Is monogamy the right way? How do you deffend it?
>>1218112
If my gf started fucking other dudes I would be upset, likewise I wouldn't be comfortable doing other girls either.
That's all the justification morality needs.
>>1218112
Kek, no. There are very few monogamous creates as opposed to not, why would human beings be one (given the fact that for many thousands of years we were not)
Monogamy is a human invention.
>>1218121
You know there are birds that stay in relationships for life right?
>>1218132
>You know there are birds that stay in relationships for life right?
Did you read what I said?
You could defend it if you somehow proved that it is how our species is "meant" to, in that monogamous societies raise the healthiest, longest-lived offspring compared to polygamous societies
>>1218112
God told me to do it
>>1218139
>Monogamy is a human invention.
>>1218121
I think that monogamy works because of evolutionary reasons, but besides that, it seems natural since it's the minimal quantity for human interaction to occur
Monogamy has arisen in several creatures. For humans it might relate to the need to stem infanticide so that males do not kill the children of other male who have mated with the female. By forming certain social bonds among males and females, there can be a decrease in infanticide within a community.
![To Love-Ru Darkness TV - 01 (1280x720 x264 AAC).mp4_snapshot_01.14_[2012.10.06_12.09.23].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uXPabMW.jpg "To Love-Ru Darkness TV - 01 (1280x720 x264 AAC).mp4_snapshot_01.14_[2012.10.06_12.09.23].jpg")
>implying polygamy isn't the best way
>>1218132
This is true, but many MANY species of bird cheat all the damn time. Hardly any birds are "monogamous" outside of just caring for the egg, which a lot of time isn't even the father's.
>>1218156
>There are very few monogamous creates as opposed to not
If you want to argue semantics monogamy is a term created by humans.
>>1218157
This is really the only valid point, monogamy has come about as a means of evolution and survival. As it is easier to house and take care of a few individuals than it is many. Love can be regarded in the same sense, it's only come about to make it easier to secure offspring for the future.
We are kind of like an omnivore. We can be both. But society tells you one is bad and one is good. So take it as you will.
>>1218112
A relationship between a man and a woman that's more than just sex needs the illusion that the two are inseparable, and want only each other.
Polygamy is bad because it creates a society werein the number of unmarried men outnumber married my by a factor of 3 or 5 to 1, sometimes higher. Unmarried military age males (between the ages of 16 to 25) with no family to speak of are literally the most violent group of people on the planet without parallel, and this is why places with high birth-rates are always crime ridden, war-torn hell holes.
>>1218243
that sounds pretty wired honestly
ok, I am now officially pro-polygamy
>>1218254
Why?
>>1218112
This is an emotional appeal but I think monogamous love feels more true. Spending your whole life with someone of the opposite sex might be a bit iffy, but you share a life-long bond and can have a healthy family. If you raise a kid it's a lot better with both a mother and a father rather than just a mother/father with interchangeable mothers/fathers.
>>1218276
I used to be for monogamy because I hate women, but if what you say is true and polygamy leads to a society of marauding warbands, I can't do anything but approve of it
>>1218290
Elliot Rodgers what are you doing here you're supposed to be dead
>>1218292
drinking vanilla latte atm
Monogamy is based on inhibition and self-control, which are also the basis for life in civilized society.
Promiscuity is not an advanced form of behavior, but an atavistic throwback to ancient and superseded ways of our barbarian "state of nature".
It is one purpose of traditions such as monogamy to adjust the unchanged impulses of human nature to the changing needs and circumstances of social life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
>In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.[1] "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley wrote: Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.[2]
>According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible: The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.[3]
>>1218290
I like you.
>>1218243
What if all the unmarried men become traps?
We already have enough synthetic estrogen, all we need is to make them gay.
>>1218318
>>1218309
Do you want to join my männerbund?
pls respond
>>1218304
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Unwin
>>The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous
Bullshit. Seriously, this is bullshit. Rome had plenty of non-monogamous pre-nuptiual sexual activity going on when they rose, when they were at their peak, and when they declined and eventually collapsed.
Medieval europe had brothels out the ass so that's another source of pre-nuptiual sexual activity.
>>1218112
>Is monogamy the right way?
Right by what standard? I like monogamy, however I don't mind if other people do other shit. It's their life to live.
MONOGAMY IS NOT ONLY THE ETHICOMORALLY RIGHT WAY OF MATING FOR ARYANID PEOPLE, BUT THE NECESSARY MATING WAY FOR AGRARIAN, AND URBAN, PEOPLE, SINCE THE AGRARIAN, AND THE URBAN, LIFESTYLES, BOTH PRECLUDE THE POLYGAMOUS MATING PATTERNS OF THE PRENEOLITHIC LIFESTYLES OF HUNTERGATHERERS, AND HERDERS; ID EST: OF NONARYANS.
THE AGRARIAN, AND THE URBAN, LIFESTYLES, STILL PRECLUDE POLYGAMOUS MATING PATTERNS, EVEN WHEN THE POPULATION IS NONARYAN, SINCE THE LIFESTYLE CONSTRAINTS KEEP HABITS, CUSTOMS, AND MORES, WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THE LIFESTYLE REQUIRES.
