Are humans naturally monogamous?

Not anymore than we naturally wear pants or read and write.

Monogamy is a social innovation required for large civilizations to function. Without it, males with the most social status accrue an excess of mates and create a crippling scarcity of women for most of the males. Which leads to extreme social tension, because history has shown men will fight wars just to get mates. Such large wars can be domestic or revolutionary. Rome probably outlawed having multiple wives as a product of the plebeian revolution that lead to the reforms in the early year of the republic, for instance.

No but it's nice to have a special someone out of 7 billion

>>1684057
is the pattern of /his/ to ask really basic bitch fucking questions where teh OP seemingly has no modicum of education, so rather than actually asking an interesting question, he comes off as a child asking his parents where babies come from?

because that's what I'm seeing here.

that said, you're using the world naturally in a stupid fucking manner.

human evolutionary incentives incentivized monogamy heavily. a large part of our nature revolves around it, but at a base level we are inherently not.

Yes desu. People get jelly as fuck when there are 3+ way relationships. People expect lots of support from a lover and they dont get enough.

Fetlife houses end fast and poly christian women complain about jellousy.

>>1684057
Humans are neither "naturally" monogamous nor polygamous, they evolved in such a way that different societies have adopted different reproductive strategies. While some reproductive strategies are more common than others, it would be mistaken to think some are "natural" and others aren't.

>>1684057
I don't know, but the idea of "natural" is a stupid concept in general. Humans evolved to manipulate things in order to overcome obstacles. Creating unnatural things is the most natural thing a human can do.

File: Neandethal Woman.jpg (89KB, 564x550px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 564x550px

>>1684057
Of course not

>>1684057
In most societies we can find men trying to keep control of their women and being unwilling to share. Women however are perfectly fine with sharing a man with multiple women as long as it doesn't come with repercussions. This makes sense since one man can get multiple women pregnant, while a woman can't become pregnant by multiple men and is essentially out of the reproductive game for multiple months when she's pregnant.

>>1684057
Most species are naturally monogamous for evolutionary purposes.

it would be too cluttered if too many parents raise one child but too difficult for one parent to do normally.

>>1684057
Define "naturally". We have plenty of mental adaptations to form long-lasting bonds with a partner, but we also have a few for cheating as well.

yes because who wants to deal with that many women and their stepmothers lol am i right

>>1685347
>Women however are perfectly fine with sharing a man with multiple women as long as it doesn't come with repercussions.
???
Has never had a gf confirmed.

File: IMG_1267.gif (81KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 480x360px

>>1684057
No, and I believe it's mentally unhealthy to try and force monogamy in relationships.

I maintain an open relationship with my wife, with our only condition being that we're together when enjoying the company of another partner. I feel no shame in watching her be pleasured by another man in our bed because I understand that while she's sharing her body her heart is only mine. Yes, at least one of our children was fathered by another man. I still love her son and accept him as mine because I know she bore him for me and I'm his father. Explaining a "mixed race" child is difficult sometimes but that's only because the unrealistic expectations of our society arbitrarily make it so.

Before anyone decides to drop hot memes, don't bother being hypocrites. A lot of the angriest, woman-hating virgins here will spout "cuck" or call women "whores" while maintaining some unrealistic belief in monogamy. Well that's not how humans function. If you want a relationship you need to be grounded in reality. I let my wife achieve sexual satisfaction with other men because I know we're all animals and the baser part of her needs that release from more than just me. I watch because I want to be there and make sure she's safe, and I know she feels safer with me around. Afterwards when her partner leaves and we cuddle she tells me about it, how she felt, and how she can't wait for the next time we're intimate together. And that's both healthy and romantic, I believe.

>>1685536
Does she watch when you sleep with other women?

>>1685486
Your gf is not concerned about sharing you but about being replaced.

>>1684094
This is why /his/ can't be good. All threads are either clueless people or people being intentionally retarded to trigger some pol-leftypol shitstorm.

What triggers me the most is the usage of "human nature" as an answer to anything.

t. Anthropologist

No but for Jesse I would.

