[Delta]

Saw this recently which just piles onto the mountain of evidence in favor of what we all likely suspect: Monogamy is not the natural state of human reproductive relations. It is the result of a deliberate campaign to alter human behavior to serve the needs of modern civilized society, and it requires some sacrifice from both sides of the coin.

Men must sacrifice our innate yearning for sexual variety, along with our desire to bid for young and fertile women as long as we're alive, and in return get dramatically reduced downside risk of going through life entirely sexless and loveless.

Women must sacrifice their innate yearning to submit to an extremely high status man far out of their league, so to speak, and in return get to enjoy undivided love and affection from an ordinary man.

Unfortunately, we've hit a snag: The younger generations are largely unwilling to sacrifice. As a collective, we want to have our cake and eat it too. That is, we've come to expect and demand the upside of the monogamy trade-off without being willing to incur the downside.

I don't need to go into how today's ever-increasing number of single women have unreasonable standards compared to what they offer, yet still harbor a whiff of bitterness that their Prince Charming has yet to ride in and make their fairy tale dreams come true. It's what has caused men to need game and nudged all of us into this community.

Even if you believe women are *mostly* to blame for the current state of gender relations, the only men gung-ho about monogamy these days are betas who would be relegated to lifelong virginity in a non-monogamous society. Most men who have the power to achieve a harem lifestyle now exercise that option well into their 20's or even 30's; I do not believe that was the case in previous generations.

Ironically, in accordance with "progressive" ideals, society is gradually regressing back to its natural, yet less desirable, state that dominated thousands of years ago.

I'm not asking anyone here to give up "enjoying the decline," so to speak. But we must keep in mind that in order to stave off the decline, monogamy must be actively encouraged. Like pushing aside bacon to instead eat spinach, it goes against everyone's evolutionary directive. But such sacrifices are constantly necessary if we are to maintain a civilization where humans don't just live like animals with slightly larger brains.

[Ivanis]

I do agree that it is important to reproduce and settle down into a monogamous relationship. However, are you saying that there is something wrong with doing that later in life? I plan to have a wife and kids, however I would like to be around 35 when that happens.

(12-14-2016 08:00 PM)Delta Wrote:  

Unfortunately, we've hit a snag: The younger generations are largely unwilling to sacrifice. As a collective, we want to have our cake and eat it too. That is, we've come to expect and demand the upside of the monogamy trade-off without being willing to incur the downside.

I see the above as our main problem. The women who we desired to have in the past are no longer by in large here. Most in America have drunk the feminism koolaid and decided to believe that they can get fat, not care about their looks, and still get a beta to wife her up. Sadly, this has worked for the past fifty years, and the women have slowly but surely settled into it. They got larger and larger, taking advantage of men’s nature of wanting to stay and raise our kids.

You are correct in saying there is a decline, you are correct to say that I will enjoy it, you are correct in saying that men need to be monogamous, however, I need incentive to settle down with someone. If I married a women, she will cook and clean. She will take care of and keep her body fit. She will be a good mother to my children. She will fulfill my sexual needs.

In return I will keep my body fit, I will make money to keep her and my kids fed, housed, and comfortable. I will protect her and our kids from any dangers. I will keep her sexually satisfied. No more, no less. That is the commitment I make.

But then again, I may be in a minority of people on the forum who want kids and a wife(maybe a poll?). I have always wanted that, but the only difference after taking the red pill is that my needs in the relationship are more traditional.

Great post, Delta.

[Roosh]

This is an old study that was thoroughly debunked by someone (don't have the link but I remember reading it). It keeps popping up because it's great clickbait.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/20...4.abstract

I wouldn't make any grand theories are random studies that pop up. Google "replication crisis" to see how most are bullshit.

[Sancho]

I was gonna write a longer post, but I can't seem to find the words to convey my point.

Pretty much, we won't get a majority monogamous society until women start demanding it.
Why not men? Because men will naturally follow women's demands.

If a women wants a responsible, generous, and caring man, men will start being so.
But women want a reckless, exciting, and daring man.

So we'll keep having this society where loose women only choose men that have no interest in sacrificing for the greater good.

[Dr. Howard]

(12-14-2016 08:00 PM)Delta Wrote:  

Saw this recently which just piles onto the mountain of evidence in favor of what we all likely suspect:

...

