/sci/ - Science & Math

ITT: sentimental emotionalist nonsense

men's respect for women is higher than ever before. polygamy is wrong, and If a girl out of your league submits to you to much you'll get the wrong impression. She doesn't want that. She'll most likely be girly to a man who she deems worthy.

ITT: guy who is not a 10.

Or, you know, it could be the way that an extended relationship is a bad investment.

Maybe it's the way a guy can be sued for child-support without ever having met the woman, let alone sired the child.

OR it could be the way that women are entitled to half of everything you own and half your earned income for being married less than a year.

>>2358074
>polygamy is wrong

Care to elaborate ?

>>2358074
>She'll most likely be girly to a man who she deems worthy.
point

who need wm

>>2358036
This girl is unbelievably cute. Dat red hair, man

>>2358139
>>2358074
"She'll most likely be girly to a man who she deems worthy"
If men were high achivers(as they could be if not lazy) in relation to women, they would be considered worthy anyway.Its a matter of power.

I concur with the second poster on all points except the polygamy part, without implying that I'm into polygamy.

>>2358086
>Care to elaborate ?

Sorry for the delay. Humans have a roughy 1:1 sex ratio. By taking more than one female for yourself you're doing some other guy short, which is not the moral way to behave.
Not only this, but if you removed the virtual guarantee of a mate which comes with monogamy (which most of today's western males enjoy (excepting a few subcultures)) things could (and imo would) get quite ugly.

I'm with you, OP. Do not fear. It is not hard to find a place, culture, college, or other kind of environment where men are still men and women are still women.

Women are alright.

I feel sad about my future with women. Right now I can be carefree with my women but in the future as my education advances as well as my job I won't be able to spend as much time with them. And I'm talking about the whole relationship, not just sex.

>>2358801
Polygamy is a not a One-to-Many relationship, but a Many-to-Many, thus I don't think females (or males) would become "scarce" if it were common. People would just be more open about their relationships. Nobody said anything about lifelong closed relationships, open ones make more sense.

>>2358036
feminist beta detected.

Why aren't you in /r9k/?

Obsession has no tone. You're a rapist.

>>2359233

Casual sex ends up with a few guys sleeping with all the girls (as males and females have evolved different attitudes towards casual sex-

male attitude= who is this dumb bitch. doesn't even want me to provide for her and any resultant child. I can knock her up AND still make a family with a woman of my calibre. SCORE!
female attitude= i need a father for my child. Only mate with the best you can get.)

Also, people end up desiring to only be with one person. We've evolved to fall in love with one person at a time.

If everyone was REALLY committed to it, you could in theory get a FAIR free love thing going, but it would be hard. much harder, in fact, than monogamy. (future drugs may make it easier perhaps- but this isn't the future).

The Y chromosome is slowly becoming smaller, and will became nonfunctional at some point of human evolution.

Women will rule the earth, whether we like it or not.

>>2359249
why

btw I know girly girls, and they "work" properly.I believe everyone here knows some.So when thinking about "theoretical impediments" remember that they exist,

its more like the opposite of slutty

>>2359537
with "they" I meant the girly lovely female women

>>2359330
Will they have a means of natural reproduction with no males?

>>2359552
They will use science!!!

>>2359330
yeah in like in 10 million years

Funny you should mention that OP
I happen to hate women
They're stupid, immature, materialistic, self entitled and overall bitches that think they can tell everyone what to do with their lives

the best part about my girlie girl is how much time she spends dolling herself up for me.

and of course the dick-sucking: that's pretty awesome too.

>>2359599
Get out of California for a change. Women are much nicer in the Midwest.

>>2359330
i heard something like this a while ago, but presumed it must be a myth.
is this true? and if so, what happens?
if all the males die out, then all of humanity will become extinct, yes?

>>2359330

males won't disappear. The final "male-destroying" mutation will be disgenic and thus not take over. Either these "failed males" will be sterile and thus never reproduce, or they'll take the reproductive role of females.
At worst there'll be males and two different types of females. The male:female ratio will reset itself to 50:50, although 1/8th of embryos would be y, y-. Those embryos would not be able to develop though, so everything would on the surface look completely normal (maybe just higher miscarriages).

>>2359706
refer to
>>2359566

>mfw polygamy is prevalent in all primates, and we're all doing ourselves a disservice to ignore our biological drive to have more then 1 partner.

>>2359737
And so our civilization falls apart...

>>2359718

sorry. I assumed "failed males" would come to be 50% of the female population. It would probably stay a rare mutation (under either natural selection or in human society). If not be bred out due to an extra 1 in 4 miscarriage rate (under natural selection).

>>2359330
I don't think you understand biology. Not all, or most, masculine features are encoded on the y chromosome. By your logic, women shouldn't exist, because there is no unique place for feminine features to be encoded.

>>2359737
agree.

>>2359737

yfw unlike our ape cousins (whose children don't require such effort to raise and whose females aren't so physically incapable) humans have specifically evolved to be mostly monogamous and that this idea that monogamy is "unnatural" is a myth

>>2359768
we havent evolved to be monogamous at all. why else would people feel the urge to cheat or have extra-marital sex?

somebody mentioned in a thread a couple of days ago (and i think they are probably correct) that it was originally the fault of religion that forced everybody to be monogamous.
adultery isnt even a crime now, but in the bible it is punishable by death. (and the punishment allegedly continues in hell, also)

>>2359796
Monogamy is the most prevalent behavior world-wide across religions and cultures, and across history. Your arguments are invalid.

>>2359808
because the culture of it has spread.
people do what they are told.
it is the same reason marriage is so prevalent (also has its origins grounded in religion)
marriage doesn't need to be done, it serves no purpose and is just a religious ritual.
and yet almsot everybody gets married just because 'thats the way it has always been'.
they dont even consider the fact that there is no logic behind it, and no need to do it at all.

>>2359825

What about legal marriage?

>>2359827
what about it?

>>2359796
Fuck you EK
Women like you are the reason why I will never marry an
American female whore

>>2359835
no need to be so hostile.
...what is it about me that you dislike?

>>2359835
You're doing American female whores an injustice.

>>2359835
Um... dude shes right. Humans aren't monogamous by nature. Its all cultural.

>>2359825
to be fair the religious aspect of the ritual of marriage is more a corruption of it rather than the essence of it. People who go through a shotgun wedding in vegas aren't too worried about god.

You can't logically say polygamy/monogamy is the way to go when people have successfully/unsuccessfully navigated both relationship dynamics. I think the idea of a 'natural' way of doing it is a bit bogus; as long as someone is fucking someone else, I'm happy.

>>2359843
The fact that you think cheating is okay and your bullshit argument against monogamy
Have fun being a single mother

>>2359835
Most American women I've come across are nothing like EK. That's why I married one of them.

>>2359835
>mfw this is likely a disgruntled married man.

>>2359825
>they dont even consider the fact that there is no logic behind it, and no need to do it at all.
Humans do it and have always done it because it is what every human heart craves. Unless it is a depraved or damaged heart like yours.

>>2359863
It isn't cheating if you tell your partner(s) ahead of time and they agree. You are pretty twisted.

>>2359872
Get over yourself.

"When we open any scientific treatise on the subject, such as (for example) Westermarck's History of Human Marriage, we find an atmosphere extraordinarily different from that of popular prejudice. We find that every kind of custom has existed, many of them such as we should have supposed repugnant to human nature. We think we can understand polygamy, as a custom forced upon women by male oppressors. But what are we to say of the Tibetan custom, according to which one woman has several husbands? Yet travellers in Tibet assure us that family life there is at least as harmonious as in Europe. A little of such reading must soon reduce any candid person to complete scepticism, since there seem to be no data enabling us to say that one marriage custom is better or worse than another. Almost all involve cruelty and intolerance towards offenders against the local code, but otherwise they have nothing in common. It seems that sin is geographical. From this conclusion, it is only a small step to the further conclusion that the notion of "sin" is illusory, and that the cruelty habitually practiced in punishing it is unnecessary. It is just this conclusion which is so unwelcome to many minds, since the infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell."
Bertrand Russell, on Sceptical Essays

>>2359860
people should be free to choose.
i have no problem with people being monogamous. i would never dream of trying to force them to be promiscuous. what i do have a problem with is people trying to force people to be monogamous, who would otherwise not wish to be.
people should be in control of their own actions as long as it does not cause suffering to another person. and so no1 should have the right to interfere with someone elses sexuality.

Monogamy's so popular mostly because of momentum, guys. There's no reason anyone should be limited to a single person. Polyamory's steady increase in prevalence speaks to the fact that it doesn't cause some natural revulsion. That's the "it's not natural" objection brushed aside as the idiocy it is. Seems it's just another option of way to be.

>>2359796
Monogamy serves a vital purpose in our society - It prevents a few men from hoarding all the women. Monogamy is BENEFICIAL to men because it helps to enforce a 50/50 relationship split.

For every man, a woman.

Polygamy results in harems. One man with five women. Four other men with no women.

Culturally what you get with polygamy, is a lot of young, sexually frustrated and virginal men, violently competing against each other for women. A good example of this is Islamic culture.

I personally favor polyamory, to me its the ultimate expression of freedom for a relationship, but I see no major issue with sticking to monogamy either. I think perhaps the biggest issue with polyamory is simple human greed, pride and jealousy. Some people simply cannot handle sharing.

>>2359856
Polygamy is also cultural. As is promiscuity. Actually, it's probably most accurate to say they are all psychological. For the typical healthy, mind, monogamy is the most natural. Impulses for promiscuity come from some underlying damage.

>>2359884
Fine post indeed.

>>2359885
We're not trying to force you to be monogamous. We're just mocking you for being a whore.