>>1685536
the only question I want to ask is this:
does she watch you sleep around with another women, and have you fathered any children with other women? Because if not, then like it or not, you are an actual cuckold.

>>1685536
>I maintain an open relationship with my wife
Had to stop reading there. Top cuck.

>>1685536
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1I58ywHwog

>>1685465
Hahaha wut? Most species are asexual bacteria. Most mammals are very much not monogamous. Most human societies were polygynous. Even modern western society only pretends at monogamy, while condoning easy divorce and serial monogamy.

>>1684057
I think the defining aspect of the human condition is that we aren't naturally anything. We are the most malleable species on the planet.

>>1684095
>People in a system that only has legal monogomy and clearly incentivizes it get jelly as fuck, etc.
ftfy.

Humans are not 'naturally' monogamous, and certainly not for their entire lives. But the past 2000 years of western civilization has made monogamy rather an engrained cultural element. It is certainly possible to train yourself to be monogamous, or not.

Many 'primitive' hunter-gatherer groups are basically one big open relationship. You get a woman pregnant, you help her raise the baby until it's 3-5 years old or so, and then you're both free to fuck who you want again. Repeat as desired.

>>1685536
Yea, nah, cuck.

>>1684082
Eskimos are and were monogamous

>>1684098
>>1684339
>>1685630

This. Talking about the "natural" state of something that's entirely cultural is stupid and pointless. Monogamy is either how people are enculturated or it isn't.

>>1685630
this is so untrue it's laughable

>>1685536

This is one of the more clever bait I've seen here. Bravo.

>>1685486

This.
If anything the opposite is true.

>>1686053
Forgive me if I find your post not very convincing, let alone laughing at the post you linked to.

>>1685536
Well written bait

>>1685536
Good bait

>>1685630
>We are the most malleable species on the planet.

We change nature. We aren't changed much by it.

We're naturally jealous of cheating lovers - men at least for biological reasons.
Of course, we're also naturally hypocrites, most of us would be glad to fuck around (spreading genes is a biological imperative) but wouldn't welcome our partner doing the same thing (we don't want to waste resources supporting children that aren't ours).

Monogamy seems to be a sufficient compromise with our biology. I'd say it's "artificial" but only just.

>>1687544

>We change nature. We aren't changed much by it.

What a silly thing to say.
Yes we can alter our environment, that doesn't magically mean we aren't changed by our environment. Do you really think, for example, that a person raised on a farm in the country isn't influenced by that compared to a person raised in the city?

inb4 "human created environments aren't natural" if cities aren't natural neither are ant hills or beaver dams.

>>1687559
>if cities aren't natural neither are ant hills or beaver dams.

There's a difference between something constructed through complex industrial processes and a beaver dam.

>>1685536
11/10 bait

>>1685553
i believe communism is evil and an utter failure of an ideology but i cringe when people say it doesn't work because 'human nature'. what does that even mean? what part of human nature? its just an argument for retards desu

>>1687544
I think you completely missed the point of my post.

>>1684093
I'll put this on my fucking wall. Nice words anon

>>1685536
cute

>>1685536
Best bait ever.

>>1688292
I think it's easy enough to assume that the "human nature" argument is baby's first synonym for egoism.

File: 1469521896109.jpg (103KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 620x387px

>>1684057
I want Jessie to hold me

>>1684057
Yup, at least while we are in love>>1684057

>>1688292
Greed, competition, the desire to get an edge over their peers for social and sexual reasons that are part of everybody's psyche thanks to evolution

File: 1451254983706.jpg (24KB, 345x365px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 345x365px

>>1685536
>being a cuckold

>>1685536
This b8 is very obvious and yet a ton idiots replied. Truly we live in sad times.

Once I realized I was gay, I realized there's something fucking wrong with people who can't into monogamy.

>>1685536
Literally hat is wrong with being a cuck

>>1684057
mostly. depends on culture too
muslims sometimes practice polygamy and some ancient slavs did as well

>>1684057
I don't know. One is enough for me though. To put her above all others just feels good for some reason. It's natural for me.

>>1685656
>muh social constructs

Fuck off back to tumblr tbqh.

