Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Hank Galaxy Brain

Modern Dating and "Polygamous societies tend to become ultra-violent"

26 posts in this topic

This is, I think, the biggest elephant in the room of our time.

Jordan Peterson says it so casually at 1:32:18. "Polygamous societies tend to become ultra violent." I had no idea this was common anthropological knowledge, but I looked into it and it is. Here's an Atlantic article about it. It cites the book, The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright, one I'm adding to my reading list.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/one-man-many-wives-big-problems/304829/

Basically, in societies with high wealth inequality, a small number of elite males take a disproportionate share of wives. This leaves many males sexually frustrated with nothing to do, and often full of rage and envy. Which leads to either insurrection, or being harnessed by the elites--either as foot-soldiers in whatever cause they can be duped into, or sent away as conquistadors to conquer for themselves.

Monogamy on the other hand, has tended to lead to much more egalitarian societies and may very well be the main reason democratic values were able to come to prominence in western society.

What we're seeing in modern dating:

  • Marriage is on the decline, divorce rates are up.
  • Resources are spread highly unequally among men, with most wealth concentrated in older generations and a small percentage of younger men with great wealth.
  • Marriage is delayed until around 29 for men and 26 for women, leading to a polygamous dating world in your 20's
    • (or if you're a male who likes to date women in their 20's, or a sugar daddy--age difference between mates increases with wealth inequality and polygamy as well).
  • Monogamy and sexual purity are no longer valued or culturally enforced
  • Hookup culture rises, favoring I believe the Tinder stats have shown, a small minority of men getting a disproportionate percentage of the women's interest.
  • Looser values, along with pressing economic times, leads to an increase in the sale of sex: the rise of fansonly, porn, seekingarrangement, women asking for sugar daddies or posting venmo's on Tinder. Seeking out sex for money is becoming increasingly common place among everyday people, as well as, I imagine, prostitution. Of course the men that reap the benefits will be those with surplus cash. And men looking for monogamous partners will be more and more disappointed by the dating pool. "Would you date a girl with an onlyfans?" Is a question I now hear asked in my friend group (no, I wouldn't).
  • Many women who do not grow up with (socially) enforced monogamy, usually in strict communal religious environments, get used to being with the elite of the dating pool casually. And by the time they are ready to marry, may end up doing what they consider "settling." This is not ideal for either party.
  • Even when people do marry, women are still hypergamous and tend to (JP mentions this in the video) cheat with higher status men. (Men, especially the elites of the dating pool are I'm sure liable to cheat as well).

All of this seems to (1) result from the erosion of traditional family values (good or bad), and (2) cause much fiercer competition to be in the elite of men (PUA culture, TRP, increasing work hours for little pay gain, ruthless corporate culture), with the most cunning and ruthless rising to the top (sociopathy is incentivized, Epstein's and Trump's at the top of society, womanizing rappers are glorified, even seen as role models). As well as  (3) an ever-growing ball of unaddressed, unnamed, and unacknowledged rage in the incel types waiting to explode into whichever political avenue is lucky enough to exploit it. Or whichever school or movie theater is unlucky enough to find itself in the path of its rage.

Basically, a few men attracting lots of women destabilizes society.

So, these are my questions:

  1.  Why aren't the (extremely vital) sociological implications of the sexual marketplace discussed at all in the political arena? Is there anything we can do about this?
  2. What can we practically do about:
    1. the dissolution of traditional marriage
    2. rising wealth inequality
    3. the ever growing mass of incel types
  3. What do you predict will happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is some sort of red pill fear mongering story made up to justify why they feel so alone and unfulfilled in life or haven't been handed a virgin bride on a silver platter just for existing. no they don't. society and violence has gone down quite a bit each decade. if anything a gender imbalance could potentially cause some problems like what may occur in India but that has yet to play out and they seemed to already have a huge domestic violence problem before their gender imbalance issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

society has always been violent

 

 


Dont look at me! Look inside!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lyubov said:

this is some sort of red pill fear mongering story made up to justify why they feel so alone and unfulfilled in life or haven't been handed a virgin bride on a silver platter just for existing. no they don't. society and violence has gone down quite a bit each decade. if anything a gender imbalance could potentially cause some problems like what may occur in India but that has yet to play out and they seemed to already have a huge domestic violence problem before their gender imbalance issues. 