Like pushing aside bacon to instead eat spinach, it goes against everyone's evolutionary directive. But such sacrifices are constantly necessary if we are to maintain a civilization where humans don't just live like animals with slightly larger brains.

exactly, such rationalizations to deny our base motivations are to maintain our humanity, not just civilization. See also, christianity, buddhism etc.

[XPQ22]

(12-14-2016 08:00 PM)Delta Wrote:  

I don't need to go into how today's ever-increasing number of single women have unreasonable standards compared to what they offer, yet still harbor a whiff of bitterness that their Prince Charming has yet to ride in and make their fairy tale dreams come true. It's what has caused men to need game and nudged all of us into this community.

If a woman dates a man monogamously who's "in her league", she'll cheat on him because she feels she deserves something better. If she dates a man who's "out of her league", she'll cheat on him because she's afraid that he'll leave her for someone else, and needs a fallback option. Or just gets bored with the sex. Or somethin'.



I've had enough "experiences" with women in the past year and a half who I know or highly suspect were already in a relationship with someone else to know that the monogamy vows of most Western women today are worth precisely peanuts. Indeed, some women seem to have even gotten it in their heads that it's a fantastic female DHV and will help solidify the commitment of a man who was previously ambivalent.

[rpg]

I agree. You have to bank on women are going to cheat sooner or later. They will cheat the moment they are sure you are not going to find out. Then they will lie about it forever. Society has conditioned them to toss their pussies around like frisbies.

[Paracelsus]

(12-14-2016 09:03 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

This is an old study that was thoroughly debunked by someone (don't have the link but I remember reading it). It keeps popping up because it's great clickbait.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/20...4.abstract

I wouldn't make any grand theories are random studies that pop up. Google "replication crisis" to see how most are bullshit.

Most social science is both anti-science and anti-social.

[TheMost]

Ran a population simulation. Allocated 2 women to every man. No divorce, marriage until death. All the standard vital statistics you find in the actuarial tables; lifespan, puberty, menopause, etc. Someone mentioned being "ready" to marry and have kids around age 35. Guess what the simulation found... when every marriageable woman is married off at age 18, every man gets his 2 (young) wives sometime between age 35 and 40. Sounds incredible? Unbelievable? Just have to run the simulation and watch how the dynamic interactions between male and female play out. Write your own simulation, or I can point you to one already on the web. Mankind is polygamous by nature; monogamy is contrary to our biology.

[Dr. Howard]

(12-15-2016 01:37 AM)TheMost Wrote:  

Ran a population simulation. Allocated 2 women to every man. No divorce, marriage until death. All the standard vital statistics you find in the actuarial tables; lifespan, puberty, menopause, etc. Someone mentioned being "ready" to marry and have kids around age 35. Guess what the simulation found... when every marriageable woman is married off at age 18, every man gets his 2 (young) wives sometime between age 35 and 40. Sounds incredible? Unbelievable? Just have to run the simulation and watch how the dynamic interactions between male and female play out. Write your own simulation, or I can point you to one already on the web. Mankind is polygamous by nature; monogamy is contrary to our biology.

Is that really the argument though? I am fully aware of my biological impulses. If I was like my dog, and was a slave to them I'd have 10 candy bars and a tub of ice cream for dinner every night. Similarly, if I were like my dog I'd mount every woman that passed by.

Monogamy, and healthy eating both need willpower to be executed. Thats not news to me.

[Edmund Ironside]

The "women will always cheat" thing is, of course, one reason why most societies have historically put some restrictions around the allowed behavior of women ... and the SJW crowd, of course, hates those with a passion reserved for few other things. For example, societies where women aren't allowed to drive. Although it isn't a 100% solution by any means, how much difference do you think that one thing makes in reduction of women cheating?

Of course, there is never real discussion about the real reasons for/against such measures. Just like the social pressure not to be "jealous" about your girlfriend/wife hanging out alone with a man who is "just a friend" ... the people telling you not to be "jealous" aren't going to admit that the real agenda is to make it easier for cheating to happen.