>>1690925
how do you explain different practices around the globe you little edgelord?

>>1690953
Monogamy is the norm around the globe you cucklord.

>>1690964
see
>>1690908
cant forget about the chinese emperors too

>>1690980
Because the Emperor with his harem is representative of the norm right?

Back to tumblr please.

>>1684057
I certainly don't need any enticement to be loyal to my gf, and I certainly am extremely possessive of her.

>>1690986
yeah it is if he's screwing 1000 women
that's 1000 men who are now single
it was so common in persia that the lower class began following heretic preachers like mazdak and mani who denounced the practice

>>1685630
I don't think that's true. Humans can live in extremely different situations and have extremely different behavior, and they can all work in a materialistic sense where the culture survives and a bunch of people fuck and have children, but the sort of system that would make humans happy and content is a very specific one. For instance a single human could survive on his own but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be happier with a tribe.

>>1690987
Why are you possessive? Because getting a gf is hard? Because you're afraid of losing her to someone else?

>>1691063
Because getting that particular girlfriend was unlikely and losing that particular woman to someone else would be unbearable as she is unique and unlike any other.

Seriously what the fuck is it with you cucks and your "open relationships"? How do you not understand basic human emotions?

>>1684057
Humans get turned on by group sex so no obviously. Why do we get turned on? Its just pleasure caused by our brain to encourage us to reproduce thus humans are polygamous if group breeding turns us on.

>>1691083
Then why does animal sex turn me on?

>>1691077
So you're possessive because you're afraid of losing her to someone else because she's unique? Basically you're possessive because you live in a monogamous society so if your gf was interested in someone else that would mean that you would no longer have her. That's the stupid thing, monogamy is creating artificial scarcity; humans can have feelings for two people without one set of feelings being lessened.

I believe in polyamory, not open relationships. And I understand human emotions, I just think that relationships shouldn't be based upon fear and jealousy nor should those emotions be accepted as something normal.

>>1691097
You disgust me. I'm glad nature's mistakes are self-correcting and people like you won't have kids.

>>1691103
You don't seem like a very philosophical person. Why are you on the humanities board if you're unwilling to discuss and contemplate other ideas?

>>1691085
Primitive genes that goes back to before you were human, animal fuckers are basically operating on 70 mya genes.

File: 1473465279722.jpg (402KB, 1024x1582px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1024x1582px

no . it was forced onto us by our enemies that don't want us to have large well built strong families. remember kids your enemies want you dead not making kids . blame christchan stains.

>>1691112
What exactly do you mean by "philosophical person"? I'm strongly influenced by Stoicism and Perennialism for what it's worth. I slightly drunk so I'm probably being more blunt than usual but I just can't help but have a visceral reaction to people like you.

I don't think you're capable of love in the way that most humans are. I can contemplate your ideas just fine and I've concluded that you're spiritually autistic. I would never "share" the woman I love with another and I'm glad your type will be bred out of existence. Take that however you will.

>>1691063
>Why are you possessive?
I don't know anon, it's just a natural tendency of mine. You could probably psychanalyse me to get a better answer, but I can't think of one by myself.
>Because getting a gf is hard? Because you're afraid of losing her to someone else?
Getting a gf wasn't hard for me, and I'm not afraid that she might leave me. I'm just that kid that never ever let others play with his toys, and that just goes a thousand fold for my woman.

Also I should add that she actually enjoys my being possessive (because she thinks it means I care for her), and she's just as possessive of me (which I don't mind either). That said we both realize that feeling jealousy is rather unpleasant, so we both try to avoid causing it in each other. Our possessiveness is about keeping away others, not about not trusting each other.

>>1691097
>humans can have feelings for two people without one set of feelings being lessened
Says you. I certainly can't even imagine being in love with two women at the same time. When I hear people like you spout this bullshit I wonder if you've ever really had feelings other than lust and mild affection for your partners.

>>1684057
The only thing humans are socially "natural" at is adaptation to environment.