PURELY UTILITARIANLY, POLYGAMY IS DETRIMENTAL FOR THE AGRARIAN LIFESTYLE, BECAUSE IT ENTAILS A DEFICIT BETWEEN POPULATION NECESSITY, AND FOOD SUPPLY; THIS IS SO DESPITE THE GREATER POTENTIAL WORKFORCE DUE TO THE GREATER QUANTITY OF PERSONS IN A POLYGAMOUS AGRARIAN SETTING, BECAUSE THE LAND CAN ONLY YIELD SO MUCH, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH ENERGY IS EXPENDED IN LABOUR, AND BECAUSE CULTIVATION EXTENSION IS LIMITED BY TOPOGRAPHY, NEIGHBOURS, AND BY WORK CAPACITY.
PURELY UTILITARIANLY, POLYGAMY IS DETRIMENTAL FOR THE URBAN LIFESTYLE, BECAUSE IT ENTAILS A DEFICIT BETWEEN POPULATION NECESSITY, AND FOOD SUPPLY, AND AN INCREASE IN POPULATION DENSITY CORRELATED WITH A DECREASE IN CITYSPACE, BOTH DUE TO OVERPOPULATION.
>>1218365
According to his theories the medieval ages should've seen plenty of cultural advancement and prospering, instead we got crusades and witch hunts..
The factors that contribute to civilizations forming and declining are much more complex than sexual practices, it's a loose correlation at best and it's based on psychoanalytical bullshit.
>>1218336
I'll join. I always wanted to be a Féinnidh
>>1218436
>the medieval ages should've seen plenty of cultural advancement and prospering, instead we got crusades and witch hunts..
Not him but see this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
>>1218373
Polygamy leads to overpopulation? I thought the problem with it was that everyone was just gonna fuck and no one was gonna raise babies
>>1218441
cool
we sleep nude on the floor and lift weights naked (it boosts test) while listening to vaporwave
also no girls
And always remember: No homo.
Technically, you should just divide number of men on number on woman and roll with that for a really minmaxed society.
>>1218112
Monogamy is both tragic and glorious all at once. A dyadic relationship is the most unstable type of relationship out of all, as the stability of a group will only increase with the number of members. In the same breath, I will tell you that dyadic relationships are the only ones most intimate and devouring. The same intimacy will never be achieved between a polygamous group, there is simply no time and no place for intimacy when you are too fixated on your "sexual liberties".
This becomes very important when it comes to raising a child. Putting a child in a polygamous environment is to have him passed hand-to-hand like a dollar bill. He's never going to learn intimacy, never learn attachment, never learn the self-discipline it takes to stay faithful.
>>1218735
>the stability of a group will only increase with the number of members
ON THE CONTRARY; STABILITY IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO QUANTITY.
>>1218112
>the right way
What is that? sounds like a spook
>how do you defffend it
I don't. No one is attacking it in such a way that I could not practice monogamy if I was so inclined
>>1218445
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
Well dude, that's great and all but again medieval europe had plenty of pre-marital sex and sexual affairs after marriage.
>>1218318
>>1218290
Why is ISIS in this thread?
>>1218304
>The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous,
But that is untrue. We know a lot of middle eastern civilizations allowed polygamy.
>>1218121
>Everything is a social construct! Social construct = bad!
>>1218112
Depends. In a society with a relatively low male mortality rate and a relatively equal distribution of the sexes then monogamy makes sense but otherwise not really.
>>1218290
why? do you like paying violent thugs protection money?
>>1219856
What system makes sense for a society in which women are an overwhelming minority?
>>1219916
harem sheikdom
>>1218365
>Rome had plenty of non-monogamous pre-nuptiual sexual activity going on when they rose, when they were at their peak, and when they declined and eventually collapsed.
Wrong. Romans literally had to steal woman from outside and defend those stolen woman afterwards. Read some Levi.
It is the best way to raise kids.
Polygamy also brings problems with inbreeding.
>>1218365
That's not true for women.
iirc polygamy increases homozygosity rates in populations, and this is not nice at all
btw I wonder how common genetic diseases would be if it wasn't for that supervolcano thingy from 70k years ago
>Is monogamy the right way? How do you deffend it?
Ur a cuck if you don't
>>1218436
>According to his theories the medieval ages should've seen plenty of cultural advancement and prospering, instead we got crusades and witch hunts..
>middle ages
>no cultural advancement
>witch hunts
Uneducated plebs shouldn't be allowed to post on a history forum.
>>1224822
>Being this scared of black dick
>>1224822
On the contrary, cuckoldry is only possible because of monogamy. Monogamy inevitably leads to cuckoldry.
>>1218112
I think the more intelligent a group is the more predisposed it will be towards monogamy. East Asians and, to an even greater extent, Jews develop the slowest of all the races, while blacks and whites (particularly Slavs) are fully mature at a much younger age. Larger brains take more time to develop, for reasons we don't fully understand. This is what caused the evolutionary push towards monogamy, which just isn't present in unintelligent peoples. Monogamy is a parental investment strategy that is made to protect the more vulnerable and slower to develop children that higher intelligence creates.
