more with the principles of "relationship anarchy" and to a lesser extend to "solo polyamory" - mostly for logistical reasons.

Pragmatically it doesn't change much with being single, gaming and dating. I am just upfront about the fact that I date several girls and I encourage them to fuck with other men.

I am also happily childfree.

<IMG SRC="https://rewritingtherules.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/diversityloverelationships.jpg">

[silk]

Forming a stable society requires a sizeable amount of men to feel committed to something in society; wife, kids, church, etc.

It's hard to feel committed when your wife is out fucking other people. This is basic biology. Men who fucked women with lots of partners where less likely to pass on their genes.

If I were in a polygamous society, I'd just fuck around, make money, and retire to pursue my hobbies. I'm just an individual, I don't matter. The question then is what proportion of men would come to the same conclusion as me and eventually "check out".

Just look at the sexual market:
Women have more purchasing power.
* Woman who's a 6 can get an 8 to fuck her
* Male 6 will probably get a chubby 5
*Woman gets pounded by an alpha she loves
*Comes home to a hubby that pays the bills


It just doesn't work.
1. Women are more sex selective.
2. Harems form
3. Anger and resentment from non-alpha men
4. Revolution

[Guitarman]

Ban hammer approaches!

[AnGeX]

I don't try to advocate a society where everybody is polyamorous and where polygamy (man and women contractually marrying more than one man and woman) is the norm. I think maybe one third max would be really interested in such lifestyle and contracts.

About the resentment from non alpha. It's already there, it will always be. And I have seen it live in polyamorous meetups in Paris (100+ people every month) and Vancouver where a handful of alphas skillfully get most of women attention (this point remains not addressed in these social circles). That's why in my opinion prostitution is one of the most valuable activity women can bring to society. In my opinion there should be a large amount of legal prostitution available with price ranges starting from really affordable (think Germany and all you can fuck offers for instance). This would lower the resentment from non alpha: you can still afford to regularly have a short time GFE or PSE whatever you feel like. This would also lower the entitlement of other women: if you're just horny you can go and fuck a prostitute. Totally pointless in the hopes to fuck to pay drinks or a diner date to some woman you are not sure of fucking when for the same amount you can go a fuck a legal prostitute is a safe environment.

But I agree that monogamy is some sort of relationship socialism: everyone can have one and only one so that nobody can get all the pussies for himself.

I don't think we have to work that much. It's just productivity and consumerism that pushes us towards always more and more stuffs, always more and more economic growth. A lot of the work and products pushed out there make only economic sense, and are actually ecologically and socially harmful while bringing no real value to the consumer. Think about the obvious example of cigarettes for instance (I am not saying we should ban the tobacco industry)... Generally: what is the point in having computers and robots if it's not to replace human work and thus give more free time in average. I think people should be able to work more and set businesses, becoming richer than average. But in reasonable amounts: it's quite ridiculous how nowadays 300 of the richest people own more than 3 billions of the poorest, that's too extreme and some wealth can be redistributed in some way. Yet, there is no revolution... But you may have a point there about being committed: I did what you just said. However after 3-4 years of mini retirement, I am already considering using more of my time, energy and brainpower to work more and make extra money for the sole purpose of buying sexual services instead of using this time energy and brainpower to game and fuck around for free.

Think about it: 300 most sexually active males could never fuck more than 3 billions less sexually active. You just cannot have the time and libido. Maybe some alpha can fuck 5 times more for free than the average guy and that's it... If really you are a super player or porn star you can fuck thousands of different women. Maybe you can fuck and cum 10 times per day every day (for sure I cannot). Still you will not be fucking unreasonably more than the average guy.

You can argue that with polygamy (I am not talking about onesided polygyny such as the mormons or muslims where it's only men who can mate with several women) some men would have more wives but their wives would also fuck other guys anyways...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/uWSxzjyMNpU

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QPKKQnijnsM

[Akwesi]

Look, the main point is that a woman can always be sure that the baby is hers, whereas a man can only be reasonably sure if he can actually assume that the woman is monogamous. So, in order to have two people committed to the well-being of a child, the woman needs to be monogamous but the man does not.

I'm all for polygamy and would love to have several wives. But I sure as shit would not be pimping out my wives for other dudes to fuck.

[AnGeX]

Yes in the past before DNA tests only monogamy could give you some degree of reassurance that your heirs carry your genes.
Today DNA tests are a much more effective method of ensuring this.

They would not need you to pimp them, even with monogamy you ultimately never know if your wife is cheating on you. Think about it, it's only a matter of minutes for her to get fucked without leaving any traces, she just has to say "yes" and spread her legs.

So you are against polygamy (group marriage), but for polygyny (one man with multiple wives only for himself). Assuming you are rich enough, how many wives would you like to possess?

[The Beast1]

I know this is the deep forum and these sorts of musings are certainly worthy. But I believe such a discussion is best left as a datasheet and in the game forum.