Sexual dimorphism in primates correlates with more skewed mating ratios. In gorillas the silverback male gorilla weighs twice as much as the female. Men don't weigh twice as much as women but we weigh a bit more which explains why some men are very successful while some men only have sex with one woman, or don't even have sex at all.

>>1690706
Try and read the replies you utter mongoloid.

>>1691236
You can be very succesful and prefer one partner out of choice.

>>1691147
>I can contemplate your ideas just fine and I've concluded that you're spiritually autistic
On contrary, it is because of my spirituality that I think this way. I think negative emotions should be excised as much as possible, which includes jealousy, fear, and possessiveness.
>I would never "share" the woman I love with another
She's not yours to share. You do not own each other and no matter what you do, you cannot control how she could feel towards another.
>>1691176
>I'm just that kid that never ever let others play with his toys, and that just goes a thousand fold for my woman.
That mindset typically comes from children who tried to enforce their will over their possessions and by being forced to let others play with their toys they in turn became more possessive. It comes from a lack of and desire for control over their life which transfers onto their things.
>enjoys my being possessive (because she thinks it means I care for her)
You can care about another without being possessive, all being possessive does is allow jealousy to come in.
>Our possessiveness is about keeping away others, not about not trusting each other.
That still ultimately comes from fear. There'd be no reason to keep others away if you didn't think they could change the relationship.
>Says you. I certainly can't even imagine being in love with two women at the same time.
Maybe not you, but it certainly does happen to others. If you mean the romantic, honeymood phase love that lasts a couple months, well, it probably couldn't apply to more than one person since you're incapable of seeing anyone else when you're in that phase. But genuine love cannot be conveniently confined to one person unless you force yourself to not develop feelings like that, which supposed monogamists do.

>>1691268
>If you mean the romantic, honeymood phase love that lasts a couple months
>a couple months
It's been ongoing for the last 10 years. It's not going away anon, no matter how badly it crushes your ideas.

>>1685486
yeah it's fuckin' bullshit.

>>1691268
I always wonder what kind of man would feel appealed to be open-minded about sharing his woman.

Tell me, do you have the following:
Short stature
Low amount of muscles
Premature balding
High pitched voice
Patchy facial hair
Glasses.

>>1691268
>On contrary, it is because of my spirituality that I think this way. I think negative emotions should be excised as much as possible, which includes jealousy, fear, and possessiveness.
So your idea of being polyamorous because it's natural is based on your unnatural desire to excise a part of your emotional spectrum? Yeah you're the one with problems here.

File: 1456036102849.jpg (88KB, 652x540px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 652x540px

>>1685536
nice try

>>1691279
So you're been experiencing this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence
for 10 years? That doesn't sound healthy.
>>1691290
None of those are arguments and beyond glasses, none of them apply to me.
>>1691292
>natural is based on your unnatural desire to excise a part of your emotional spectrum? Yeah you're the one with problems here.
If you're the one saying your philosophy is based upon Stoicism, then you seem like a very poor Stoic and one who doesn't understand the philosophy. Saying that negative emotions are natural (which they are) so that means they're good and necessary (which they're not) is fallacious. Emotional healthiness is about minimizing and diminishing negative emotions; which does not mean hiding or suppressing, an angry man is still angry even if he never shows it.

>>1687579
and what is that difference other than anthropomorphism?

>>1691318
>If you're the one saying your philosophy is based upon Stoicism
I'm not,I'm a different anon. However if you think that what is natural is not necessarily good for you, then you've destroyed your own argument by yourself.

>>1691318
>So you're been experiencing this
No. It doesn't fit in the least, and it's not related to the honeymoon phase either. Don't try to demonize my feelings anon, it won't make you any less of a deviant.

>>1691335
When did I ever make an appeal to nature? Many things are natural but are not good, many things are natural which are. Something being natural is just an explanation, not an argument.
>>1691372
I'm not demonizing your feelings anon. I think one of us is misunderstanding. What I am saying is that someone in the honeymood phase is so obsessed they not going to think about anyone else so being in two honeymood phases at once would be impossible. You feel whatever you feel and for some reason you don't feel that for a second person; your personal experience doesn't apply to everyone.