>>2359885
As a female, what do you think about the threads idea? is it nonsensical? I know youre not exactly girly but Id like your opinion

Reported

Op makes this thread every week with the same picture and you idiots still fall for it

>>2359901
You are the only one arguing against polygamy. Purely with curses and emotion.

>>2359898
>ignorant post from someone who has never actually seriously studied the cultures he's trying to pontificate about
ftfy

>>2359908
wat?

>>2359886
Polyamory is a sign of decay

Successful and advanced civilizations are built upon monogamy --> family system.

But w\e you fuckers can enjoy deluding yourselves

>>2359863
>The fact that you think cheating is okay
i am never in favour of dishonesty. so what you call 'cheating' is something that i have never done, and will never do. there is nothing wrong with being promiscous and being perfectly open and honest about it. nobody gets hurt. people are fully aware of what is going to happen, and if it isn't the kind of thing they are searching for, they can move on, and nothing is lost.

>and your bullshit argument against monogamy
i am not arguing against monogomy, i just personally am not monogamous. if you are, then thats fine, good for you.

>Have fun being a single mother
i am not going to have children.

>>2359863
Why are you so angry?

>>2359906
I have never made this thread..and I started posnting on 4chan like 3 weeks ago.
and there is some discussion happenning.
The funny thing is that are a lot of clearly repeated troll threads with people trying to be funny(and failing) and retards like you dont bother to mess them.

>>2359908
Well, I'm arguing against polygamy too.

In my own self interest of course. I doubt I'm competitive enough to be that top 10% or less of the male population who would really benefit from polygamy.

>>2359919
>i am not going to have children.
uh...
Well that sort of changes things
Its not natural in the least but ok

>>2359863
>fact that you think cheating is okay
Cheating is okay, it's not against any law unless you submit to Sharia law or an equivalent.

>>2359918
Could you please go into more detail about *why* it is a sign of decay?

Polyamory is simply a more open and free form of relationship. I have trouble seeing how you consider it decay when you've provided no argument for such.

>>2359919
>i am not going to have children.

Okay great

Natural selection, your not going to pass your dead end mentality to your kids

But you'll end up wanting kids anyways, they all do.

But it'll be too late by then

>>2359918
>Thinks civilizations are successful because of family values.

>>2359942
because you need to be monogamous in order to raise a normal family
You know it comes with the basic principle that a child should have a "father" and a "mother" and they all live happy peaceful lives

>>2359872
heart craves

speak plainly, or not at all
the heart literally craves nothing. no thought processes occur here, all thought processes and emotions happen in the brain.
perhaps you are trying to speak metaphorically, well knock it off, i am not in the mood.

>>2359894
point was made before in a similar thread, and is fallacious.
there would be no limiting gender, i am not suggesting that men should have many partners, and women only have 1, this would lead to what you are talking about.
both men and women can have multiple partners, so this does not lead to a fee men hoarding all the women.
it leads to even groups...for example 5 men and 5 women in a group, all the men can make love to all the women, and vice versa. and i think this would be more harmonious than if the same group of 10 people all divided into 5 monogamous pair bonds.

>>2359901
you may mock me, but you can not provide logical reasons why what i do is immoral, therefore i have no reason to listen to you.

>i am not going to have children.

"Lucky for them."

>>2359942
No stable system to raise children in, not good for families, which are the core of our society (or any successful society)
People are jealous creatures and are going forever remain jealous, it's not stable/viable long term at all as people will get upset

I don't really feel like explaining in depth to be honest

Just look at other societies that tried it

>Has children, is bi-sexual and has multiple partners at any given time. Has high income and many people who will take care of my kids if I die.
You people are so anal. Just thought you'd like to know.

>>2359952
>doesn't realize the idea of normal family is purely subjective.
>thinks nuclear family structure is what makes kids happy.

>>2359968
The fact that you base you opinion of faulty logic, I'm ok with that.

>>2359949
Deal with it

>>2359955
wow EK is like female version of Mr. Spock

>>2359944
> But you'll end up wanting kids anyways, they all do.

"All" - ha ha - not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree

But some parents find in hind sight that they wish they would not have had children.

the most feminine women are generally attracted to the most masculine men (according to studies, rather than wide assumptions based on personal experience). your problem, OP, lies in the fact that the only women who notice your existence are the more "manlier" ones. whether you are getting your evidence from middle school or the disney channel (or anything, i know i'm being ridiculous), you can never say anything about women in terms of their overall behavior, as the things you love or hate about someones personality is usually through heritable traits (and to an extent cultures and subcultures). while i'm as romantic is they get, the girls who the most men compete over will be drawn to a more aggressive, confident man (given that your looks and/or financial standing are "within reason" for her), rather than a big baby who wants to smother them with flowers and keesses. you're not out of luck, but your "advice" is completely counter-intuitive (but at least you're starting to think about it, puberty is a crazy thing).

>>2359973
>you base you
Oh you.

>>2359901
Whores sell sex, actually. I'd be more of what you'd call a slut.
>>2359903
I think OP's a little too attached to gender roles and is gonna have a bad time of the increasingly diverse and weird future of gender identities.
>I know something about you
No, you don't. I am, as far as you know, nobody. I am a name on the other side of the computer. Presumption of further knowledge will only lead you into error.
>>2359918
If society is destroyed by freedom, then it doesn't deserve to continue to exist. Cheers, weakling.

>>2359903
i skimmed the OP's post... i jumped in the thread halfway down, and still havent read the whole thing.
...erm. i don't think women in general are becoming more manly... but i am in favour of "Treat women gently, fondly...proctect them." etc.

i dont think that women are becoming more manly, its just that there is less speration between the role of the sexes in modern times.
in ye olde times, women were the homemakers and the child carers, while the men worked. now, both genders are roughly equal in both these roles (ignoring obvious things like breast feeding, which would still have to be exclusively a womans job, just due to the biology required)

>>2359977
>If society is destroyed by freedom, then it doesn't deserve to continue to exist. Cheers, weakling.

So you're okay with the fall of the west?

All the white birth rates in the best western nations are below replacement. which means the white population in those countries is decreasing. So yeah I already know we're slipping.

The sense that women or men are becoming more of anything other then themselves is funny.

To compare analogies. It is like a duck becoming more a duck.

>>2359996
I sense racism.

>>2359998
Yeah, it's kinda funny reading this thread, so sad how misinformed these people are.

It's all an illusion and they fell for it.

>>2359990
Women still don't do any real jobs

Not many women miners, construction workers, janitors, soldiers, etc..

Well over 90% of on the job deaths are made up of men, men work the most dangerous jobs.

Women are still underrepresented in engineering and science.

They are only present as leechers in government jobs and such. Nothing of any value.

>>2359958
>>2359952
Well first of all, I don't believe you need a stable family to properly raise children at all. Besides which, community creche's can completely negate this *anyways*.

And next to that, people are jealous regardless. It's not like cheating doesn't happen with monogamy. Polyamory simply makes it more optional for people. It doesn't prevent two people from having a monogamous relationship, but neither does it prevent two people from holding three different intimate relationships at once.

Human nature is human nature. Cultural choices aren't going to negate jealousy, arguing that we can avoid such relationship problems by utilizing monogamy is a bald-faced lie, as anyone in a monogamous relationship who has been cheated on can easily attest to.

>>2360024
>Well first of all, I don't believe you need a stable family to properly raise children at all.

Who cares

It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what works

And your ideas will not work, they will never work

>>2359955
>logical reasons why what i do is immoral
lol wat?
You're a whore and deserve to be mocked and shunned. Leave it at that.

>>2359863
It's not cheating if it's allowed by the rules.
>>2359996
Ah, you're revealed as a racist. I feel justified in ignoring you now, save to say that if your society is clearly weak if it can't withstand the freedom of its people.
>>2359998
Females can't be anything other than females, but women, and men for that matter, are clearly mutable - that's what OP is bemoaning. "People are changing and I don't like it."

>>2359955
>both men and women can have multiple partners, so this does not lead to a fee men hoarding all the women.

Then you are not speaking of polygamy, you are speaking of polyamory.

>>2359969
i assume you are refering to my lack of emotion (or very low feelings of emotion at any given time)
also, i am high as fuck right now and feel so peaceful and content with the world...

>>2359977
>But some parents find in hind sight that they wish they would not have had children.
Aside from your parents, this pretty much doesn't happen.

>>2360038
I'm not racist at all, I'm just saying pointing it out.

I don't understand why you don't care. Your quality of life will also drop, you won't have the luxury to debate on the internet like you are now.

>>2360045
Ek wins the troll award
I've been banging my head out of rage throughout this whole thread

>>2360034
So what evidence do you have to present that show anything other than a nuclear family leads to decay?

[By the way, what type of decay are you talking about? You still haven't really said anything other than "no lol ur wrong".]

>>2360037
>You're a whore and deserve to be mocked and shunned. Leave it at that.

no i am not a whore, and i don't think whores (prostitues) deserve to be mocked and shunned anyway.
...leave it at that?
no dear, you will have to logically explain WHY promiscous people should be mocked or shunned, otherwise by default, they should not be.

>>2360045
haha funny these lazy bums and their free love lifestyles are entirely unsustainable. They feed off the work of people who actually contribute, and then they have the gall to attack the very thing which grants them their easy life.

Blah

>>2360072
Morals are not based on logic. They are based on norms of behavior that are either admirable or contemptible. Those who behave in base ways deserve to be mocked because they are base.

Also, a whore is not necessarily a prostitute.
1whore
noun \ˈhȯr, ˈhu̇r\
Definition of WHORE
1
: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

>>2360058
Been poly for a few years and quality of life's only gone up. I'm happy, finances are stable, relationships are interesting and complex. Really the only hassle I encounter is sometimes people whine and cry and say that I'm bad for my orientation sometimes, all "you're different from me! You're outside the bundle of sticks, we've gotta break you with our axe!"

