/sci/ - Science & Math

no
/thread

>>3193438
explain, or I shall be force to conclude that thou art butthurt

Men are serial monogamists, women are polygamists. For men, going from one female to another, staying just long enough to raise a child to a certain age and providing resources for them, is beneficial. For women, them, and them alone, having the best male is beneficial for them, though they often have to compromise.

Lifetime monogamy is unnatural for humans.

You're also not a douchebag for having sexual thoughts about attractive women even while being in a relationship. You're just a douchebag if you act them out while professing monogamy to your partner.

Best way to trick your brain and maintain a monogamous relationship is to spend time apart from your partner. Not deliberately stay apart, mind you, but just don't do activities together that only one of you likes, and be sure to hang out with people other than them.

Teenager detected.

You'll grow out of it

>>3193434
wft bro? monogamy doesn't mean you don't want to fuck a hot ass of another woman, it means you wont fuck it.
You think that when a woman is in a relationship she just don't feel atracted by any other male?

>>3193455
>unnatural

Stopped right there.

>>3193458
I'm 30. Why would I WANT to fuck other women unless it is what i was intended to do?

>>3193459
well why do you believe that we feel attracted to other people? It must have some evolutionary benefit, or it wouldn't occur.

>>3193459
>You think that when a woman is in a relationship she just don't feel atracted by any other male?
this
/thread

>Why would I WANT to fuck other women unless it is what i was intended to do?

troll confirmed

1/10 for effort

>>3193477
yes, feeling attracted to other people have evolutionary benefits, but that doesn't mean that polygamy is always the favorite for evolution, although most species are polygamous some (about 8% of mammals I think) are monogamous.
And, again, feeling attracted to other doesn't mean we will fuck this other, beside our sexual desire we still have feelings, which can make us monogamous.

>>3193486
explain why you think I'm trolling. Not that I'm surprised by such a massive butthurt response... What you have to realize is that every emotion humans feel has an evolutionary basis. we have been taught us to block these impulses in order for our society to function. Like fat americans eating mcdonalds because as animals, we are programmed to seek out a diet high in fat and sugars. why the fuck are you all so mad?

>>3193531
>pic is OP

>>3193545
Never at any point did I say that I was trolling, as your picture infers. I'm thinking that you must be the one trolling. That, or your just an idiot with no reading comprehension.

>life form activated
>primary functions: feed, reproduce
>mate located
>secondary mate located
>third mate located
>system error

>>3193479
if the woman is sufficiently emotionally involved with the man then no, she doesn't. Some (people) like the feeling of a deep emotional commitment to another person.Others (like me) are opportunists who have sex with random people and leave the child rearing to others

The male brain is programmed to be monogamous. We didn't evolve the ability to fall in love for no reason. But it's also programmed to not turn down pieces on the side if it can get away with it. In most cultures you're expected to ignore these urges, and rightly so.

>>3193455

>Men are serial monogamists

Serial monogamy is really only a way of achieving polygyny through stealth in a society that enforces monogamy.
You should only really find it in societies where monogamy is enforced (but somehow divorce is allowed), women have a high degree of independace, and birth rates are relatively low.
Think about it this way: why would a man leave his woman if she's still pumping out children for him. Bear in mind how much he's already invested in the children he has with her.

Casual sex would have pretty much never existed. Any woman fucked by a man would have been his wife, or a rape victim from a different tribe (or possibly a woman with whom he his fucking on the sly- this is an incredibly risky move for him and the wife though. If caught their lives could be at stake).
Men "fucking below their standards" as they do today would have been quickly removed from the gene pool as they would have been forced by the ugly slut's parents to spend his life wasting his resources on her and their ugly retarded children.

Why does it matter what your base instincts direct you to do?

Polygamy is inefficient and unhealthy. Humans usually become possessive of mates, whether they want to or not, so sleeping with multiple people is guaranteed to eventually cause earsplitting timewasting drama. Your chances of contracting some kind of illness from close physical contact shoot up astronomically as you widen the number of people you sleep with. Supposing you magically find attractive partners who neither place demands on you or give you herpes, they will certainly insist on using birth control, so you won't be spreading your seed at all. Finally, sex is largely the same no matter who you sleep with... truly making polygamy an utter waste of time.

>activate
>locate mate
>pass on genes
>still alive? y/n
>repeat

>>3193663
"sex is largely the same no matter who you sleep with"

virgin, or near virgin, detected.

>>3193434

>should want to try to impregnate as many females as possible, leaving the child rearing aspect to them?

No. Because your children would not survive. Even if they did they'd be at a huge disadvantage compared to other kids. Humans are all about learning and i think fathers and older siblings (whether male or female) would have done the bulk of the teaching this while the mothers were too busy with the current baby.

Do you not have any relatives who are young children?
Have you never just felt like just picking them up and holding them or teaching them stuff or just making them happy and safe?

I hate this whole machismo bullshit. I had a friend who was all "i never want children, i never want children, i've no nurturing instinct" and then his parents had a baby and i remember calling over when she was like 3 and she was clinging on to him saying "don't leave" and you could see the love between them and i was like "wtf dude you hypocrite" and he was like "she's different from other kids" lol!
He still claims to not want kids though.....most people who say this change their mind when they hit 30..

>>3193733
no, can't say that I've ever felt like picking up a small child and holding it. And I'm 30 years old.