>>1691395
>When did I ever make an appeal to nature?
>forcing a monogamous relation
Implies you think polyamory is the natural status. You didn't really offer any other arguments.

>>1684057
Biologists differentiate between "monogamy" and "social monogamy." In the former, an animal mates for life and will never/rarely ever find another partner. The latter, which includes humans but also many other species, means that monogamy is the dominant model but individuals often stray from it.

So yes in the sense that monogamy is the norm, but no in the sense that humans aren't geared towards having only one lover throughout their whole life

>>1684057
K-selected humans are.

>>1691395
>You feel whatever you feel and for some reason you don't feel that for a second person; your personal experience doesn't apply to everyone.
The same goes for you anon. Just because you can't love doesn't mean that someone who can should suffer to have to share his lover and being called weird for actually being in love.
>But genuine love cannot be conveniently confined to one person unless you force yourself to not develop feelings like that, which supposed monogamists do.
You're the one trying to fit others into a mold here anon. You're the one here that thinks his very own experience is actually everyone's situation. Who are you to tell me that I'm forcing myself not to develop other feelings?

>>1691406
Monogamy is obviously natural, since it exists, the forcing parts comes into the fact that people tend to stray from it and prefer other partners.

Polyamory isn't the natural state, since it's pretty rare, but having feelings for others is common so polyamory is the system that accommodates that.
>>1691420
>The same goes for you anon. Just because you can't love doesn't mean that someone who can should suffer to have to share his lover and being called weird for actually being in love.
Nice strawman. And there is no sharing involved because your partner isn't your property. They're not weird, simply unrealistic and delusional in thinking that everyone can only love one (1) person at a time and then they try to get around that idea with serial monogamy. I guess they really never loved anyone because how else could they develop feelings for more than one person?
>Who are you to tell me that I'm forcing myself not to develop other feelings?
I'm not saying you specifically, I don't know your situation. I'm saying that's what many do in general.

>>1691444
>I'm saying that's what many do in general.
How do you know that? I quite doubt you've met people telling you "I'm forcing myself not to feel for others". You're the only one you can be sure about, and you certainly don't, since you consider yourself polyamorous (and as such don't actually try). You're the one being delusional here, looking at what the majority does as an attempt to circumvent normality, and what the minority does as the obviously rational behaviour without any real reason to think so. You're confirmation bias personified.

>>1684082
>Monogamy is a social innovation required for large civilizations to function.
Maybe you're a kissless virgin and have never heard of
-jealousy
-studies confirming multiple relationships have a negative impact on the human mind,less happiness,more divorces,less love,less fulfilment,etc
-offspring needing both parents(biological) for healthy development
-humans showing every sign that they are a monogamous species(unlike other species that are not)
-basic human biology
-basic human psychology
-etc

>muh monogamy is a social meme invention for muh civilizations
Look at muslim societies,low in genetic diversity and inbred from having too many wives.
Look at polyamorous societies,they're dead or in tribes.
Look at whatever animal species you want.

This meme topic needs to stop,we've had this thread for 409225th times.

>>1685553
>t. Anthropologist
>in 2016
So what kind of sociology theories about the impact of lesbian sexualism in the 17th century have you learned?
>when you miss anthropology being a serious field it was 50 years ago
>now its washed down cookie-cutter bullshit inclusive of retards that wouldn't have been accepted in the past