It's because you're weak, you know, your inability to tolerate others. Coward. Just pathetic.

>>2360062
i am not trolling, and i am being honest.
you have no need to rage, if you open your eyes, and your mind, you may find yourself awakening to a new and better way of life.

>>2359959
I agree, all these people raging over this crap are so insecure and immature.

>>2360074
>Thinks an open relationship implies a person is not hard working.

Plenty of faithfully married people who are slackers.

>>2360085
Your short-sightedness is delicious, I honestly don't give a fuck what people do.

I'm just arguing on the net

What are you going to do when you're 50

When men's penises begin to fail, and your attractiveness also goes down.

>>2360084
Then what are admirable or contemptible based on? You just pulled that out of your ass.

>>2360074
Quite a lot of unbacked rhetoric and hyperbole in there.

As in much of the rest of the thread, I doubt you can support your argument much further than continuously saying "No, I'm right, you're wrong!"

>>2359949

You think a cooperative society can develop when a substantial proportion of males don't get to mate?

I'm not saying "family values" are essenial, but guys need to be able to get mates if you want them to cooperate with each other to achieve great things rather than fight and kill each other over mating privileges, many of the "losers" desperate to the point where they'd have no problems raping a woman if they could get away with it.

Why do you think there's so much senseless violence in the 'hood (aside from the war on drugs)? Because there is no monogamy so males get ultra-competitive trying to be as dominant as possible so they can just get a chance to mate.

Also, monogamy is not a religious invention. Societies who enforced it did so for the reasons i have outlined (although i'm not denying they probably used religion to help enforce it).

>>2360072
I find your starting assumption that the default position is to not shun in error. I think everyone should be shunned until their value is proven.

>>2360097
Why, I'll love, as I always have and always will.

>>2360074
i am not lazy. i am a student of science, and i work hard every day.
>They feed off the work of people who actually contribute
no, a person practices their sexuality in their free time, and it has no effect on how productive they are when they are working (not in their free time)

>they have the gall to attack the very thing which grants them their easy life.
you think somehow it is monogamous pair bonding that is the reason for our easy lives?
not at all, science is! :D.
and we can continue using and improving science, regardless of how we act sexually.

>>2360105
Do you consider yourself valuable?

>>2360105
You know I'm all for shunning people I hate, like you. However it isn't the default position. It is learned, a delicious learned ability.

>>2360084
how is a promiscous person immoral if they are not hurting anyone, or any living thing. they are causing no suffering at all, in fact, they are bringing happiness to multiple people. if anything, i would consider sharing the love to be even more moral than allowing a single individual to selfishly hoard it.

who of the "named anons" here are female? I only know EK(and what do you study EK?)

>>2360125
Because promiscuity is defined as immoral. This isn't fucking rocket science.

If you want a more nuanced explanation, it's because you're just following animal urges instead of cultivating something deeper and showing rational restraint.

>>2360085
hang in there.
in every era there are always those few brave pioneers who stand against a sea of needless hatred and outdated views about the world. these people change the world for the better, and soon, the rest of the world falls in line and accepts that they are right.
these pioneers are ahead of the zeitgeist. most people lag behind.

...at first people laughed at the idea that the earth was round, and people laughed at darwin when he first came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
in both these cases, the small and correct minority has to stand up and face the incorrect majority. they stand their ground, and recieve the persecution...in the name of truth. and to better humanity in the longrun.
...fuck i am so high rite now.

>>2359969
EK isn't like Spock -- Spock could score better than a C on a science test.

>>2360155
>mfw he admits that restraint of the natural is needed to apply monogamy.
Total fucking failure. TFFx10

>>2360164
EK... bravely leading the world away from sobriety, meaningful long-term relationships, and childbearing.

>>2360166
Being human is about embracing the rational, and rising above mere animal instincts. Read moar Confucius.

>>2360151
'named anon' is an oxymoron.

i study zoology

'Seer' is female also.

>>2360155

You are just arbitrarily trying to define promiscuity as immoral. Even if promiscuity is based on an animal urge that is no reason to think it's objectively wrong.

Sounds like typical conservative/republican thinking.

Check out this book - "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" by George Lakoff

>>2360164
You're sweet. Good luck living. Enjoy your high.
>>2360151
No comment. I'm a name, that's all I need to be.

>>2360182
Being human is about having human DNA. End of story.

>>2360155
>Because promiscuity is defined as immoral.
defined as immoral by who? the bible? the majority of the human population?

no, morality is subjective. you personally may not like the idea of promiscuity, there is a simple solution for this, YOU should be monogamous, you should do as you wish, and you are completely free to.
however, not everyone thinks as you do, and those that wish to live differntly, should be entitled to do so, so long as they do not cause you harm.

>>2360182
You really don't see how you just failed yourself do you? Well I'm out, been fun.

>>2360125

>how is a promiscous person immoral if they are not hurting anyone, or any living thing. they are causing no suffering at all, in fact, they are bringing happiness to multiple people. if anything, i would consider sharing the love to be even more moral than allowing a single individual to selfishly hoard it.

See this post:

>>2358801

Btw, it is also my opinion that the human reward system adapts to it's enviroment. If you're used to fucking around and leaving relationships whenever things get bumpy then imo you'll find it a lot harder to be monogamous if you ever decide to try (with devestaing effects on your husband and children).

I know you say you don't want children, but most people who say that end up having children. And most sluts end upsingle mothers. It's a huge problem actually.

>>2360208
I think it would be better if we either changed the definition of human to include all sapient life, or re-wrote our laws to acknowledge that sapient life has rights as well.

>>2360225
Opinion, belief or any such thing does not belong in science. Get out of here.

>>Women becoming manly

How do you figure? Women are not strong, hard working, passionate, loyal, dedicated, creative, interesting, and don't have epic muscles or hair.

They just are even more bitchy and slutty then they were fifty years ago because we've let them get that way. Men have just become faggots. Women have not changed.

>>2360208
So, what is human dna?

>treat women gently and with a protective behavior in every day life
>fuck them ruthlessly while during intercourse to show that im the dominant partner in the relationship
check

pic related its a woman

>>2360165
and so do i :)

>>2360175
no, i am leading them to having MANY meaningful long term relationships at the same time, rather than restricting themselves to only haveing one at most.

also, there are plenty of people in the world already, and the global population is still rising. this WILL cause problems eventually. and i have no wish to add my spawn to the already overflowing cup of life.

>>2360202
thank you, i am immensly enjoying the high. and i don't need luck living ;)
...before i was even born..i succeeded where MILLIONS failed. i am already a champion, and have been lucky enough to be born, when all the odds were against me. ...that is so fucking amazing!

>>2360244
Posting as Jim Profit isn't an autoban anymore?

the most ardent defenders of polygamy here are women.
4chan is a weird place(but I think it has some deep relation with rule 30 )

>>2360225
>See this post:
>>2358801

So a woman should not be able to choose? Women should be allocated - one per man?

Some people choosing an unconventional lifestyle will not unbalance the system. Actually, polyamory or open relationships imply that everyone could have more than one intimate partner. It would not be some men getting two women while other men get none. Even in a system of strict monogamy some individuals will be unable to find mates.

>>2360209

Nobody is trying to argue that people should be forced to be monogamous. We're just saying that people who don't are dickheads who are fucking up society

(polyamory could be ok in thoery if you have an equal number of males and females in the group and if there's no denying sex to any person. It's hard in practice though (even harder than absolte monogamy), we've evolved to fall in love and have favourites- and then there's the whole mess of children).

If anyone out there is so confident they never want children that they get themselves sterilised. Then, and only then will i say to them "go ahead, do whatever the fuck you want". Untill them be responsible and don't detract from society (which you do if you cnotribute to people being left mateless forever0.

>>2360225
So what you're trying to say is that sluts should practice safe sex?

>>2360278
>We
I don't think you understand the situation here lone grumples.

>>2360240
>Opinion, belief or any such thing does not belong in science. Get out of here.

Can't discuss not yet poven theories?
So what do we discuss here?
Already known facts?
How boring.

Great comeback.

>>2360278
Contraception and abortion also work to prevent unwanted kids.

>>2360225
>leaving relationships whenever things get bumpy

no, the relationships are strong. they are not easily broken, and multiple relationships can be sustained at the same time, by one who is strong enough.
also, referring to the post you linked me to, i have no desire to disturb the sex ratio, or have lower the potential for mating on either side.
the potential for mating would be the same as for a promiscous society in my '5 for 5' model mentioned here >>2359955
because even though you have multiple women, they are not exclusive to you, and you share them with other men. so no1 is left out.

>>2360290

i am not alone in this thread actually. I wish i could write that many long relplies so fast :D.

I'd like to remember that it is imossible to treat the subject rigorously, its just too complex and subjective.Nothing is 'obvious', and anyone who claims that is not a rigorous person.So all we can do is to argue for what is more convenient to ourselves =D.
No need for exalted moods.

>>2360272
Well, it seems as though a few people have been mistakenly using different terms in this thread.

Monogamy - One man has one wife and vice versa
Polygamy - One man has many wives
Polyandry - One woman has many husbands
Polyamory - Men and women have any number of husbands, wives, partners

>>2360278
>We're just saying that people who don't are dickheads who are fucking up society

Except you haven't provided a single example of HOW. All you've done is drone on and on about how the moral fibre of society is going to decay if we don't all have proper christian marriages. You haven't backed up a single damn thing you've said throughout this discussion.