>>3193733
and i never said i didn't want kids. all I'm saying is monogamy is not a natural state for me. I have relationships, but I've never been attracted to the idea of being with one person and one person alone. ever.

The key here is that op WANTS to fuck said "hot piece of ass" & does not. Therefore you are still monogamous.

>>3193774
" I only feel natural when I'm dividing my time between multiple partners."

I believe you should work on your reading comprehension skills

>>3193774
Then clearly he wants to be polygamous, but doesn't give into his desires because of social pressure...fucking cowardice...

>>3193756

Well if you fall in love with a girl, is that pure hedonism or is there something rational behind it? If you want to say those emotions reflect your true thoughts and not just your genes trying to get her pregnant you'll stick with her.

This says nothing of hot pieces of ass though. As long as you don't leave the one you love you are still socially monogamous (and hopefully genetically monogamous too) and they're the ones that really count. Absolute sexual monogamy is rare among mongamous (i.e socially monogamous) animals. As long as they don't leave each other and both contribute to the raising of children then biologically they count as "monogamous", you'll never evolve 100% faithfullness. It doesn't make evolutionary sense.

>>3193798
when i fall in love it's just a feeling. it compels me to do certain behaviors. none of these behaviors have ever included not fucking other women.

OP, you seem to have a classic case of not fapping enough

i'm quite sure 85% of posters in this thread are virgins

>>3193993

assumes correlation = causation

>Beware: long post

The problem with this thread (and with the question itself) is that people think the truest answer lies completely within or completely without context. To say something is "natural" or "unnatural" 100% in context of society as it is now is equally as folly as claiming something can be so without any context or other people at all. We (and we have increasingly found, other mammals) have evolved beyond instinct. Humans have done so to the point where it is extremely difficult to tell how much instinct affects us compared to learned behaviors. We can however tell that it is very strong (being a biologically mandated process) and our learned behaviors are shaped around our instinctual behaviors. Consider for a moment that children of the age of two have NO CONCEPT OF SHARING, they have not been exposed enough to other people and do not understand complex reactions based on complex motivations. As children age, the begin to understand sharing and a well-adjusted child will even begin to ENJOY sharing. It makes them feel good to make others feel good. This behavior was
probably developed most highly when humans were hunter-gatherers (a time period in which human behavior is considered to have been very egalitarian.) Food was shared because humans beings died earlier and it benefitted everyone to have as many people in the tribe alive as possible to share the responsibility to raising offspring, hunting, gathering, defending from animal attack, etc. Personal items were kept to a minimum because human tribes moved so far and so often that it was a waste of time and energy to keep non-necessary things. This behavior is considered to have devolved somewhat in our society after our species became an advanced-agrarian society and one could own land and other things.

>>3194276
This learning pattern can be applied to sexual behaviors as well. In most western societies, it is most acceptable now to be monogamous. This comes from the lessening of the income gap in advanced-agrarian society and thus the difference in things that most people can provide as value to a potential mate. Most people in Western societies can offer basic life-sustaining necessities even near the lowest rung of the social ladder. Since this happens it doesn't befit women to collect near the upper social strata, giving the powerful, wealthy men the most chances to breed and to bear the cost of caring for children.

>>3194282
Until recently women didn't have many rights, it was difficult for women to amass wealth or property. Under these conditions it made sense for monogamous relationships to be the norm. If only a man had access to resources, it made sense for the survival of a family unit for one man and one woman to be together and stay together to raise their offspring. In today's world though, where women have equal rights to men and the income gap (between men and women) is closing, women have more access to resources than they ever have. This makes for the better question: for a species in which everything from monogamy, polygyny and even polyandry has been the norm under certain conditions in the past, does it make sense to continue with monogamy at this moment in time? It depends on the two people, their value and what they want out of life. I think that it makes some sense in the case of raising children, but I don't think a child raised by two seperate, but equally involved parents or an involved society (like those of the hunter-gatherers) is a bad system either.

>>3194290
For myself: I have never wanted children, and having thought about it a lot; I haven't changed my mind. I am still subject to the human desires for variety and human curiousity, but also the human desire for companionship and safety. I have decided that the best course for myself is to be a serial-monogamous-fwb. This allows for me sex (while being safe from disease), passion, confidence, companionship and lack of jealousy without the deficits of a single lifelong relationship (contempt, stagnation, unrealistic expectations).

>>3194294
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html

>>3194305
OP here. Thank you for the post,and the link. very interesting

>>3194725
No problem. It get's brought up here quite a lot, and this is the best I have done with my thinking on the subject. Most scientific studies that interpret hormone levels and neurological responses don't try to extrapolate the human brain out of context of it's surroundings, and rightfully so because it's impossible to do so with today's technology and understanding of the brain. They simply state: stimulus A promotes response B. They can't tell if it's nature or nuture, so teasing the nature out of it by comparing those responses with different nurturing environs is the best we can do so far.

I guess you're unlucky that you have the option of having sex with whoever you want OP
My game is practically non existent...

>>3194305

With the big capslock OPINION in the middle of the url i was wary clicking that link, but fuck, i have not read such pseudoscientific drivel touted as fact by a "professional" in a long time.

I read a lot of science news, and there tends to be quite a bit of psychology (it's a rapidly developing field). The articles tend to be very well written, objective and based on evidence. I really believed psychology was getting a bad rep, that things had moved on, but i guess only in the "science" corner of the world.

>.....The mainstream media continues to be fed with illinformed arts-block drivel and probably will for decades to come. mfw.