H Y P E R G A M Y

>>1691478
>serial monogamy
>cheating
>high divorce rates
There's evidence right there. There's also the logical reasoning in that there's no reason why having a gf would suddenly make you incapable of develop similar feelings for another girl. Or the fact that love isn't a finite resource. Or simply that humans haven't been monogamist for most of their existence.
>>1691484
>-jealousy
A negative emotion that leads to unhappiness. The thing that causes it is the jealous person.
>-studies confirming multiple relationships have a negative impact on the human mind,less happiness,more divorces,less love,less fulfilment,etc
Correlation isn't causation. It's much easier and sensible to blame less happiness and fulfillment causing multiple relationships and divorce.
>-offspring needing both parents(biological) for healthy development
That's true, they also need much more than that. The nuclear family is a relatively recent invention that is fantastical and harmful to the family. A child needs more than just two adults, especially when one adult is rarely around.
>-humans showing every sign that they are a monogamous species(unlike other species that are not)
Patently false. There's the current evidence of the failing of monogamy and also the fact that humans weren't monogamist for most of their history.
>-basic human biology
>-basic human psychology
>-etc
Not an argument and is as fallacious as saying "muh human nature"
>Look at muslim societies,low in genetic diversity and inbred from having too many wives.
Many Muslims don't even live in countries where polygamy is allowed, not the mention most Muslims don't have multiple wives.
>Look at polyamorous societies,they're dead or in tribes.
Not an argument as to their validity.
>Look at whatever animal species you want.
Chickens are monogamous in the wild and they're not particularly smart. While bonobos and chimps are humans' closest relatives and are both non-monogamist, with bonobos being polyamourous and peaceful.

>>1691544
>studies confirming multiple relationships have a negative impact on the human mind,less happiness,more divorces,less love,less fulfilment,etc

>Correlation isn't causation

How can you say that if you haven't seen the study? No one said that "correlation is causation".

File: 1473652073013.png (151KB, 370x319px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 370x319px

>>1684057
Probably not, but what a lot of people miss or somehow have a hard time grasping is that its mutual.
lets say two people who are already in a relationship start crushing on other people. Most people will see this as a sign of disloyalty. What if instead the couple acted on these crushes together? How would that be cheating if both did the act on the same person willingly together? How is that disloyal?
The joke with cuck is that the man is passive while his wife has all the fun, but if the man is also acting how is this cuckolding?

>>1685571
>someone on /his/ watching JP
nice nigga

File: 1473401186928.jpg (122KB, 602x655px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 602x655px

>>1685536

>>1685536
oh wow

>>1684082
Depends on what you mean by naturally.

Humans are naturally/generally social creatures and with socialization, there are boundaries people set to limit the scope of damage to each other and gain the trust of each other. Having one wife for each man, one husband for each woman gives each individual a breathing room enough to trust others another in the pretense of their wife/husband.


Now there are other minor human cultures where the customs are different, in there the trust system is bit different.

>>1684057
You want your lover make you their one and only you have to make them your one and only

it's only fair

I mean there was harems in history but that was only because the female received enough money and status that can be traded for a life where they cannot be loved as much as a person that is the one and only of another.

tl;dr: no, but animals can naturally get jealous

File: face man.jpg (52KB, 639x603px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 639x603px

>>1684454

>>1684057

Western Europeans seem to be, many groups in Africa seem not to be. Google "Hajnal line".

File: 도시락.jpg (116KB, 640x754px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 640x754px

If humans are naturally monogamous, why there is a marriage and cheating? First would not even be necessary and second wouldn't happen.

File: Snekkers.jpg (57KB, 920x650px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 920x650px

>>1685690
And they're the smallest population. Also the most inbred.

>>1685536
kek quality

>>1684057

Neither. Humans are ego centric.
You want that special partner, and every other woman/man that you find attracive to be yours to fuck when you feel like it, but only you, nobody else.
That is why people cheat, why most monogamous and why most polygamous relationships fail, because the way we feel is inherently flawed. No idea why we are designed to be like this but its fucking stupid.

>>1684057
Women maybe.
But men,just with too much interior force.kkkkkkk

>>1684057
Women maybe.
But men,just with too much interior force.kkkkkkk

>>1691544
Divorce and cheating are indicators of shifting relationships. One who wants a divorce doesn't intend to pursue a relationship with his old wife AND his new wife, he wish to abandon the old to get with the new.

>>1685536
>mixed race
This was too far
Still high quality if obvious

>>1691290
>his woman
This guy has a slave

>>1684057
If we aren't, what's the point of jealousy?
Polygamy is just a clusterfuck of hurt feelings and bitterness, and the only way it can work is to live in a place where women are literally treated like property.