You need to provide more to your argument than simply re-iterating again and again that the world will collapse if we do not have monogamous relationships. It's like you're taking tips from the fox-news book of telling the truth - simply repeat a lie over and over again until it is accepted as truth.

>>2360300

If the gender ratio is 1:1 then ok. But i'm warning you it'll be hard. People have evolved to fall in love and have favourites. I think this urge is even stronger than the urge to cheat.

Also, where are you going to find these other 9 people who are willing to never have children. Remember most people who say thy never want chldren end up chaning their mind...

>>2360278
Where do you get this conviction that everybody should have sex? Sex is this fun activity that two people who love each other can share.

Also: why do you think everyone in a poly relationship is there for more fuckin'? Some of us just like romance. Genital knocking is not the endgame for everyone.

>>2360267
not polygamy, polyamory.

>>2360278
>We're just saying that people who don't (be monogamous) are dickheads who are fucking up society
i fail to see how polyamorous people are 'dickheads' if all they are doing is loving multiple people. this doesn't cause harm, and i think you are being unfair.
also, in what way would this fuck up society? (as long as proper contraception is used)

>>2360260
why is that? Im new here

>>2360278
>>Nobody is trying to argue that people should be forced to be monogamous

I am. If I had my way, women wouldn't even be considered people. They're a commodity. They're incubators and nothing more. They do not possess the deep sincerity and compassion a man does. They're worse then animals. They should be enslaved, and used for our amusement and breeding vats, nothing more.

And personal beliefs has a place in science, a huge one. Because science is the pursuit of making your beliefs absolute. Whether by proof they're right, or by destroying everybody else who is wrong.

I think the main reason why males do not enjoy the idea of womans having multiple partners is because if she gets pregnant there is no way to know if the kid is really yours, unless you make a DNA test or something...

>>2360342
>>Doesn't harm society.

Shutup whore. I won't tell you a second time. I'm not one of these fags, you speak when spoken too.

"Doesn't harm society" is a strawman. Yes, humanity will exist tomorrow. That doesn't give you the right to exploit people emotionally or sexually, in fact, there's no physical principle that says you have the right to just have consentual sex or emotional partnerships.

Those rights just don't exist. If they did, then surely other rights would. Which don't. We don't have a right to life, if we did abortion would be illegal. We don't have a right to freespeech, or else dumbasses wouldn't be asking why Jim Profit isn't an autoban, what makes you so fucking special?

NOW you may speak.

>>2360344
Jim, this trolling is why you always get banned.

I don't understand why you even bother.

>>2360332
>Except you haven't provided a single example of HOW. All you've done is drone on and on about how the moral fibre of society is going to decay if we don't all have proper christian marriages. You haven't backed up a single damn thing you've said throughout this discussion.

how dare you insult me by calling me religious. I don't go around insulting you. Lets try ad have a reasoned discussion.

This post should explain it
>>2358801

It applies equally well to both traditional polygamy and "casual sex culture"

As for polyamory, see here:
>>2360337

Now i am off to bed. Night /sci/.

>>2360344
I'm sure women really love your opinion.

>>2360344
>women are dumb, i hate them, they're not people
Who hurt you, little broken tripcoder? Who so sundered your butt that you have to declare half the people in the world unpeople in some kind of misguided stab at...what, vengeance? Rectification?

You're either or a troll or you're going to suffer, alone, for as long as you hold your frankly insane views.

>>2359894
>>2360332

I have my doubts hat these two arethe same person...

>>2360371
No no, don't even bother responding to the guy. Frankly I'm amazed he even got unbanned.

Jim's your typical troll who thinks he's being clever by playing devil's advocate to everything while posting naruto pictures. It's easier to just ignore everything he says.

>>2360337
>People have evolved to fall in love and have favourites.
just favourites when it comes to lovers?
i have many friends of both gender, and i do not have favourites, i like them all. and of my men, i do not have favourites either, i like the variation, they have different likes and fetishes from one another, it keeps it interesting.
>where are you going to find these other 9 people who are willing to never have children?
my model was a simple model, how it would actually work is not splitting people into love-nests of 10, but people would be completely unrestricted, and there would be significant overlap between these 'love-nest' situations.
also, just because i do not want children does not mean other women wont. polyamourous people can still want children, i am just unusual in that i do not.

>>2358036
polygamy is really gross when you think about it
its also bad for children
also, OP's attitudes are very much old world/dead world
i say gladly goodbye to all that traditional mindfuck

>>2360396
Personal sexual activities... bad for children? Are you a pedophile by chance?

nevermind about jim..I understand now..what a douche

>>2360388
Lesson learned, thanks. It's hard to know who's a troll and who's just insane, Poe's Law and all.

>>2360387
They're both me.

I have no issues with Monogamy. I'm not blind to the benefits, and I definitely consider it adequate and superior to polygamy or polyandry.

But I would still personally prefer polyamory over monogamy. I think the idea that polyamory would lead to social collapse and the decay of civilization as we know is total bunk, and the one guy constantly arguing that such would be the case *still* hasn't given any sort of reasoning or evidence for why polyamory would destroy civilization.

>>2360332

>Except you haven't provided a single example of HOW. All you've done is drone on and on about how the moral fibre of society is going to decay if we don't all have proper christian marriages. You haven't backed up a single damn thing you've said throughout this discussion.

>>2360278

>(polyamory could be ok in thoery if you have an equal number of males and females in the group and if there's no denying sex to any person. It's hard in practice though (even harder than absolte monogamy), we've evolved to fall in love and have favourites- and then there's the whole mess of children).

I don't understand. You two seem to be in agreement about the benifits of monogamy, the catastrophy of polygamy and casual sex and the difficulty of polyamory.

oh 4chan....lol.

>>2360340
i thinking that as well, but i had a different point to make, so i ignored it for the moment.

you are correct, mating is a privelidge, not a right. in evolution, those individuals who are defective, or have genes which cause them to misbehave and be undesireable, are not chosen by potential mates, and so they do not pass on their genes.
this is a good thing; if everybody is allowed to mate and produce offspring, the population declines because disadvantageous mutations are allowed to remain in the gene-pool, instead of being purged, as they would have been in nature.

>>2360362
And my trolling is what's going to get my book published, and with the money I'm going to put moot and all other mod's neck under my boot.

After them, I'm coming for the fags and the cumdumpsters. It's going to be like Kill Bill plus Ayn Rand's The Foutainhead.

>>2360420
Well that explains a lot. My lack of sex is caused by my defective personality.

>>2360396
There's nothing wrong about polygamy.The only arguments against polygamy are cultural ones. There are also actually reasons why the sexual selection model switched in some cultures to monogamy and in others to polygamy.

>>2360392

EK. you have stated before that you have never fallen felt the feeling of being in love. In fact only a few days yo were adamant that "being in love" was a made up concept and not something our brains specifically evolved. So your lecture about how you don't have favourites among your fuck buddies does not mean much.

I also think adding children into a polyamourous situation could get messy.

Also, the less restricted your polyamorous groups (you seem to be suggesting now basically "free love between different groups of polyamorous groups) the more of a chance of this happening:

Hot guys fuck all the women.
Women mostly fuck the hot guys.
Not so hot guys lose out (maybe the odd sympathy fuck if one of the females is extra nice).

This is why i think monogamy is preferable to polyamory. Although (if the gender ratio is even) i do think restricted polyamory is defitely better thn polygamy or casual sex.

Human sexual instinct is strong and runs deep, be careful when you mess with it. While smll groups of very dedicated might manage polyamory (but you have to ask, why? why miss out on the amazing feeling of eing in love?), i don't thik society could ever manage it.

>>2360439
perhaps.
and genes also code for your appearance. handsome men are more attractive than ugly ones, but how they behave is even more vital. i would hate to mate with someone who is a dickhead, and pass on the genes for dickheadderry.

this is why men who are both handsome, and generous and understanding are so desirable, and frequently get laid, wheras women avoid people who behave like assholes.

>>2360420
One can see why a certain kind of person might oppose freedom. The kind of person who feels entitled to the right to spread their genes.

>>2360452
Well, I don't know about you, but as I said previously, I don't like polygamy because it greatly favors women [and the top % of men].

Conflict of interests. Why would I be in favor of something that essentially ensures most of the male population won't have regular relationships or sex?

Perhaps by polygamy, you meant polyamory?

>>2360455
Protip: The idea of marriage based on love is not very old.

>>2360455
Hotness isn't the only reason a person enters into a relationship, dogg. There are all these traits you can rock and thereby gain approval from potential partners. I guess you could call those various kinds of hotness, but at that point your hotness trait ceases to have a lot of meaning.

>>2360456
Wait, what? Last time I checked, those traits were highway to friendzone traits. If I'm not greatly mistaken, high selfesteem and a go-getter attitude is the best way for both sexes to go about finding a mate.

>>2360473
Yeah... 6000 years old isn't very old... oh, wait that's as old as writing so we don't know if it's older than that or not.

>>2360455
>your lecture about how you don't have favourites among your fuck buddies does not mean much. (because you have never been in love)
fair enough, although if love IS real, i do not think there is any reason why you cannot love more than one person.

>I also think adding children into a polyamourous situation could get messy.
any fool can be a parent, it doesnt take much intelligence to pop out a kid. in one of my hypothetical 'love nests' the children would not have just 2 parents, they would have several different carers, it wouldnt even matter who the father was, and they would have the benefit of being raised from the combined intelligence of several people, rather than just 1 male and 1 female. 2 heads are better than one, but 10 heads are even better than 2. there is no reason why these 10 people could not combine their efforts and raise any and all of the combined offspring of the 5 women.