Otherwise,

[Paracelsus]

FWIW, Hacker Factor's verdict on our last contestant's writing put together:

Informal Writing: Weak Male.
Formal Writing: Weak Female.

[PapayaTapper]

(10-31-2015 02:38 PM)AnGeX Wrote:  

Yes in the past before DNA tests only monogamy could give you some degree of reassurance that your heirs carry your genes.
Today DNA tests are a much more effective method of ensuring this.

They would not need you to pimp them, even with monogamy you ultimately never know if your wife is cheating on you. Think about it, it's only a matter of minutes for her to get fucked without leaving any traces, she just has to say "yes" and spread her legs.

So you are against polygamy (group marriage), but for polygyny (one man with multiple wives only for himself). Assuming you are rich enough, how many wives would you like to possess?

Since "marriage" is an artificial construct and assuming "fucking" is the real life manifestation of that construct my answer to your question is..."more"

[Alexandrian]

This is really weird. How would polyamory be ''more natural'', while it needs tecnological developments (availability of effective safe sex and birth control methods and then DNA testing) to happen in the first place?

It is not logical nor convenient nor practical for women to be polyamorous. A man can impregnate 100 women and it would still be 100% clear who the mothers are and who the dad is. Now imagine a woman having 100 sexual partners. It doesn't make any sense.

[Grodin]

This is one of the most ridiculous blocks of rationalization I've ever read, and the whole pile is built on a bullshit myth about a matriarchal utopia prior to the age of agriculture.

[Orson]

There was a review in Commentary magazine last summer - June? - by Terry Teachout. It reviewed the last of a three volume history of the song.

It mentions that all civilizations and all song has been directed by love and procreation - the dyadic ideal of love and romance - until very recently in the West.

If so, is this the cause or symptom of our civilizational decline?

It tracks a worrying marque of our collective willingness to be supplanted by Islam and Sharia, as seen in "Western" desiccated Europe - and America isn't far behind - because while demography isn't always destiny, it does define necessary and sufficient 'sustainability'; for any culture that aspires to become or stay a lasting civilization.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

The topic had been analyzed by 'sphere writers like Heartiste to the max.

The guy tried to make it appear scientific and enlightened, but of course there it's nothing of the sort.

Polyamory just leads to civilizational stagnation and power of matriarchy. Also the other extreme of the Incas where 50% of men had no sex and no women at all - that is highly destructive for societies as well.

Both models will flounder and die because they are like mental rots akin to communism. If you want to live in mud-huts or a Medieval society for thousands of years - then go ahead.

Also most of those societies were conqured by stable marriage-based ones and thus they are almost non-existent in our times.

[rw95]

(11-08-2015 09:35 PM)Orson Wrote:  

There was a review in Commentary magazine last summer - June? - by Terry Teachout. It reviewed the last of a three volume history of the song.

It mentions that all civilizations and all song has been directed by love and procreation - the dyadic ideal of love and romance - until very recently in the West.

If so, is this the cause or symptom of our civilizational decline?

It tracks a worrying marque of our collective willingness to be supplanted by Islam and Sharia, as seen in "Western" desiccated Europe - and America isn't far behind - because while demography isn't always destiny, it does define necessary and sufficient 'sustainability'; for any culture that aspires to become or stay a lasting civilization.

Is there a link online where I can read this? Sounds interesting.

[JackMurphy]

(11-09-2015 12:52 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The topic had been analyzed by 'sphere writers like Heartiste to the max.

The guy tried to make it appear scientific and enlightened, but of course there it's nothing of the sort.

Polyamory just leads to civilizational stagnation and power of matriarchy. Also the other extreme of the Incas where 50% of men had no sex and no women at all - that is highly destructive for societies as well.

Both models will flounder and die because they are like mental rots akin to communism. If you want to live in mud-huts or a Medieval society for thousands of years - then go ahead.

Also most of those societies were conqured by stable marriage-based ones and thus they are almost non-existent in our times.

I guess the question becomes, are you able and willing to make societal changes through individual behaviors or are you going to enjoy the decline and get what you can get?

[sour grapes]

Polyamory is really just branch of matriarchy. Nothing more. It gives women all the power over men. Women are naturally hypergamous. PA allows them to express it. Women get to chose all the alphas they desire. If you are a beta you might get some crumbs or a bit of attention here and there.

Monogamy may not be natural, but neither is building a stable and advanced society. Both require intense effort. They you get the rewards of your hard labour.

There will always be the small and side movements -- but PA as the basis of society is sure to degenerate and collapse it.

[Wutang]

This has been mentioned before but it's worth mentioning again - there is pretty much no advanced civilization that is also a matriarchy. Anytime someone points out to you about how there's some obscure primitive tribe out there where women call out the shots and how it's a wonderful hippy paradise full of free love and no war also ask them about if any of these societies have running water, science, great art, universities, museums, electricity etc.