I mean, as hot as a FFM relationship sounds, in reality I doubt it would work out in the long run.
There is a FFF relationship at my work though and they have been at it for half a year.

fuck no, you stupid faggot

>>1695338
>One who wants a divorce doesn't intend to pursue a relationship with his old wife AND his new wife, he wish to abandon the old to get with the new.
That's because it's not an option to have two relationships at the same time. If cheaters really didn't like being in their relationship they would just separate, but they do like it, and presumably their partner, enough to try to hide their affair. Divorce could be attributed to anything from people making poor relationship decisions to just being tired of living with the same person constantly to a person just naturally shifting their romantic and sexual focus from one individual to another.
>>1695860
>If we aren't, what's the point of jealousy?
Jealousy is feeling that you're being shafted or being unfairly treated by someone you care about. It can be present in all relationships but is especially common in romantic ones because in a monogamist society, if your partner is truly interested in someone you have a real possibility of being dumped. In a non zero-sum relationship your partner could still be interested in someone else and spend time with them without also rejecting you.

File: 1468490728251.png (244KB, 1200x4168px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x4168px

>>1691544
> It's much easier and sensible to blame less happiness and fulfillment causing multiple relationships and divorce.
>It's much easier to talk out of my ass without scientific backing and real life experience(virgin) because I like to counter argument for the sake of doing it.
Here is your (You).
>nothing is an argument
>we're talking about human nature BUT human nature isn't an argument when you don't like it
6/10 troll,you need to shitpost harder.

>>1696496
>these graphs explain absolutely nothing and just give statistics
>so I'm going to say correlation is causation to justify my puritanical beliefs
Stats aren't arguments and until you provide one those stats are meaningless for why they are what they are. The marriage stats could just mean slutty women don't like being married or don't want to be married, and the pregnancy stats mean that women who have lots of sex are more likely to get pregnant, strange to think, I know. While unhappy people also have lots of sex with lots of people, also strange to think.

The graphs are deceptive because it's saying that early sexual activity and promiscuity cause these things and aren't just correlated with them.

Define "monogamous"

Sure, humans tend to be emotionally tied to people they make children with, but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy busting a nut in as many people as humanly possible

>>1685536
I know he's probably baiting, but I think the only way you should be in an open relationship is if you're also getting some too. If you're going to be cucked, why not cuck your wife or girlfriend?

I think some people are insecure and want to hold on to their partners. Others are OK with their wife getting ploughed by an ape of an Italian plumber on the side every weekend. To each their own, honestly.

>>1685656
>ancient Greece and Rome and the West are on civilization
>/his/
I want plebs to leave
>You get a woman pregnant, you help her raise the baby until it's 3-5 years old or so, and then you're both free to fuck who you want again.
Have you ever wondered why jolly hunter-gatherers got BTFO every time they met a monogamous tribe?

>>1697455
>Have you ever wondered why jolly hunter-gatherers got BTFO every time they met a monogamous tribe?
What? How the fuck do you have any proof of that? Do you mean when hunter-gathers encountered agriculturalists who sometimes but not always were monogamous?

>>1685553
explain to me what is that you dislike about "human nature" so much

>>1696614
How do you cuck a woman though? That implies they have at least some self-esteem or dignity in the first place, which they clearly don't.

>>1696560
>doesn't even check the sourceS
>still talks in "maybe,ifs,possible,how about",without citations,without sources,without science
>already dismisses everything because "NOT AN ARGUMENT"
(You) for the second time.

Also,you're either an established troll cause I've seen the same posts written or a virgin with no real life experience.

>>1697468
Well, how do you think Indo-European spread to all those vast territories? Or the bantu tribes, conquering most of Sub-Saharan Africa while hunter-gatherers only remained in niche, isolated places like some distant jungles of Congo (pygmies) or koi-san people of the Kalahari desert? Or how could the Chinese civilization spread and forge a monocultural country over such a great territory? The hunter-gatherers of Asia: almost completely vanished, only a few remaining Ket people in the Jenisei River Valley, an area so distant and isolated to everything, also almost completely uninhabitable for humans. And the rest are some inuits and Chukch people.
The only native people of Europe, the Basques are the people are who most likely the closest succesors of European hunter-gatherers thanks to their geographically isolated position. My point is that food production and monogamy probably spread hand in hand. Hunter-gatherers could function as a pack of chimpanzees, all the females gathering around a few dominant males. Food production though requires input from all the male population, non just the dominant ones, also cannot enable constant infighting between males over women, so monogamy seemed like an optimal compromise that enabled every male to have at least one official wife to reproduce with. Food production also enabled much bigger population, so they could easily outnumber and overpower hunter-gatherers and drive them out from their territories.