>you are complaining how in a polyamourous society the nothot guys would lose out. this isn't an argument against me, because they still lose out even in a monogamous society.
there is a reason why some people cant get girlfriends.
and keep in mind, they are more likely to get no sex at all in the monogamous society. in mine, they have significantly more chance, even if they are favoured less than the rest of the men.

>why miss out on the amazing feeling of eing in love?
you don't. love can still occur in my society, while monogamous people might love 1 other person, there is no reason why people in my society can't love several people. and the love isn't any less strong or significant than the love a monogamous couple share, it is just that you would have that type of connection with several people, rather than just one.

>>2360420
>>2360340

So you two are social darwinists then?
Who cares about the suffering of others as long as I get what i want right?

Also, just ignore the arguements posted here repeatedly on the devestating effects limiting mating likelyhood for males would have.

Finally, your arguments about polygamy being bad genetically are bunk. Natural selection weeds out bad genes and preserves the good. Monogamy does not make a weaker species.
Ok, so natural selection isn't exactly working on humans anymore, but the era of embryonic selection is just around the corner so your argument (which is basically eugenics dressed up) is invalid.

Good day.

Women are emotional terrorists and female sapience should have been bred out of homo sapiens centuries ago. Treating female humans is one of the few things muslims are doing right. Organised relationships, male monogamy and the "traditional" family were artificially imposed on mankind by the increasing role of females in our society.

With our present knowledge in biology and genetics, I've no doubt we could reduce the female sex to non-sentient creatures bred only to enable reproduction.

>>2360499
Yea, arranged marriage definitely has "love" as a fundamental part.

>>2360509
lrn2history

>>2360508

>Implying turning women retarded won't make their (male) children retarded as well

>>2360490
different women like different things i guess.
i tend to avoid loud, or obnoxious, or arrogant types.
i like people who are quiet and intelligent... although unfortunately these people also tend to be rather timid.

i got laid last night, but when i went over to talk to them, it was like they were terrified of me, or thought i was taking the piss, or something like that.
...am i really that intimidating? or has a girl just never randomly started chatting to them before...

>>2359330
Humans won't last long enough as a species for it to happen

>>2359808
Actually, historically, the most common form of marriage is polygamy. Lrn 2 history.

Also what's up with OP's post. It looks like it was written by a woman.

>>2360516

I'm not saying turn them retarded. Farm animals aren't "retarded", they're non-sentient. The engineered females would appear "retarded" if they attempted to function in the current society, but that's not the point. The female would cease to be a part of the human society to which it has contributed nothing. The role of the female is to enable human reproduction and nothing more.

>>2360504
>yer a social darwinist
Nope. I just think not everyone deserves fuckin' or love. People who are awesome should get fuckin' or possibly love, 'cause awesome is a thing that I want to encourage. Not being awesome doesn't deserve encouragement. And even if I were some kind of social Darwinist, I wouldn't be wrong - I'd just be thought cruel by those insufficiently awesome to net fuckin' or love.

>>2359856
>>2359856
>>2359856


Interesting how every culture in the world shares the same belief. Real fucking strange considering how it's "just culture".

Fuck you.

>>2360524

How hard were you dumped? It's ok, you can share those feelings.

>>2360504
a bunch of genetically inferior humans not getting laid is hardly causing them 'suffering'
they are not gaining happiness... they are> :I
...an emoticon probably sums it up best...

so what? im not hurting them or robbing them of any happiness they already had.
would you prefer the alternative? they breed, and pass on whatever undesirable traits they had?

>>2360522
>Actually, historically, the most common form of marriage is polygamy. Lrn 2 history.
That claim has nothing to do with the fact that the oldest recorded marriage relationships were the monogamous love relationships of ancient Egypt.

Aside from that, your claim is probably false, and you're probably over-estimating the significance of the bronze age middle east.

>Interesting how every culture in the world shares the same belief.

Not even remotely true.

>>2360503
>fair enough, although if love IS real, i do not think there is any reason why you cannot love more than one person.

Human evolution. It's called a pair bond for a reason.
>it wouldnt even matter who the father was

would it matter who the mother was?
Look. I'm just telling you it could get messy. Human instinct. I'm not saying it's impossible. It will just take an awful lot of work. For what? Just so you can fuck a few more people. Again what happens if one of you falls in love. You'll suddenly have this huge desire for exclusivity and all sorts of jealously (when the "loved oone" sleeps with another person etc.) and otheer strong emotions could come out.
You can ignore my advice if you want. I'm beginning to think you're a troll.
>
there is a reason why some people cant get girlfriends.
and keep in mind, they are more likely to get no sex at all in the monogamous society. in mine, they have significantly more chance, even if they are favoured less than the rest of the men.

No, monogamy gives he greatest chance of mating. You'd have to be a total bottom 1% of losers to not be able to mate if you want to under today's monogamy.

>
you don't. love can still occur in my society, while monogamous people might love 1 other person, there is no reason why people in my society can't love several people. and the love isn't any less strong or significant than the love a monogamous couple share, it is just that you would have that type of connection with several people, rather than just one.

Again. It's called a pair bond for a reason. But you can just ignore modern psychology, neuroscience, zoology and evolutionary psychology if you want.....
But denying these facts just plays the argument into my hands. And i'm out.

>>2360527
A) Explicitly untrue. Lots of cultures having previously existed and many currently existing don't use monogamous models.
B) Even within western culture, which you hilariously present as a unified front, polyamorists exist and are a growing section of society.
C) Fuck you. Or actually, don't fuck you. Ever.

>>2360526

>>2360538
>Implying the average human being thoughout human history had time and energy to engage in a relationship based on love instead of reason.

>Actually, historically, the most common form of marriage is polygamy. Lrn 2 history.

Despite polygamy being the techincally "favoured" arrangement in many times and places. Historically, and in almost all cultures, the vast majority of marriages are mongamous, even in so called "polygamous cultures".

>>2360541
> You'll suddenly have this huge desire for exclusivity and all sorts of jealously (when the "loved oone" sleeps with another person etc.) and otheer strong emotions could come out.

Obviously not true for all people. Perhaps more likely true for those who are young and insecure. I'm mature enough to know that the quality of time I spend with somebody is not lessened by the fact that maybe they also have a good time without me.

>>2360541
>Human evolution. It's called a pair bond for a reason.

thats just for monogamy. and you only love 1 person because there is only 1 other person in the pair bond.
if you have several lovers, you could be in love with them all.

>It will just take an awful lot of work.
how so? there may be more children to raise, but i also have more help. i dont see how it would be more work at all.

>No, monogamy gives he greatest chance of mating.
incorrect.
in the monogamous society, all the women who are already paired off are completely out of bounds. you wont be fucking them, and your choices are restricted to whichever single women are left, who might STILL not pick you, and await someone superior.
in my society, nobody is out of bonds. there is no upper limit of the number of partners someone may have, so any female could be a potential lover, no matter how many partners she already has, she could always have one more..you. (well, not you...but the hypothetical 'nothot' guy in my society)

>>2360527
Right.. every culture? I'm afraid you are horribly wrong and would really hate to see the world for what it is.

>>2360586
>if you have several lovers, you could be in love with them all.
That is not what what love is. Not even remotely. It's a deeply-seated conjunction of minds that is impossible to have with more than one person.

>>2360573
this

remember my tennis analogy from the previous thread?
http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/2342872#p2343638

also, remember that i repress my emotions (i try to specifically focus on the bad ones, and i am very efficient at this now)
i dont feel jealousy ever. i dont mind at all that many of my male friends who fuck me, also fuck other women, i do not lose anything.

>>2360609
I never understood this. It's perfectly possible for an individual to care deeply for more than one individual. Yes, even be "in love". Not just a relationship for just sex. However, in relationships with just sex, wouldn't polyamory be better?

>>2360609
There's a difference between loving someone and being in love. And there is no reason to believe that any of those are limited to one person only.

>>2360609
>(love) is impossible to have with more than one person.

[citation neded]

ITT: teenagers talking about love
> mfw

>>2360518
>i got laid last night, but when i went over to talk to them, it was like they were terrified of me, or thought i was taking the piss, or something like that.
...am i really that intimidating?
guys usually do the chatting up. thats why.

>>2360609
What? Are you seriously stating that love is anything more then a chemical response, and you can't have this response occur with more then 1 partner or a different one then your previous? ON SCI!?

Oh the fucking heresy!

>>2360609
> That is not what what love is. Not even remotely. It's a deeply-seated conjunction of minds that is impossible to have with more than one person.

What a load of crap. To follow that line of thinking - that's why people can only love one child, one friend, etc.
If you have a very limited capacity to love, don't limit other people because of your shortcomings.

>>2360642
That's a different kind of love, moron.

>>2360533

Seriously?
I'm hoping you're just too high to engage in a proper argument because you seem to have completely ignored my points.

You think when someone is genuinely forever alone they feel apathetic and don't feel immense suffering?
wow. you really have no clue about how people work! Like i mean, reallly. no clue.

I really hope you're a troll.

Many people on this board believe that women are intellectually inferior to men and that the difference is significant. I like to think not (i have engaged in conversation with many an intelligent female in my days), but you're really letting the female team down with your failure to grasp ridiculously simple concepts and just the complete cluelessness you display in your posts (which is why i think you're a troll- pathetic male trolls love making females look dumb).

I really, really hope you're a sad pathetic troll :(.

As for seer:
Under monogamy, awesome people get awesome mates. Shit people get shit mates. This is the fair, civilised way. The societal effects of having lots of mateless males have been posted over 9000 times so i'm not going to waste my time.

>>2360645
> No, it's not - it's just that people also share lust with their sexual partners.

>http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/sci/thread/2348850#p2349469
>"some of my female friends have been "oh i am so in love with my boyfriend, he is so perfect *sigh* ..etc" and then break up with them, and say the exact same thing about the next guy they get together with."