On the larger point, monogamy for women is natural (or ... would tend to be natural and normal in a less convoluted society). For men it is definitely less so. All discussions of sex/gender issues have to start from a foundation built on the simple fact that men and women are different. Social norms have to reflect that. The acceptance of the "but that's a double standard" argument is one of the fundamental downfalls of our society. When I say monogamy for women is natural, I don't mean that they won't naturally cheat given the easy opportunity, I mean that it isn't cruel and unusual to expect monogamy from them, and it makes biological sense. Expecting monogamy from men however, is putting a big burden on them, which in turn needs some big behavioral requirements from women in order to make it even remotely viable.

[Edmund Ironside]

(12-15-2016 08:30 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

Monogamy, and healthy eating both need willpower to be executed. Thats not news to me.

Sure, but a man does have a greater biological need for regular sex than does a woman. If you require a man to be loyal in a monogamous relationship, and you don't require the woman to give him sex when he wants it, then the woman has all the power. You can either require "wifely duties", or you can let the man have multiple wives, or let the man have extramarital sex ... else what is left is basically being a slave to the wife, or self abuse. Both of those latter choices are demeaning and are gravity pulling a man toward being less masculine.

If you avoid the above conundrum by doing away with marriage altogether, and combine it with a society where you energetically take economic and social power/status away from men and give it to women, you are creating an entire society where women have most of the power while men dance like monkeys for them trying to get sex. This is also demeaning and emasculating for men, however much they might congratulate themselves on bedding another high notch count ho.

[brick tamland]

Good thread. Related point - traditional cultures / societies / nations adhere to the practice of and belief in defined and fixed roles for women that are simple and logical under assessment, namely home-making and child-rearing. At extremes there are limited opportunities for casual interaction between the sexes. As a man you have to prove your worth to entitlement to be the husband of a virgin. There aren't any 30 year old ex-sluts looking to settle down out of fear of spinsterhood and a depletion of their eggs.
In th West birth control came on to the scene and changed male/female relations forever.
I'm really curious as to what happened thousands of years ago that made men realise that women are usually powerless against their immoral impulses and need to be restrained? Perhaps in the past there were societies even more liberal and with more debauchery than ours.

[Edmund Ironside]

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)brick tamland Wrote:  

I'm really curious as to what happened thousands of years ago that made men realise that women are usually powerless against their immoral impulses and need to be restrained? Perhaps in the past there were societies even more liberal and with more debauchery than ours.

I'm not sure why you need more evidence than the society we have now to demonstrate the problem. You could make excuses for people 50-100 years ago who thought that backing feminism was altruistic, but anyone who looks around a little now should be appalled. Anything else just shows a mind turned to mush by the media.

[Dr. Howard]

(12-15-2016 10:19 AM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:30 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

Monogamy, and healthy eating both need willpower to be executed. Thats not news to me.

Sure, but a man does have a greater biological need for regular sex than does a woman. If you require a man to be loyal in a monogamous relationship, and you don't require the woman to give him sex when he wants it, then the woman has all the power. You can either require "wifely duties", or you can let the man have multiple wives, or let the man have extramarital sex ... else what is left is basically being a slave to the wife, or self abuse. Both of those latter choices are demeaning and are gravity pulling a man toward being less masculine.

If you avoid the above conundrum by doing away with marriage altogether, and combine it with a society where you energetically take economic and social power/status away from men and give it to women, you are creating an entire society where women have most of the power while men dance like monkeys for them trying to get sex. This is also demeaning and emasculating for men, however much they might congratulate themselves on bedding another high notch count ho.

I agree completely. If a person chooses to be in a monogamous relationship today it has to be well thought out and considered high risk.

The words for each are out of sync with what they mean. If you mentioned to someone that you are in a monogamous relationship today, they would assume that you are in the "committed man, woman does what she wants" type of relationship you describe above.

If you said to someone that you are in a monogamous relationship that is mutually dependent and sacrificial...ie, wife doesn't work outside the home and has 'wifely duties' then your average person would say that you were in a controlling relationship with the woman or in a "Slave/dom" relationship.

Which is somewhat funny. If you said that you were in some sort of BDSM relationship and had a slave/dom relationship with your female partner people would completely accept it and not even bat an eye. You could even go so far to describe your 'kinks' as. "She cooks, and cleans and obliges me for sex. I then pay her bills as a 'kinky sugar daddy twist" and the average PC person would be like "oh, you are so exciting and edgy". When you are actually just using 'new speak' to describe your traditional marriage.