Who is "they" that feels alone and making this up? Jordan Peterson or the anthropological consensus?

This isn't red pill, I'm not a big fan of that place. Just looking at the anthropological patterns.

It's also important to point out that we're not a polygamous society. Just making small creeps in that direction as marriage has declined and delayed in life, sex becomes more promiscuous, etc. And this, according to the anthropological consensus, may increase the potential for violence in society.

 

6 hours ago, Rilles said:

society has always been violent

 

 

Yes it has. The majority of societies have been far more violent than ours--and far more polygamous. It's a bit of a miracle that monogamy has be come such a cultural norm to allow for the democratic values seen in the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Monogamy is the only thing that preserves moral values. 

 

However people with loose morals don't like to hear that. 

 


INFJ-T,ptsd,BPD, autism, anger issues

Cleared out ignore list today. 

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

Who is "they" that feels alone and making this up? Jordan Peterson or the anthropological consensus?

This isn't red pill, I'm not a big fan of that place. Just looking at the anthropological patterns.

they is red pill. don't kid yourself. this is a common narrative among the joradn peterson red pill crowd. I'd say this narrative is as popular online as it is because of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lyubov said:

they is red pill. don't kid yourself. this is a common narrative among the joradn peterson red pill crowd. I'd say this narrative is as popular online as it is because of them. 

I believe red pill refers to him as jordan petercuck. Nuance, they're very different. Peterson supports becoming high status and pursuing monogamy, while red pill is jaded and believes it hopeless--with lots of misogyny.

In the video, he's stating, again, anthropologist consensus. Nothing "made up," by redpillers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/07/2020 at 3:58 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

This is, I think, the biggest elephant in the room of our time.

Jordan Peterson says it so casually at 1:32:18. "Polygamous societies tend to become ultra violent." I had no idea this was common anthropological knowledge, but I looked into it and it is. Here's an Atlantic article about it. It cites the book, The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright, one I'm adding to my reading list.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/one-man-many-wives-big-problems/304829/

Basically, in societies with high wealth inequality, a small number of elite males take a disproportionate share of wives. This leaves many males sexually frustrated with nothing to do, and often full of rage and envy. Which leads to either insurrection, or being harnessed by the elites--either as foot-soldiers in whatever cause they can be duped into, or sent away as conquistadors to conquer for themselves.

Monogamy on the other hand, has tended to lead to much more egalitarian societies and may very well be the main reason democratic values were able to come to prominence in western society.

What we're seeing in modern dating:

  • Marriage is on the decline, divorce rates are up.
  • Resources are spread highly unequally among men, with most wealth concentrated in older generations and a small percentage of younger men with great wealth.
  • Marriage is delayed until around 29 for men and 26 for women, leading to a polygamous dating world in your 20's
    • (or if you're a male who likes to date women in their 20's, or a sugar daddy--age difference between mates increases with wealth inequality and polygamy as well).
  • Monogamy and sexual purity are no longer valued or culturally enforced
  • Hookup culture rises, favoring I believe the Tinder stats have shown, a small minority of men getting a disproportionate percentage of the women's interest.
  • Looser values, along with pressing economic times, leads to an increase in the sale of sex: the rise of fansonly, porn, seekingarrangement, women asking for sugar daddies or posting venmo's on Tinder. Seeking out sex for money is becoming increasingly common place among everyday people, as well as, I imagine, prostitution. Of course the men that reap the benefits will be those with surplus cash. And men looking for monogamous partners will be more and more disappointed by the dating pool. "Would you date a girl with an onlyfans?" Is a question I now hear asked in my friend group (no, I wouldn't).
  • Many women who do not grow up with (socially) enforced monogamy, usually in strict communal religious environments, get used to being with the elite of the dating pool casually. And by the time they are ready to marry, may end up doing what they consider "settling." This is not ideal for either party.
  • Even when people do marry, women are still hypergamous and tend to (JP mentions this in the video) cheat with higher status men. (Men, especially the elites of the dating pool are I'm sure liable to cheat as well).

All of this seems to (1) result from the erosion of traditional family values (good or bad), and (2) cause much fiercer competition to be in the elite of men (PUA culture, TRP, increasing work hours for little pay gain, ruthless corporate culture), with the most cunning and ruthless rising to the top (sociopathy is incentivized, Epstein's and Trump's at the top of society, womanizing rappers are glorified, even seen as role models). As well as  (3) an ever-growing ball of unaddressed, unnamed, and unacknowledged rage in the incel types waiting to explode into whichever political avenue is lucky enough to exploit it. Or whichever school or movie theater is unlucky enough to find itself in the path of its rage.