...clearly in the course of thir life, this means they have been in love with more than one person (albeit not at the same time)

its not exactly a huge leap of faith, therefore, to predict that this could also happen with 2 people at the same time as well.

>>2360657
It's not a leap. It is common. It's how women justify infidelity in relationships. (Men don't justify infidelity, they just do it.)

>>2360656
lol wat? You don't even have to have sex or lust to have the exclusive kind of love. In fact, it doesn't really develop in the presence of lust which is probably why you and EK don't know what it is.

>>2360655
i know people can get lonely, but that isnt exactly my fault is it??
IRL, i am a very friendly person, if a person is lonely they could try talking to me.
also, learning to suppress emotions is a good idea too. lonliness (like jealousy) is one of the bad ones. suppressing can help keep one content.

...you seem unhappy with my response to the 'astonishing theory professor' guy, so i'll have another quick go.

>so natural selection isn't exactly working on humans anymore, but the era of embryonic selection is just around the corner so your argument (which is basically eugenics dressed up) is invalid.

...in which case sex will only be for fun, and hman beings will be designed after this point. and if sex is just for fun (as it is for me anyway) then there is no reason why polyamoury cant work.

>>2360657
That doesn't follow at all. An exclusive bond can be broken and reformed with someone else. That doesn't imply it can be formed with two people at once. Then it wouldn't be exclusive.

>>2360682
It's just that you're capacity for it is so limited that you can't imagine it extending to more than one person.

>>2360682
Erh, stuff like kissing and having sex has an immense impact on your brain's chemistry. Specifically, under the right circumstances it enhances feelings such as love and the feeling of intimacy.

>>2360691
yes. so form 2 unexclusive bonds.

oh my god, EK makes quite a good point. why cant society just be like that?

>>2360706
So then it's not "love" in the exclusive sense of the word.

>>2360704
A deep bonding exclusive love has to develop slowly. It can't develop if you're already having sex.

>>2360712
>implying love has to be exclusive
>...this is the exact thing i am arguing against anyway, so taking it for granted to make your point is nothing less than absofuckinglutely retarded.

>>2360720
>implying love has to be exclusive
>...this is the exact thing i am arguing against anyway, so taking it for granted to make your point is nothing less than absofuckinglutely retarded.

>>2360712
Why should we believe that loving one person vs. more than one person is a fundamentally different kind of emotion?
And even if they were, so what?

>>2360729
wrong link, see the one above that..

>>2360720
> A deep bonding exclusive love has to develop slowly. It can't develop if you're already having sex.

Why?

>>2360712
You're not saying anything, merely repeating the definition of the word "exclusive". However, there is no reason to believe that the feelings having to do with "exclusive" love are the exact same ones as those having to do with "non-exclusive" love.

Christ, who are the fags arguing against a fucking society where you can have sex with anyone, pun intended?

>>2360736
>have sex with anyone

not exactly, the society has most of the same rules as the one we currently have.
the person has to be a legal consenting adult (no paedophillia)
so because consent is still required, total assholes will not be desired by anyone, and will remain sexless. (as they should be)

also, im seeing this as some sort of uber-scientific utopia where all STD's have been irradicated, and all females have been genetically engineered so that they do not automatically drop an egg every month as a reflex action, but have full nervous control over their reproductive system, so they can choose if they want to get pregnant....science is so good in the future!

(...the point in this is so contraception is obsolete in my utopia. feelgoodman)

>>2360754
Yes, it was implied that the sex would have to be consensual.

>>2360762
>Heritage Study

As in the totally biased conservative think tank - The Heritage Foundation?

>>2360762
>0 lifetime non marital sexual partners. non virgin bride. wtfamireading.jpg
>citation needed
>"you've had sex with 20 people? okay, can you fuck 1 more before we get married please? then you will be 2.6% less likely to divorce me"

>0 lifetime non marital sexual partners. non virgin bride. wtfamireading.jpg
perhaps meaning, she as a virgin, you fucked her before you married her.
...and somehow this drastically increases divorce chance.

...

methinks people who wait until marriage before having sex are most likely very religious, and are so less likely to be divorcing anyway, as they dont want to burn in hell.

>>2360762
Show me a controlled study with identical twins - raised together. Same genetics, same environment. One is allowed to be promiscuous, the other is not. Now, what difference is there is divorce rates?

>>2360773
If by the Heritage Foundation that pays people to study what they want studied, then yes.

Feel free to read and comment.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

>The study is based on the National Survey of Family Growth, a survey fielded in 1995 to a nationally representative sample of roughly 10,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44, sponsored
and funded by the Centers for Disease Control of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Because men are not included in the NSFG, they are not included anywhere in this report.

>>2360812
>the Heritage Foundation that pays people to study what they want studied
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not sure that they do that.

Whatever... you can read about them here, maybe they mention if they do something like that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

At this point it is clear that EK belongs to another species and lives in her own world.There is no point in arguing.

>>2360812
I quickly scrolled through it. I don't see that it addresses causality. One chart shows that women who have had more sexual partners report being less happy. But why should we conclude that more partners causes unhappiness and not the other way around?

>>2360835
damn, i sometimes wish i did.
my world would be so cool... no religion, no assholes. everybody happy, everybody getting laid.
science progresses to uber-futuristic levels.
pot legalised.

...lets see what else...

:D

>>2360850
iunno. but i am very happy, and ive lost count...

>>2360805
That'd be kind of a crappy population size. How about we petition China to clone a few thousand of one sample, then halve them up and do the same thing?

I've always wanted to write up a list of experiments with serious ethical concerns and mail them to countries with...uh, a more daring stance on what's acceptable in the pursuit of new knowledge.

>>2360858
I'm in, if you also legalize shrooms.

>>2360785
assumedly, they are counting females who had sex with the person they married before they were married in the 0 column; otherwise, that wouldn't make much sense

keep the drug legalization statements...
Im getting high merely seeing how much time I'll save.

>Under monogamy, awesome people get awesome mates. Shit people get shit mates. This is the fair, civilised way. The societal effects of having lots of mateless males have been posted over 9000 times so i'm not going to waste my time.

buuuh that's cause it's always studied in the transient state not the steady-state. if our society switched over to the model where studs get all the lovin' and the runts have to scramble for scraps that would suit me just fine. i would enjoy myself tremendously. also our response time to new environmental pressures would increase, because there are positive-reinforcement loops that affect the elites of each generation.

i look forward to enjoying this social model in independent orbital habitats in my late 240's. by that time my current mate will either be dead or bored enough to reexplore her sexuality with me.

>>2360876
hell yeah, definitely! goes without saying...

>>2360762

Here is what the report says:
>As opposed to most of the other charts, this chart applies only to sexually active women who are 30 or older. Marital stability is defined as a woman who is currently married and has been able to sustain that marriage for at least five years. The rate is determined by taking the number of women who were in a stable marriage and dividing that figure by all sexually active women over age 30. However, the analysis for this chart excluded women over 30 who are currently married but have been in that marriage for less than five years, because we cannot determine whether or not the marriage will continue for at least five years.

So in this study, women who are happy being single and never marry hurt the stable marriage rate. This chart is not divorce rate. It seems to me that this measure is based on the idea that women ought to get married.

About relationships, I think its good the way it is now.Everybody knows its not exactly monogamous, but also knows it couldnt be, and moderate cheating by the man is acceptable and overlooked.

>>2360952
?
so...basically polyamoury but with a few spoonfuls of deception and lies thrown in...yeah good luck with that.

>the person has to be a legal consenting adult (no paedophillia)

Pro-tip:
>There is no difference between consent and coercion

Also:
>Sex is a means of oppression.
>Sexuality can complicate relationships (as when people are hostile towards each other because they are sexually attracted to the same person).
>Sex may hinder one's spiritual development
>Sexual desire can cause people to place primitive instinct ahead of intellect (people across the world continue to have unsafe casual sex despite their awareness of the dangers of STDs, for example).
>Sexuality asserts itself in the human mind by releasing neurochemicals comparable to addictive drugs into the brain.
>Sexual desire can cause people to lie and cheat in the pursuit of sexual relationships.
>Sexuality can lead to discrimination, based on perceptions of sexual immorality and intolerance of certain sexual preferences (Homophobia, for instance).
>Sexual desires often are false assumptions that are foisted on you by society, you may need to look at how your sexuality is ideologically and institutionally constructed.
>Sexuality, which is usually based on notion of physical attractiveness, encourages and justifies obliviousness to the unfairness of discrimination against people who are deemed unattractive by others.

>There is a link between unrestricted reproduction, resource depletion and environmental decay.
>Mother-roles are a construct used to subjugate women
>Male dominated families can be harmful entity for society; male dominated family structures reduce females to objects of reproduction and household chores are more a form of 'prostitution' than one of ethical family values.
>Sexual behavior evolved for human reproduction. If life is more a burden than a joy we do a service to would-be offspring by not having them. Human existence should be phased out.

>>2361017
>Spiritual development
Get out.

>>2361017
it would be easier just to link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisexualism

>>2361028
dammit, i was gonna say something similar.

>>2361017
So many things wrong with that post, so little time.

>>2361017
>Sexual behavior evolved for human reproduction. Life is more a burden than a joy we do a service to would-be offspring by not having them. Human existence should be phased out.

>Sexuality, which is based on a notion of physical attractiveness, encourages and justifies obliviousness to the unfairness of discrimination against people who are deemed unattractive by others.

LMAO!
Virgins venting their frustration at the womenz for not making the sex with them.


OKay, but srsly.
I really can't stand when lay folk don't know how to go about reading scholarly articles and then point to pop pseudo-science crap from People as evidence of their totally asinine "theory".

