>"Why should it be "moral" for a man to have sexual access to many females (many wives) but "immoral" for a woman to have sexual access to many males (many husbands)?
>This basic sexual inequality between men and women where women have been considered the "property" of the male has, in fact, been a curse on humanity. It is one of the single most important factors that has contributed to sexual exploitation and violence against women and children. Why is it that sexual exploitation and violence against women and children is highest in those cultures (primitive and modern) that are characterized by punishment of pre-marital and extra-marital relationships? And conversely, why is it that those cultures that permit pre-marital and extra-marital sex are peaceful and non-violent cultures?" - by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.
>Specifically, in my study of primitive cultures, I found the following statistically significant social-behavioral characteristics of cultures that punished pre-marital and/or extra-marital sex: 1) slavery is present; 2) low female income; 3) personal crime is high; 4) kin group is patrilineal; 5) wives are "purchased"; 6) sex disability is present; 7) intensity of sex anxiety is high; 8) castration anxiety is high; 9) bellicosity is extreme; 10) military glory is strongly emphasized; 11) killing, torturing and mutilation of enemy captured in warfare is high; 12) a high god is involved in human morality; and 13) supernaturals of the culture are aggressive and violent.
>The opposite patterns of behavior were found to characterize those cultures that accepted pre-marital and extra-marital sexuality. For any objective observer of contemporary cultures, it is apparent that the above patterns found for primitive cultures also characterize modern cultures. The greater the sexual restrictions on the female the greater is the violence of that culture. Why? And what are its implications for a major reconstruction of the male-female sexual relationship; the family and children; and society?
sorry for the wall posts
tl;dr monogamy only breeds stupidity and violence
>Before answering these questions it is important to note that some of the above relationships in the human primate have also been observed, in part, in certain non-human primate species. For example, in those non-human primate troops where the female freely mates with most or all of the males in the troop it has been found that the males are typically protective of the female and her offspring.
>The opposite pattern is typically found in the harem organized troops (one male having exclusive sexual access and dominance over the females in the troop). When the Alpha male is displaced by a new male in the harem organized troop the new Alpha male will typically kill the nursing offspring sired by the previous Alpha male. Sociobiologists interpret these events as evidence for the new male acting to promote his "genetic" fitness over the prior Alpha male. I strongly oppose this interpretation. A more plausible interpretation is the exercise of dominance and power over the female which is accomplished by the male mounting the female. This is not possible with a nursing female, thus, the nursing infant is killed so that the female can recycle, become sexually receptive and be mounted by the new Alpha male.
>>301065
>>"Why should it be "moral" for a man to have sexual access to many females
Its not. The retarded idea that it was is what lead to women aping men and becoming equally promiscuous.
>If the human male was wise (which he is not) he would realize the significance of affectional bonding throughout life and that he would be an extraordinary beneficiary of this new affectional-sexual-spiritual path.
> The ultimate human spiritual-sexual state, however, can only be realized when the human female (whose brain is uniquely designed for the spiritual-sexual state) is completely free to express her sexual love according to her own terms which means multiple sexual relationships without fear of male reproach, control or violence. For this to occur the developing brain of the infant/child must be encoded and programmed with pleasure (affectional bonding) for the neural circuits to develop to make possible the spiritual-sexual state later in life. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening in most human cultures of today where infant/day care centers, e.g., provide little or no affectional bonding with anyone.
Sexual freedom means freedom for all, and an ending to this state of thralldom towards judaism and its degeneracy.
>>301065
>>301069
>>301072
>sociology
>>301088
I should mention, by the way, that by Judaism I mean this christian-jewish concept of monogamy and all the stupidity that follows forth (pornography, homosexuality, raping, etc.), not to defend jews but they're a whole other package all together.
Move along lads, nothing to see here, just another kek thread.
>>301119
>>301089
There is no need for being a kek. I would like to argue that those who have a kekold fetish are also victims of monogamist stupidity, where sexual repression has lead to emasculation of the individuals and as such makes them feel less than what they are (people who should also enjoy their sexuality, without the perversion of voyeurism).
""All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur "fuck Hegel" Schopenhauer
>>301135
>Schopenhauer
>>301147
>not reading Schopenhauer
*tips fedora*
>>301065
>"Why should it be "moral" for a man to have sexual access to many females (many wives) but "immoral" for a woman to have sexual access to many males (many husbands)?
Because the female bears the baby
Therefore in a "couple" of three females and one males, every baby that is born has two clearly defined parents (the one male + the female that birthed it)
Meanwhile, in a "couple" of three male and one females, it is impossible to know who is the father without DNA testing
>>301154
stop making sense anon!
muh sociology degree!
Reading this is just fucking painful.
Not only is it not history it also reads like another erotic novel of some swinger trying to mix his fetishes and his ideology.
Those guys on the other thread are right, we shouldn't have invited humanities people here they're the worst.
>>301168
It really is just sociology, don't blame humanities.
>Why should it be "moral" for a man to have sexual access to many females (many wives) but "immoral" for a woman to have sexual access to many males (many husbands
Because biology, retard. A human male can father 50 children a year but a human female cannot give birth to 50 children.