Basically, a few men attracting lots of women destabilizes society.

So, these are my questions:

  1.  Why aren't the (extremely vital) sociological implications of the sexual marketplace discussed at all in the political arena? Is there anything we can do about this?
  2. What can we practically do about:
    1. the dissolution of traditional marriage
    2. rising wealth inequality
    3. the ever growing mass of incel types
  3. What do you predict will happen?

Its multifaceted. Look at divorce stats by gender? By college educated? 

1. Yes. Educate people to be FREE THINKERS. Not sheeple. Not following the herd. Not signing up for the victim card and badge. 

In the modern era, a woman sleeping around isn't rebellious. A woman stating she wants to be a stay a home mother is. Its unheard of in 2020. 

I choose to date non-exclusively. Married men use to be respected. Not really anymore. 

In the modern era, i can meet women who want kids but don't want to raise them. Women who want marriage but don't want to be a wife. Wants white dress but doesn't want to take his name. 

Welcome Netflix and chill. 

2. I am not getting married. Why would I as a net tax payer, bachelor, and property owner risk the farm when more than half ends in divorce and even worse when you check state on gender? On college educated. 

There's always inequality be it financial, attractiveness, height, talent, skill, and a number of things. 

If you watched Peterson, he is against equality of outcome. I agree. Ironically enough, Peterson contradicts himself with the stance with Dating. 

Peterson is correct that inequality in the dating world is going to have consequences but are we going to resolve this inequality? No. Peterson is awesome but he is off the mark here. Dating and economics is similar. There's always going to be inequality. You aren't going to force pair women with men. You aren't going to force extract resources either. 

 

I agree with Peterson on the importance of men and responsibility. I disagree with the application. For instance, if somebody breaks into the house of my wife and i, I need to go handle business. Responsibility and what rights? It went viral about a wife making her husband breakfast and a coffee.

Gtfo! Outrage over that? 

https://mom.com/momlife/28884-i-refuse-make-my-husband-sandwich/

This is not wife material. Maybe Netflix and chill. 

If shit pops off, I am going to risk my life to protect my wife and kids, requesting a coffee or breakfast, whatever is the least one can do. 

The dating and political world is insane atm. I rather be a bachelor. A bachelor gets treated better or you next her. 

Edited by Onemanwolfpac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lyubov said:

they is red pill. don't kid yourself. this is a common narrative among the joradn peterson red pill crowd. I'd say this narrative is as popular online as it is because of them. 

You have no clue what you are saying. 

 

10 hours ago, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

I believe red pill refers to him as jordan petercuck. Nuance, they're very different. Peterson supports becoming high status and pursuing monogamy, while red pill is jaded and believes it hopeless--with lots of misogyny.

In the video, he's stating, again, anthropologist consensus. Nothing "made up," by redpillers.

To me, its hand in hand with feminist ideology. Misandry or misogyny. Insanity. The difference being, one's indoctrinated on our education system and culture. APA deemed masculinity toxic. That entire field is appalling. I do like Peterson. 

And yet, Peterson contradicts himself on the argument of equality of outcome in dating. I am against it be it free market or dating. No being her over a barrel to get a particular outcome. Furthermore, Petersons daughter left her husband and flew out to see millionaire playboy Cobra Tate before crawling back to her husband. If there ever is a better example of what married life is and what risk is involved? 

Peterson is correct above about the stability of the society. I agree with responsibility but I am not indulging with marriage given the status quo and abysmal fall out if things go wrong. Her husband stood by her side during her health issues. Her response is cuckoldry for a millionaire playboy with a harem of women. 

Netflix and chill is free. With basic knowledge of a computer, you can screen down on who you are Dating or seeing. There's no hiding past indiscretions. As a net tax payer and property owner, why complicate my life with all the responsibility and zero reward? Wanting breakfast or a coffee is too much in the modern era. The amount of Christian men using Internet porn why? It's just not worth it. Not now. Not anymore. 

If you work around women, listen how they talk about men, their bf or husbands. None of it sounds appealing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 8:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

Why aren't the (extremely vital) sociological implications of the sexual marketplace discussed at all in the political arena? Is there anything we can do about this?