Arguing over our species' "natural" sexual proclivity is pointless. As in nearly all species that are sexually reproductive, there is variation. In humans, our highly developed cerebral cortex will naturally equate more variation in pairing. This is true for a number of reasons, but perhaps the most glaringly obvious is that for humans, sex is not exclusively a means to reproduce.

And this is where the dudes who love group sex porn say "NOT TRUE!! THATS TEH FAULT OF CULTURE!!! CULTURE IS WHY I CANNOT MAKE LOVE TO A MILLION WOMEN!" (*cough*)

Many of you seem to hold culture and evolution as mutually exclusive. But, as any idiot can tell after flipping through a few pages of a history textbook, culture similarly evolves. The development of culture was (most likely) either a positively selected for "characteristic" or a spandrel of larger brains (don't know what a spandrel is? See: Stephen Jay Gould). Either way, culture and its mailable nature has proven to be quiet adaptive and shouldn't be held as being an "either/or" of evolution.

And since we don't actually know how our ancestors lived (and no, we really don't know) or what sort of culture existed, why is it so far fetched to assume that our "natural" sexual proclivity is expressed in the culture of the time? Humans aren't fixed in the Pleistocene; we have been changing since our forbearers, in large part because of culture.

Meaning, flexibility and fluidity is what is, in fact, "natural". All forms of sexual pairings have been observed throughout all cultures. No single one is the absolute "natural" choice.

>>2361096
Absolutely on your last point. If we look at all species on earth, including ourselves. Fluidity in sex and gender roles is a good thing for the survival of a species. Where one may fail sometimes, another will succeed.

>>2361096
there was a quote from Russell on this thread, I think most ppl didnt read it.

>>2361064
LOL

You guys don't seem to care that your plans are self-defeating.

Fixed it for you OP

Abstract: infantilize women because i like them a certain way

sure is sexism in here. oh wait, its /sci/

>>2361096
>All forms of sexual pairings have been observed throughout all cultures. No single one is the absolute "natural" choice.

Why are some much more common than others?

>>2361149
what?

>>2361179
Very simple. Religious indoctrination.

>>2361179
Because evolution resulted in the observed proportions, and social pressure like religion.

If I had to speculate, it's that perhaps a greater percentage of people are generally inclined in one particular direction, which in turn influences culture. But just because one is more prevalent doesn't make it the only "natural" pairing.

The first example that popped into my head involved my favorite puppies. Sable colored shetland sheepdogs are by far the most common color variation. Are the tri colored dogs any less sheltie? I THINK NOT! All are deserving of snuggles.

Yeah, basically.

hey nerds

you all talk about evolution but

why aren't you out in the jungle fighting the alpha male gorilla with your beer hands and then fucking all the females gorillas?

>>2362314
busy making up thousands of new chemical cocktails to leech into the environment so that humanity's genitals collectively shrink and ravage the lot with pestilence and disease....why?

>>2361161

>>2358036

white knights, white knights everywhere

>>2363582
Not really.
I agree with OP, only think that he is wrong in the way of getting there.
Any woman automatically becomes girly when near powerful man.If men become dominant again, they will be girly.

seriously ? This thread is not dead yet ? I'm ashamed of you, /sci/.

you seem to be omitting the fact that women are humans and will take on all the characteristics of the human temperament. You speak as if they are a monolithic object to be judged by a species of lower intelligence. I know some women that would kick your ass for being that clueless, dude. Your logic has more holes than my girlfriend.

Can we at least all agree that the girl in OP's pic is definitely "you fall in love you lose" losing material?

>>2364141
Yes

>E.K

you can only fall in love with one person at a time because that's how we evolved.. The whole evolutionary point of a pair-bond is destroyed if you can feel them for many different people at once.

I used to think society would be happy with "free love" and that such a thing was workeable,
when i was 14!

Jesus the naievity on this thread is shocking. Read up on evolutionary psychology before contributing to threads like this again...

>>2364922
You're missing the point of this thread.

It's not serving to advance anyone's knowledge. It's a thinly-veiled "let's talk about me and what I think" thread.

oh wow, this thread is still here.

>>2364922
>you can only fall in love with one person at a time because that's how we evolved.. The whole evolutionary point of a pair-bond is destroyed if you can feel them for many different people at once.

no, i think love evolved so that people would stay together, and this benefits the genes for 'falling in love' because 2 parents who stick with each other and dont seperate, will do a better job of raising children than a single mother.
this still doesn't mean that you cant have love with more than one person. you will just stick together as a group, and raise the children all together.

>>2365004
"It takes a village to raise a child."

>>2364934
> let's talk about what I think thread
> EK
surprise surprise

also, even IF it is true that you can only be in love with one person at a time (which i doubt) this still doesn't make polyamoury a bad thing (even if it does mean people in general will be less likely to do it)

i dont need love, in fact it might be restrictive, like other emotions.
there are other ways to be happy.

also, i just re-read some of my posts from when i was high. this was a particular little gem... >>2360164

lol, i so crazy!

>>2365038
post pics of yourself EK

>>2365067
fine...seeing as you guys are so desperate to see me.

>>2365004

ITT: EK ignores evolutionary psychology and lectures "truth" based on her own experience despite freely admitting she has never experienced the emotional state knowns as being "in love" and ignoring the fact that only a few days ago she was convinved this evolutionary phenomenon was in fact a made up fabrication of society.

>>2359737
>my face when natural selection is prevalent in all living creatures, and we're all doing ourselves a disservice to ourselves by opening hospitals and weakening the gene pool by helping retards and weaklings survive.

>>2365151
Those that survive smallpox are not stronger, smarter or better, only have an increased resistance to smallpox. You have faulty reasoning.

>>2365151
Yeah. The strongest oaks do grow in the harshest of soils.
Not weeds or anything like that.

>>2365151
Humanity's progress is not driven by natural selection anymore. Our cultural and technological evolution is orders of magnitude faster than anything nature produces. And once we start artificial genetic engineering...

>>2365067
I have this one of her

>>2365178
This.

What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger, right?

Except polio.

Oh, and if we expand the concept, we can include poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy...

I can't believe this thread hasn't 404'd yet

>>2365209
What's the bump limit on /sci/?

>>2365139
i still think that ~99% of the people who think they are 'in love' are just kidding themselves and don't know what love is anymore than me. what they really feel is just strong lust, and the feeling of liking their sexual partner a lot, and ive fucking got that, if thats love, then im in love. problem?
also, 'love' is a bit vague, its basically just a 'strong feeling of liking someone' with no indication or way to measure exactly how strong.

i think this is all about how feminists are wrong. Instead of being proud for being a woman they want to be proud for her mans qualities...

>>2365004
>>2365038
Hi Zombie, Try this one instead: two loving people are more likely to have multiple children survive to reproduce than two people who have no greater attachment than short lived pheromone attraction due to fertility.

On that same argument, we can extend to n-loving people attached n-ways has stronger selection for individual pair love than n-people attached weakly through pheromones.

Unfortunately, it does seem that loving attachment of women to men is significantly weaker than loving attachment of men to women. Makes sense evolutionarily.

Allows women to selected from a variety of partners without strongly attaching to any of them while at the same time invites opportunity for men to attach strongly to individual women.

I feel sad at the prospect that I may never meet a woman who experiences love as strongly as I do.

>>2365038

so you'll give up the amazing feeling of a being in love just to have a range of guys penetrating you instead of one?

What sort of reasoning lead to you having those priorities is completely beyond me....

And wtf is the point supressing emotions if you're not doing so for greater long-term happiness?

sometimes the only response you can give is:

wat :|?

>>2365212
why the fuck do you people use the term "bump limit"?
AUTOSAGE. ITS AN AUTOSAGE.

>>2365265
*zombeh. and don't call me that here please.

>Unfortunately, it does seem that loving attachment of women to men is significantly weaker than loving attachment of men to women.
orly? do tell...

>>2365283
With this post, I hereby mock your faggotry. I'll say bump limit if I want to. It's more clear than autosage, because "sage" has taken on additional strong connotations.

>>2365276
this >>2365226

>And wtf is the point supressing emotions if you're not doing so for greater long-term happiness?
to stay productive and logical, and not make mistakes based on emotional misfires.

>>2365226
Love is not a feeling. Feelings are a property of love, but they are not the object. Look at the difference between how men and women talk about love in media. Men tend to describe it similar to: "I knew I loved her from the moment I saw her." Women tend to describe it similar to: "I felt loved."

Love is not attachment. Attachment is a property of love.

We will call strong feelings of attachment, lust or limerence. I'm sure you've felt this before.

>>2365226
Let's ignore all of modern science. hooray!

protip: Do some reading up on
>oxytocin
and
>vasopressin

They are not "lust". The feeling is entirely different. In fact i would go as far as saying it's actually non-sexual. It just happens to be accompanied by sexual desire 99% of the time.

>>2365321
BAHAHAHAHA! lol you are such a fucking newfag.

+5 internets to anyone who understands my humour...

>>2365323
>to stay productive and logical, and not make mistakes based on emotional misfires.

why?
What's the point in being productive?
Without emotions there is no meaning to anything.
I know you care about your emotions. Otherwise you'd have an hero'd once you realised life is completely and utterly pointless.

>>2365346
bump limit reached, so i think i'll make a new thread...
ANSWER COMING SOON! :D

>>2365355

plz don't.

>Abstract: Treat women gently, fondly...proctect them..them they can become more girly and lovely

Now see, you just like the idea of a "Girlie" women as a decorative object. You can dress it up with words like "Love" or "Passion", but that's all it really amounts to, and unless you're just stubbornly refusing to accept every important philosophical development on morals and ethics over the past century, you have to admit that such a view is wrong.