>>1225061
wew lad
>>1218112
Polyandry makes no sense since a woman can only be pregnant by a single husband. Polygyny makes more sense but is not just for either women or the rest of men. Monogamy is the middle point between common sense and justice and therefore the correct choice.
>>1225039
This is only true in unintelligent groups, once again, people who would classify as having warrior mentalities and phenotypes (height, physical strength, etc.). Studies done on Jewish and Asian paternity show a very low rate of paternity fraud, whereas in the black community and other "warrior" groups you see a very high rate. Society actually does a very good job of vetting for intelligence, so people who are intelligent will make more money than others, as a general rule. "Warrior" groups see intelligent but otherwise physically weak people as, to use a meme, beta providers; highly intelligent groups legitimately select for intelligence. This is why the short and ugly Jew with a world-class intellect meme is a thing: it is partially grounded in reality.
>>1218436
>instead we got crusades and witch hunts..
You're a subhuman fuckwit. End your life immediately.
>>1219786
Hey
hey did you know
did you know that
hey did you know
that society
is a social construct?
Fucking awful I know right?
>>1219916
You've seen Mad Max: Fury Road, right?
>>1218121
>given the fact that for many thousands of years we were not
Source? Or are you just talking out of your ass
>>1218605
I love that you literally pasted his exact question with spelling mistake in it, and addressed it with the correct spelling. I'm glad to see all historians are fucking anal to the extreme about syntax and grammar.
>>1218764
can you fucking stop using upper case please? It's hurting my eyes.
I will start with pointing out that there are at least 2 well-done modern studies I remember analyzing large sample of Muslim women married to men with at least one other wife. They were conducted in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, I believe. The studies pretty conclusively found that the women experienced extremely higher levels of stress having to compete with one another for the man's love and attention.
But this is supposed to be common sense. This guy >>1218304 explains well, apart from his overdrawn citation, why monogamy is good from a general perspective on human nature.
Also, monogamy doesn't even need to be defended. It is polygamy that has the burden of proof to demonstrate why, a women should be forced to live in a system where she might have to acquiesce to sharing a man's love with another women. Or even more basically, how it is possible for a man to be able to take care of a woman (his equal, remember) wholly and personally, giving his entire self to her, while there's another one waiting for the same attention as well. It is not possible, it is ludicrous practically to think it is possible, and nonesensical to postulate it's feasible emotionally.
>>1225505
Literally the only thing that makes us monogamous is a book and a social standard.
Do you think when the alpha/beta paradigm was prevalent we were monogamous, you understand that's contradictory?
>>1218284
I too feel very strongly about this purely from an emotional pov which I can't detach myself from. It hurts me to say even this, but I think there could be an argument made that we should be more forgiving of cheating partners than we are today and encourage reunion rather than ending relationships right away. So maybe try and be a bit more understanding of it.
>>1226499
Do you think Christianity created monogamy?
>>1226499
>the bible invented monogamy
t. uneducated retard
i would not mind my significant other fucking other people, as long as i am totally unaware and am able to live in bliss from the truth
>>1218112
monogamy is right in the following ways
>establishes (or at least, is meant to establish) a way to ensure a stable home environment for offspring, though this could be accomplished with polygamy, the level of attention the father can give to the child is increased significantly allowing for a strong fatherly presence in the child's life. Just from statistical modern data we can see that children raised by single mothers more often than not end up as shitheads.
>a male instinctively wants to pass on his DNA and nobody else, claiming a mate for himself allows him to secure a heir for his dna. A polygamous relationship means that women (unless we were talking about single male + multiple partners only sort of polygamy) has the pick of who they want to have kids with as much as the men do, and flies in the face of what we want as a living being, hence jealousy.
any other way, polygamy is objectively better when looking at it from a cold, rational field of view. A community is better at providing for the whole than a small family, as the distribution of labor can be made to make a tasks accomplished more efficient for example.
however, humans are not cold and rational 100% of the time. Until humans can do away with that silly thing we call jealousy monogamy will always be "right", barring some freak change in the foundations of human society that encourages polyamorous lifestyles, eventually weeding out or dulling the strong feelings of jealousy by means genetic filtration.
>>1226472
I doubt there are many people advocating Islamic or Nepalese style polygamy.
More likely "agamy".
>>1226499
You're a fucking idiot.
>>1218304
>atavistic throwback
redundant
please edit this post
>>1219775
and africa and asia and oceania and also the americas
>>1219916
arranged marriages with dowry
>>1226319
haha its almost like he highlighted it and then clicked his post number
the only argument for harems is
>muh superior genetics
and I find it very persuasive
>>1226499
I wouldn't often ask a man to neck himself
And I'm not going to, because that's terrible bait
Couldn't even convince me, just go back to redit
>>1218211
>Monogamy is a human invention
>S-semantics!