Sexuality is highly personal and not sociological. The problem has to be solved on a personal level and then the solution "trickles down" to the level of society. 

On 7/4/2020 at 8:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

What can we practically do about:

  1. the dissolution of traditional marriage
  2. rising wealth inequality
  3. the ever growing mass of incel types

 

The only thing we can do is help raise awareness of the problem. If a woman wants to be the 77th wife of a wealthy man, it is her right and we shouldn't be forcing her to forcefully love her poor neighbor. At some point, this woman might realize that she can gain more love from a poor man, rather than a rich man who has 77 wives. 

Also, we have to create a society where we don't have extreme wealth inequality. 

On 7/4/2020 at 8:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

What do you predict will happen?

Eventually, the problem will be resolved. If we share prosperity and love rather than keep it for ourselves, everyone prospers. 

Jordan Peterson comes from a fairly traditional and conservative view on marriage. Just because its traditional doesn't make it right. You have to decide what works for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JosephKnecht said:

Sexuality is highly personal and not sociological. The problem has to be solved on a personal level and then the solution "trickles down" to the level of society. 

 

You mean you wish it to be personal. In real life almost everything is political. Sex and partnership is the most important thing in the life of most people. So it is probably very important. If too many people are not happy or angry that is not too good.

Many wars were done just for this.

Like in black lives matter a lot of men might not happy with the situation and might "break the contract"
 

 

 

Edited by Epikur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2020 at 2:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

Hookup culture rises, favoring I believe the Tinder stats have shown, a small minority of men getting a disproportionate percentage of the women's interest.

It's actually more accurate to say this is the other way around. Women in general (not just the "top" ones) have the advantage on dating apps and have a much larger pool of men to choose from.

On 7/4/2020 at 2:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

Even when people do marry, women are still hypergamous and tend to (JP mentions this in the video) cheat with higher status men. (Men, especially the elites of the dating pool are I'm sure liable to cheat as well).

I don't know why it keeps getting brought up so one lopsidedly, maybe bitter men are just more vocal in this domain? But statistically men cheat WAY more often than women, across nearly every culture. This is fact.

However I think it's not brought up as much because while both sexes will be happy to demonize cheating women as whores, sluts, etc.

Cheating men only get mostly women pointing out their poor behavior, because there is a subconscious attitude in the psyche among men (toxic masculinity, if the word means anything) that a guy who can get with a lot of women is "skilled, cool, and a player." Even if that includes cheating.

Obviously it's low consciousness behavior all around but we need to be fair about this if were going to talk about it.

On 7/4/2020 at 2:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

 Why aren't the (extremely vital) sociological implications of the sexual marketplace discussed at all in the political arena? Is there anything we can do about this?

Because this is considered more of a personal issue and not a larger social one. The context of the conversations that it's taking place in are mostly among family members at the dinner table and small groups of individuals and friend groups.

On 7/4/2020 at 2:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

What can we practically do about:

  1. the dissolution of traditional marriage

 

Nothing. This is the inevitable trajectory of our culture and society. Worry about upholding your own values, because you aren't going to convince the masses that what they're doing leads to suffering.

On 7/4/2020 at 2:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

rising wealth inequality

Social programs, higher taxes, a green revolution (sacrificing/sharing/donations/communal living).

This is the direction we need to go especially with climate change looming over and stressing every system.

On 7/4/2020 at 2:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

the ever growing mass of incel types

Reform our education system to teach our youth about just how terrible and reckless our culture is towards sexuality, and inform them of the dangers.

On 7/4/2020 at 2:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

What do you predict will happen?

I'm not sure exactly. I'd like to add one last point that polygamy is not sustainable for our species but monogamy is. It's obvious math.


hrhrhtewgfegege

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4.07.2020 at 8:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

 Why aren't the (extremely vital) sociological implications of the sexual marketplace discussed at all in the political arena? Is there anything we can do about this?

Either the threat is not severe enough, or the political scene is not mature enough to have a conversation about sexuality.
I suspect the both are the case.