[scotian]

Growing up my parents were close friends with another couple who were married and had six kids. My mom would always complain about how dominating the husband was and how he wouldn't let her yak on the phone in the evening while the kids were home from school. Fifteen or so years later and that couple is still married with a dozen grand kids and more on the way, my parents are divorced and their three kids are fucked up, good job mom.

[Ivanis]

(12-15-2016 04:21 PM)scotian Wrote:  

Growing up my parents were close friends with another couple who were married and had six kids. My mom would always complain about how dominating the husband was and how he wouldn't let her yak on the phone in the evening while the kids were home from school. Fifteen or so years later and that couple is still married with a dozen grand kids and more on the way, my parents are divorced and their three kids are fucked up, good job mom.

My parents are the same. Mother was a gold digger, and mentally ill. She drained my fathers resources and moved on. Terrible really because my father was very 'beta' in his view on marriage and got completely fucked because of it. Smart guy, was a pharmacist, yet couldn't look at the relationship logically because he was "in love," or at least he thought he was...

Still feel bad for him even though the divorce was seven years ago.

[scotian]

My parents were (are) pretty decent people overall and their marriage could have worked but it got tough as myself and my older brother aged into our teens. I was a little bastard at school getting suspended all the time and constantly having my teachers and principals calling my folks about me. My brother got strung out on hard drugs when he was about 17/18 and that just fucked everything up, he was stealing from our family, getting in trouble with the law, getting in fights and basically terrorizing us in the house, it was fucked up. Basically my parents weren't ready for all of this stress and my dad ended up leaving (after my bro beat him up), my parents just kind of gave up and then found that they both enjoyed the single life so that was it for the family. My brother was one of those guys who basically wasted a solid fifteen years of his life and has finally cleaned his act up in the past few years, everyone gets along now but those few years that we were off the rails and no one really set us straight had long term consequences.

TLDR: Even if two people are in a great, monogamous relationship, things can go sideways if their kids are assholes.

[Cadders]

Female sexuality is a force of nature. Unfortunately it is ideally suited to life on the open savanna 500,000 years ago. And unrestricted, that's exactly where it tries to take us - back to the stone age.

The very first thing any human society does is place restrictions on women's freedoms and behavior to control this dynamic. Everything that that society will ever achieve has these restrictions as it's foundation. This is why, every time throughout history, whenever these restrictions have been unpicked or abandoned, EVERYTHING starts to unravel.

We see this unraveling now, clearly, all around us.

Monogamy in the Western patriarchal tradition was probably the most enlightened form of these restrictions man has yet devised. But even that was not enough to satisfy female nature. Which is a pity, for it's replacement is likely to be far less indulgent of what women want.

[roberto]

(12-15-2016 01:37 AM)TheMost Wrote:  

Ran a population simulation. Allocated 2 women to every man. No divorce, marriage until death. All the standard vital statistics you find in the actuarial tables; lifespan, puberty, menopause, etc. Someone mentioned being "ready" to marry and have kids around age 35. Guess what the simulation found... when every marriageable woman is married off at age 18, every man gets his 2 (young) wives sometime between age 35 and 40. Sounds incredible? Unbelievable? Just have to run the simulation and watch how the dynamic interactions between male and female play out. Write your own simulation, or I can point you to one already on the web. Mankind is polygamous by nature; monogamy is contrary to our biology.

None of the above makes any sense to me. If you have a simulator that allows you to 'watch dynamic interactions between male and female' then I think you've cracked artificial intelligence.

Got a link to the one on the web?

[Valentine]

You've got it in reverse - it's not monogamy that needs to be propped up, it's that polyamory needs to stop being propped up.

This is completely a matter of government policy, not female behaviour. They'll behave as they are allowed to behave.

Women can afford to be r-selected and choose bad boys because daddy government takes care of her.

If we instead had:

- Higher standard of evidence required for a sexual assault accusation
- Harsh punishments for false rape accusations
- No affirmative action
- Reduction in unnecessary government jobs
- No government sponsoring for universities
- Fair choice over schooling
- Government child support being contingent on both the couple being married and at least one person being employed
- Reduced punishment for men not paying child support
- Forced contraception for having multiple children out of marriage
- Fair divorce laws

Then women would suddenly find monogamy highly desirable once again. Their behaviour is simply being subsidised and enabled by the government.