If you have a fetish for a certain aesthetic, take it up with your girlfriend, but don't try and drag the rest of the modern world along with you.

>>2365306
Evolutionarily speaking, meaning individual data points will vary widely, women reproductively and economically benefit from having a greater number of men seeking their attention and intimacy. Weaker links, weaker attachment allows women to maintain a greater number of relationships by remaining flexible. Problematic attachment? Remove that link. The network of guys will likely compensate for the loss of that link if they are strongly linked.

Men on the other hand, gain greatest and most consistent reproductive and economic benefit from a few strong links. If you have a hundred dollars to share with prospective mates, you could give one dollar to a hundred women who're unlikely to put out or you could invest 1/3 in to three mates who probably will put out.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Infidelity.aspx
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/139/139613_women_lie_cheat_and_steal.html
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-que
stions/
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/gender-gap-its-all-about-cheating/

>>2365306
To more directly answer your question, true love is truth. False love is a feeling, a thing, a transitory link. True love is not a thing.

It's unconditional and conditional love. What you describe, what many people understand as the feeling of love is conditional. Unconditional love is like knowing the Earth rotates about the sun or that atoms form molecules. It doesn't go away when the stimulation is cut off.

True love has the properties of knowledge and acceptance. Limerence comes and goes with the proper conditions such as: attractiveness, fascination, desirability, pleasantness.

>>2365422
Better terms might be strong and weak love rather than true and false love.

>>2365422
Strong love doesn't go away when you stop believing in it or when you stop desiring it.

Also, I know the correct spelling of that name. I chose not to use it because the generic is sufficient for you to recognize who I am on /sci/. I would recommend against using the correct spelling.

>>2365440
ah yes...point taken, i will remember that.
call me EK here. if you want me to be able to recognise your posts, i suggest becoming a tripfag/namefag.

>>2365369
>>2365369

>women reproductively and economically benefit from having a greater number of men seeking their attention and intimacy. Weaker links, weaker attachment allows women to maintain a greater number of relationships by remaining flexible. Problematic attachment? Remove that link. The network of guys will likely compensate for the loss of that link if they are strongly linked.

>Men on the other hand, gain greatest and most consistent reproductive and economic benefit from a few strong links

Aren't you mixing those two up? Men benefit much more from a very large selection of women because men can spread their genes exponentially faster, and women benefit from stable relationships because of their long gestation periods and their relative weakness while pregnant. Also:

>women reproductively and economically benefit from having a greater number of men seeking their attention and intimacy.

That's true for all sexes, it's called supply and demand.

>>2365449
Perhaps you do not comprehend the point of being anonymous. Perhaps you tie yourself to recognizable impermanent identities that you can abandon when they become inconvenient, but I do not trips or name.

I am the aspect of Anonymous that knows who you are, and who speaks to you personally. I am the voice you read to yourself when you know the person who is speaking. I am an extended part of you as I am an extended part of Anonymous.

I will call you by the identifier that is more unusual so that you know I'm not one of the usual hecklers. Remember what we talked about regarding becoming a proper /sci/duck and /sci/entist. I expect you to live up to that.

>>2365492
>Remember what we talked about regarding becoming a proper /sci/duck and /sci/entist. I expect you to live up to that.
yes i remember...
...but i can never tell if you are in a thread except for when you refer to me...as you did.
anyway, i think i will redouble my efforts in being a proper /sci/duck.
how do you think i am doing, since that conversation? do you like what you see? most people don't. i am hated here, on the whole. but it doesn't bother me.

any tips on how to improve and be a better /sci/duck?
keep in mind, i don't really care about what most people think here, but i do care what you think. any and all advice is welcomed.

>>2365462
Yes and no. Men can and do adopt the female strategy, but the circumstances are significantly different. In a social unit, women possess the strongest ability to exclude an individual from reproductive access.

>men can spread their genes exponentially faster
Not true. Men depend on women to allow them the opportunity, to carry, and birth their child. In the reproduction of people, women are the bottleneck. They have a significant degree of control over what genes get reproduced and what genes get selected out. Doesn't matter that a male can shoot ten times a day if he can't manage to find ten women in that day who're fertile and sexually receptive.

The telling statistic is the distribution of male and female reproducers. ~80% of all women who've ever lived managed to reproduce. Only ~40% of all men who've ever lived managed to reproduce. (link is above: is there anything good about men and other tricky que
stions?)If you look at eusocial animals like ants and bees you'll begin to realize with altruism in play, it becomes evolutionarily advantageous to the species for a class of phenotypes to live and die without reproducing for the benefit of the whole organism. Which do you think is more expendable on the evolutionary scale? Men or women?

Which one contributes to a relationship more strongly in material terms? In nature, which provides on average males or females?

In the evolutionary game only one thing counts: the reproducers reproduce successfully and their children go on to reproduce successfully. 60% of all men who've lived failed to reproduce yet in all probability they contributed to the communities in which they lived. Not all men are reproducers and not all men express as reproducers. Most in fact would seem to express as auxiliary caretakers. Taking care of the women and children in their care despite a significant portion (upwards of 30%) of those children coming from extra-pair matings. A lovely practice in the animal kingdom called brood parasitism. In the human world, we call it cuckoldry.

>>2365554

>In a social unit, women possess the strongest ability to exclude an individual from reproductive access.

> Men depend on women to allow them the opportunity, to carry, and birth their child. In the reproduction of people, women are the bottleneck.

And women depend on men to give them the sperm to allow them to carry a child. There's no actual reason to it. A man can refuse sex with one women and find another just as easily as a women can. Assuming both sexes goal is to pass on their genes, then the only reason women "bottleneck" is because they're so much worse at it.

This "Bottlenecking" you speak of is a completely social construct, not a biological one. Objectivally it could swing either way.

>>2365612
>This "Bottlenecking" you speak of is a completely social construct, not a biological one.
You misunderstand my argument. I am not saying what can happen. I'm saying from what happens this is what tends to happen.

As for bottlenecking being "social." It is not. The bottleneck I talk about is necessarily biological otherwise it would not be stable over an evolutionary period. 9 women can not make a baby in a month, but 9 women can make 9 babies in 9 months. Nothing men can do changes this fact; hence, women are the bottleneck of reproduction. Not a big surprise when you consider women are also the reproducers of our species.

One man mating with one woman will on average produce about one child in about nine months time regardless of whether that man has sex with her multiple times.

In a social unit, this means that if a woman rejects a mating opportunity with a man, there is little recourse for the man on average. For typical members of a community, the community will defend that member's right to reject advances. For most of human history, communities have been female dominated reproductively. You want a model to look at, check out Bonobos.

>>2365612
Men historically have had to buy reproductive rights. For all intents and purposes, the purchase of a reproductive opportunity has not been guarantee of reproductive success. In fact, if the genetic average is anything to go on, men perform worse than random chance in the reproductive market.

You'll note that for attraction, status and economic power are important indicators of the probability of male reproductive success. This isn't exactly an accident. Men have been the economic powerhouses of our species for our evolutionary history. Look up the story that the movie "21" is based on. MIT professor figured out how to win against the house at blackjack by proportional betting related to the entropy of the probability of winning. Replace blackjack with mating and winning with reproducing, you'll get a rough picture of the game being played.

~2/3s of all successful reproducers have been female which means their strategy is winning on average. As many as 1/3 of them are using a cheat-and-deceive strategy which results in an economics reliable partner taking care of the child of another man. Good for the woman, good for the child.

Also, you'll note that statistically the average man has fewer sexual partners than the average women over their lifespan. Not to say there aren't players, but to say that players are the exceptional human male reproductive strategy not the rule.

>>2365527
Needs more citation. Need to demand more citations. Needs more links to relevant research. Less you, more facts and logical arguments.

>>2365708
Also important to note that if either the would be sperm-donor of her child or the caretaker of her and her child becomes inconvenient there is a significant portion of men, waiting on the sidelines, that will replace either one of them if not both.

This kind of flexibility is characteristic of weak bonding. It would not benefit men the same way. A weakly bonded man can seek to have sex with many women and discard those that become inconvenient to them, but their pool becomes smaller by doing so. Women gossip. Women don't like rejection. Men don't necessarily have a huge excess of unentangled women waiting on the sidelines to replace the women they're with. Exceptional men do, perhaps, but I am talking about the average man who is by definition unexceptional.

>>2365638


>9 women can not make a baby in a month, but 9 women can make 9 babies in 9 months.

No they can not. Those nine women need anywhere between 1 and nine men to make babies. You're making an ilussory corralation between what you see happen socially and what you figure must happen biologically.

And of course possible this trait has even been definitively selected for yet. The role women play in reproduction is the result of social evolution, not natural selection.

>>2365933

>illusory

Herp, Derp.

>>2365933
Once again you're failing to understand the argument. Women have the wombs. They carry the child. They abort the child either during or after pregnancy. Historically, they've had the tendency of eliminating unwanted offspring. Look into anthropological examinations of tribal and prehistorical cultures.

Women most practically are the ones who get to physically say "Yes, you get a chance at passing on your genes" or "No, you do not get a chance." A man can try to force the choice, but if he fails critically by offending the woman, he likely eliminates his chance of reproducing with any woman in the community. Look at the concept of rape culture, and you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Incidentally, your division of social evolution and natural selection reveals a certain ignorance about natural selection. Natural selection is universal to life. It selects for the society not the individual. Women and men exist because those reproductive and economic roles have been widely adaptive across species. To say that natural selection only works biologically is ignorant of the meaning of universality. Natural selection is always at work even in modern society. Life operates within natural selection. Natural selection encompasses social selection. Darwin's reversal of logic here: "We like sugar; therefore, it is sweet (attractive, pleasing, desirable) to us."