On 4.07.2020 at 8:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:
  • the dissolution of traditional marriage

Traditional marriages are dissolving because the way in which we raise children is different. We understand first hand the raising is different from training and that enforcing rules by punishment does more harm than good. However, we don't know the alternative yet and we're very confused about how to express our not-so-desirable emotions, so of course all kinds of relationships suffer. Marriage is particularly difficult because of generational trauma. While it is good that women start to stand up for themselves, men can't see their own involvement in the problem because:

  1. they usually think that they are invincible by shutting their emotions off
  2. were raised by mothers angry at their husbands with no outlet for that emotion other than a defenseless boy.

The first step for healing is to acknowledge the existence of a deep wound that has been perpetuated for generations.
The second step is to approach the other gender with empathy instead of insults, anger and shaming. 


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Either the threat is not severe enough, or the political scene is not mature enough to have a conversation about sexuality.
I suspect the both are the case.

Traditional marriages are dissolving because the way in which we raise children is different. We understand first hand the raising is different from training and that enforcing rules by punishment does more harm than good. However, we don't know the alternative yet and we're very confused about how to express our not-so-desirable emotions, so of course all kinds of relationships suffer. Marriage is particularly difficult because of generational trauma. While it is good that women start to stand up for themselves, men can't see their own involvement in the problem because:

  1. they usually think that they are invincible by shutting their emotions off
  2. were raised by mothers angry at their husbands with no outlet for that emotion other than a defenseless boy.

The first step for healing is to acknowledge the existence of a deep wound that has been perpetuated for generations.
The second step is to approach the other gender with empathy instead of insults, anger and shaming. 

Well, a disproportionate amount of divorce by gender is extremely off putting. Furthermore, the disproportionate amount of child support and alimony is beyond disgusting. Some of my mates work in law enforcement, police, corrections, and other stuff. The amount of men in jail because of 1. Failed to pay the government 2. Child support. It does not matter if the job was lost or downsizing. In many cases, this is unacceptable when the income changed but the courts do not adjust payments. It needs to change or i walk away any such possibility. 

Shaming is a common technique used to manipulate. I am bullet proof when it comes my way in manipulative fashion. My man card is not dependent on whether I spend absurd amounts of money on a wedding. 

Another off putting aspect is the amount of overweight people who let themselves go. As a bachelor, its unacceptable, a deal breaker, unattractive physically as well as sexually, and its unhealthy. 

Again, the problem is that women can and do (a lot of the time) run to the state. The state can by force pillage male resources and remove him from the home. Take away the children, visitation rights on Weekends, cut resources? No dice. 

Its game over. I read Art of the Deal in high school. A powerful tool is walking away from the negotiation table. Outside having children, I don't see the point of marriage nor exclusive relationship. Furthermore, with the abundance of promiscuity and the risks involved in settling down, the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze. 

With basic knowledge of a computer, you can screen out a lot of women real fast on past indiscretions and debunk a white dress real fast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roy said:

I'm not sure exactly. I'd like to add one last point that polygamy is not sustainable for our species but monogamy is. It's obvious math.

There's a floating goal post in monogamy. It is telling when we look at say, our grandfather marrying at 18 and the Prince marrying someone nearing 40. A divorcee and a history that included dating a porn star. The difference is night and day. The hole is in Peterson arguing against equality of outcome but for it in dating. The reality is that, there's going to be inequality from a financial and Dating perspective. Some men will have outrageous amounts of money and a harem of women. Say, Cobra Tate millionaire and playboy while Mikyala Peterson ditches her husband to fly out to Romania and cuck. 

When seeing harems, you are faced with a reality that you didn't know existed. You can rage or have hissy fits. You can break statues, riot or loot or you can step up. You can acquire more money. Get a stem degree. Learn to code. Build a tech start up. You can date women. Lots of women. 

The idea of marrying Cobra Tates fall-out is not appealing. There's a significant difference between my grandfathers time and the modern era of promiscuity and body positivity. None of the following is making marriage appealing. More like appalling. The current situation lends to bachelor lifestyle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Onemanwolfpac While I see that being a one man wolf pack is a way to avoid the gender wars, it is a solution only in subjective sense.

I believe that the connection with the other gender is worth taking the risk and I hope that one day, if the opportunity presents itself, you will not be afraid to take the shot. I never had a home as a child, so the only one I will ever have is the one I will build.

Bless you.