If we add advanced male contraception like VasalGel into the mix as well then women will be begging for monogamy, as they have lost all power as sexual selectors.

[iknowexactly]

(12-15-2016 01:25 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Most social science is both anti-science and anti-social.

"anti-social" is, or certainly could be characterized as, a social science concept.

No matter how hysterically people want to make things objective ( which of course is very important, in say passenger aviation or antibiotic effectiveness lol) , their irresistible urge to think, speak and act in terms of social science concepts belie their attempts to trivialize and invalidate their utility and relevance to human experience.

My favorite now when I am explaining to people why I left my wealthy country of origin is "toxic feminism."
I describe it as the form of feminism that emerged when reasonable goals like equal educational opportunity for equal ability and the right to vote devolved into socially destructive ( specifically, extinction-inducing)ideas like "men are more evil than women" and "having children is a form of slavery."



I am surrounded by bananas.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-15-2016 05:40 PM)roberto Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:37 AM)TheMost Wrote:  

Ran a population simulation. Allocated 2 women to every man. No divorce, marriage until death. All the standard vital statistics you find in the actuarial tables; lifespan, puberty, menopause, etc. Someone mentioned being "ready" to marry and have kids around age 35. Guess what the simulation found... when every marriageable woman is married off at age 18, every man gets his 2 (young) wives sometime between age 35 and 40. Sounds incredible? Unbelievable? Just have to run the simulation and watch how the dynamic interactions between male and female play out. Write your own simulation, or I can point you to one already on the web. Mankind is polygamous by nature; monogamy is contrary to our biology.

None of the above makes any sense to me. If you have a simulator that allows you to 'watch dynamic interactions between male and female' then I think you've cracked artificial intelligence.

Got a link to the one on the web?

Yeah. Just candy ass speculation trying to be passed off as inarguable because "I ran a simulation".

As if two women can't deny sex just as easily as one woman. And what do you do with the 50% of surplus males for whom there are no women? It's just plain nonsense.

Any man not getting play from his wife is not going to get play even if he has 50 wives, because women fight over winners and fight for the exit when faced with a loser. End of story.

[TheMost]

(12-15-2016 07:04 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Yeah. Just candy ass speculation trying to be passed off as inarguable because "I ran a simulation".

It is no more speculation than 1+1=2 is speculation. It is the outcome of a model based on real life.

Quote:

As if two women can't deny sex just as easily as one woman. And what do you do with the 50% of surplus males for whom there are no women? It's just plain nonsense.

Read again what I wrote. After running the simulation a few years, there was no surplus of males. At any time. At age 35, every male got two 18 year old brides. That is just how things came out, I didn't force it.

Quote:

Any man not getting play from his wife is not going to get play even if he has 50 wives, because women fight over winners and fight for the exit when faced with a loser. End of story.

Competition between wives mitigates that considerably. So does the man being 35 while the woman is 18. The age difference makes a huge difference in how easy it is to keep her in hand. Every polygamous society has an age gap that is pretty close to the one the simulation discovered.

[TheMost]

(12-15-2016 05:40 PM)roberto Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:37 AM)TheMost Wrote:  

Ran a population simulation. Allocated 2 women to every man. No divorce, marriage until death. All the standard vital statistics you find in the actuarial tables; lifespan, puberty, menopause, etc. Someone mentioned being "ready" to marry and have kids around age 35. Guess what the simulation found... when every marriageable woman is married off at age 18, every man gets his 2 (young) wives sometime between age 35 and 40. Sounds incredible? Unbelievable? Just have to run the simulation and watch how the dynamic interactions between male and female play out. Write your own simulation, or I can point you to one already on the web. Mankind is polygamous by nature; monogamy is contrary to our biology.

None of the above makes any sense to me. If you have a simulator that allows you to 'watch dynamic interactions between male and female' then I think you've cracked artificial intelligence.

Got a link to the one on the web?

The simulation is written in newLisp; I'll be back later tonight and post a link to the simulator I'm running. Have to strip out identifying information. If you can code, you can stop the simulator and inspect the data structures at any point. If there are specific data you want to look at, describe it and I'll see what I can do.