>>1685550
why would he replace if he could have both?

>>1697649
Not an argument.

>>1684057
Males are Polygamous.
Females are Hypergamous.

The natural state of gender dynamics is a horrid cycle of death, rape and betrayal. That's why monogamy was invented.

>>1685536
>"mixed race" child
Top goof there, but otherwise 10/10.

>>1697668
Not him, but it seems likely that the benefits of agriculture, rather than monogamy, were what made the conquest possible.
In other words, whether the societies involved are monogamous or not was irrelevant; agricultural societies will often out compete hunter gatherer societies

>>1697649
My job isn't to read the sources, it's for you to present the argument and to prove that promiscuity and early sexuality is the cause of all of these stats. I can easily discard your argument because you have presented no proof, just statistics and conjecture.
>Also,you're either an established troll cause I've seen the same posts written or a virgin with no real life experience.
Ah yes, the classic "you disagree with me so that must make you X or Y and therefor you're wrong".
>>1697668
Primitive humans weren't chimps, certain men didn't hoard all the women for themselves. There was great variation in sexual relationships, sometimes there was monogamy, polygamy, polyamoury, etc., at least for modern hunter gathers, I don't know if there's much research on prehistoric ones other than there being amble proof that non-monogamy was very common. Agriculturalists succeeded because of more advance technology and higher population.

File: 47146.jpg (70KB, 248x252px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 248x252px

>>1696496
Literally all this shows is that people who become sexually active at an earlier age have more sexual partners through their life, and people who have more sexual partners through their life are more likely to have an accidental pregnancy or get an STI. Both are obvious mathematical facts.

Thank you useless christcuck funded study for pointing out the obvious.

>>1684057
No. However, monogamy is a game theoretically optimum strategy for child rearing in large societies. One of the reasons why polygamous cultures are uncommon are because they get outcompeted/conquered by monogamous ones.

>>1699595
Monogamy directly feeds into the benefits of agriculture. Private property to grow foods and inheritance to pass it down does not lend itself well to polygamy.

>>1691290
Hey i have all of those and dont share my women you cum guzzling shitbag.

>>1699879
Depending on the kinds of inheritance laws 2 be h. Polygamy could just mean that the excess males fight really hard for the spoils of war.

Pastoral societies can certainly work well as polygamous, so that should also be considered.

You'd have to be stupid to believe that.

>>1699972
>Polygamy could just mean that the excess males fight really hard for the spoils of war.
Therein lies the problem. You can't really have a functioning society when every family is at war with itself.

>Pastoral societies can certainly work well as polygamous, so that should also be considered.
Pastoral societies aren't very good at state administration.

File: MTIwNjA4NjMzODc3MTM2OTA4.jpg (133KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1200x1200px

>>1700013
Say that to my face and not online and see what happens

>>1684057
No, but we aren't naturally polygamous either.

>>1700021
I was hoping you would post that. The Yuan Dynasty was administered by trained bureaucrats not by nomads.

>>1695269
As said it's to find the best way to pass ones genes over all else

or in female's case to find a suitable partner (hard to find a suitable partner just from cursory information).

>>1685536

>angry virgins

What else do you know about us?

File: bananas.png (347KB, 703x600px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 703x600px

>>1685536

File: 1464848474784.jpg (27KB, 640x472px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x472px

>>1684057

Can someone post that one scientific study that showed how paradoxally men with multiple wives ended up having LESS grandchildren than men with only one wife...?

Not saying that monogamy is natural for the species, but from an evolutionary point of view it seems like the winning move.