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4.7.2020 at 8:28 AM, Hank Galaxy Brain said:

So, these are my questions:

  1.  Why aren't the (extremely vital) sociological implications of the sexual marketplace discussed at all in the political arena? Is there anything we can do about this?
  2. What can we practically do about:
    1. the dissolution of traditional marriage
    2. rising wealth inequality
    3. the ever growing mass of incel types
  3. What do you predict will happen?

1. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. Sociological inequality doesn't necessarily mean inequality on the dating market. If this was true, Tyler wouldn't impregnate Stacy on a daily basis. People want to have Sex and relationships with "their best options".

2. 1. Nothing. It's actually a good thing. Marriage is just a fancy term for a sales contract. People have to accept, that all people are individuals with desires and that they will act accordingly. The whole concept of a lifelong unconditional partnership was a lie to begin with.

2. 2. Socialism.

2. 3. Making them more attractive. Social dynamics lessons in schools maybe. Girls want cool guys. Guys want cool/hot girls. It's simple as that. When you realise, that you are attractive to at least some girls, life is easier. When you realise, that you have more than just one option, you naturally want all of them. Because desires are endless.

3. *grabs crystal ball* Marriage will die. People will fuck around and the economic and political system will adjust to that. Being a single-mum is not a problem, since the government will make sure, that every child has his basic necessities met. Men are not obliged to pay child-support anymore. After a few years in Babylon, when everyone already participated in weekly orgies, everyone is bored as fuck. Everyone will realise, that sex/desires is the root-cause of all suffering, and then they transcend and merge with God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Onemanwolfpac said:

Furthermore, Petersons daughter left her husband and flew out to see millionaire playboy Cobra Tate before crawling back to her husband. If there ever is a better example of what married life is and what risk is involved?

AHahahahahahaahahahaha never stop bringing this up. This makes me laugh to no ends. Not even sure exactly why it's just absolutely fucking hilarious. Jordan Peterson's hot daughter + Andrew "Cobra" Tate who teaches young me to get PhD's: Pimpin Hoes Degrees hahahaa it's like an SNL skit or something.
 

Quote

 

The amount of Christian men using Internet porn why? It's just not worth it. Not now. Not anymore. 

If you work around women, listen how they talk about men, their bf or husbands. None of it sounds appealing. 

 

This.

@Roy

9 hours ago, Roy said:

It's actually more accurate to say this is the other way around. Women in general (not just the "top" ones) have the advantage on dating apps and have a much larger pool of men to choose from.
 

Yes absolutely. I think I was misunderstood. What I mean is the vast majority of men are begging for breadcrumbs, while a couple at the top are doing okay. The medium is for hookups which obviously men are far more incentivized towards than women.

Quote

I don't know why it keeps getting brought up so one lopsidedly, maybe bitter men are just more vocal in this domain? But statistically men cheat WAY more often than women, across nearly every culture. This is fact.

However I think it's not brought up as much because while both sexes will be happy to demonize cheating women as whores, sluts, etc.

As to it being lopsided: any stats on men cheating more often? I'm intrigued. I sort of caught my bias at the end, when I added that men cheat too as an afterthought. I assume that every time heterosexual people cheat, there is a man and a woman involved. So the stats should come out about equal. If they're not, then either 1) men would be cheating on their wives other men or 2) men cheat with an abundance of women who are single and open to committed men.

Very interesting stuff.

Quote

I'm not sure exactly. I'd like to add one last point that polygamy is not sustainable for our species but monogamy is. It's obvious math.

Agreed. A vital point that no one seems to have much of an answer for.

Edited by Hank Galaxy Brain
Minus some slightly crude humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

Sexuality is highly personal and not sociological. The problem has to be solved on a personal level and then the solution "trickles down" to the level of society. 

@JosephKnecht hmm not if you're LGBTQ it's not. That's been hotly debated a while now. As well as abstinence only sex ed, contraception, abortion, and state funding for those.

Most of the time I'm progressive with these. But here, the social conservatives actually have an immensely important point, that no one ever talks about: polygamy destabilizes society, while monogamy promotes egalitarianism.

I think it's such a big deal it warrants societal discussion. It seems that most people are extremely removed from a vital anthropological truth, and a huge aspect of our history. Probably from old cultural taboos on teaching the history of sexuality in high schools and it just hasn't hit the media's radar. Either that or it benefits them not to talk about it. I mean seriously, how has a Bill O'Reilly or Hannity type ever come across the fact that across all of history monogamy is better?

Anyways, just my guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0