There's a reason why female virginity is seen as noble while male virginity is seen as being a total loser. This is what feminists can't grasp, that gender roles aren't a social construct but a perfectly innate behavior rooted in our biology.
>>301166
Also here's some more
>By drawing several different males into the web of "possible paternity," females may increase the likelihood of male protection and even care. In addition, consortship with a male may decrease the likelihood that he would attack infants subsequently born to a female. Information on infanticide by adult males in some fifteen different species of primates belonging to such diverse genera as Presbytis, Colobus, Alouatta, Cercopithecus, Pan, Gorilla, and Papio make it clear that such attacks are most likely to occur when males enter a breeding system from outside -- that is, when males find themselves in the company of mothers with infants that could not possibly be their own."
>>301177
Actually no, I don't wanna defend the cluckold here but there's no proof coming from the field of biology confirming any of this.
Literally every single theory related to gender roles comes from soft sciences.
>>301065
Sorry for not being a misanthropic, degenerate, emotionaly empty shell with delusions of grandeur
Also
>sociology
>>301184
Stephen Lowman of The Washington Post commented that: “Humans weren't wired to be monogamous, contend the authors, and until about 10,000 years ago most had multiple sexual partners. The agricultural revolution and the concept of private property placed new pressures on the roving eye, but our innate biology has not changed with our social institutions.”
Monogamy is a god that has failed, or at its strongest, pretends to work.
>>301189
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
>>301065
>>301166
Anyway, the main issue with polyamorous relationships is not reproduction but jealousy
The only way it can be successful without jealousy fucking it up would be that every party involved love each others
So it means that each member of the gender represented more than once in the group needs to be bisexual
You can't just have three straight males/female with one member of the opposite sex
I believe monogamy is the best for society simply because we feel attached to people and jealous of others, and it's easier when it's one person.
>>301197
>psychology study
case in point
it's nothing but theories anon, not facts
>>301197
>that fucking methodology
Fucking psychology man, why would anyone take it seriously?
>>301088
>Sexual freedom means freedom for all, and an ending to this state of thralldom towards judaism and its degeneracy.
This is just funny at this point. The establishment wants to destroy the nuclear family, and, as a means of fighting it, you advocate for polygamy ?
How the fuck do you even end up making such conclusions.
>>301184
>In addition, consortship with a male may decrease the likelihood that he would attack infants subsequently born to a female
Yes, because it's not like infants getting exposed following suspicions of adultery wasn't a thing that happened every fucking day in every single society, right?
Get the fuck outta here.
OP here. I should mention that I consider myself asexual (and am also male). So I'm not really turned on by any of this shit or any of that jazz, I'm just more interested in violence (or its reduction).
>>301222
It's tricky. On one hand, the establishment has morality stemming from old world order morality by telling you to not being sexually promiscuous and to be faithful, loyal, etc (monogamist, etc), and at the other hand it bombards you with sexual imagery shit which in turn leads to prostitution, pornography, sexual deviancies, etc.
It's one whole fuckfest designed to screw your consciousness.
>>301236
>asexual
>>301247
I consider myself asexual, but the reality is I have a low sex-drive and never get any. Either way, this is just for the funposters who would like to claim I'm a kekold.
>>301236
>I consider myself a special snowflake so listen to me, I came up with a special snowflake relationship form that will magically fix society
>>301088
Jews were actually polygamous. Abraham, Jacob etc had multiple wives and a fuckload of children.
I'd even argue that polygyny is desirable but polyandry is the ultimate cancer that breeds nothing but kekoldry and social decay.
>>301263
Jews aren't today.
>why aren't you X yet
/pol/ raus
>tl;dr monogamy only breeds stupidity and violence
Just like every country that's successful today has had, until very recently, strict monogamy.
>muh noble hippy savage
>>301280
Every country that's "successful" today has a drug problem, a suicide problem, a sex problem, is constantly at war (in other's country's home) and basically has its shit fucked up.
>>301287
Now tell us how are those problems linked to monogamy.
>>301065
>>301154
>>301177
>The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.[2]
>>301287
>Every country that's "successful" today has a drug problem
>muh noble savages didn't get high
>a suicide problem
They were too busy dying young to get depressed about how boring and meaningless their lives were when everything is trying to kill you
>a sex problem
Like what, destruction of a nuclear family, single mothers, overall low quality of females if you want a traditional marriage? How does muh free luuv help with that?
> is constantly at war (in other's country's home) and basically has its shit fucked up.
>muh noble hippy pacifist savageeees
>>301308
>When the six societies characterized by both high infant affection and high violence are compared in terms of their premarital sexual behavior, it is surprising to find that five of them exhibit premarital sexual repression, where virginity is a high value of these cultures. It appears that the beneficial effects of infant physical affection can be negated by the repression of physical pleasure (premarital sex) later in life.
>The seven societies characterized by both low infant physical affection and low adult physical violence were all found to be characterized by permissive premarital sexual behaviors. Thus, the detrimental effects of infant physical affectional deprivation seem to be compensated for later in life by sexual body pleasure experiences during adolescence. These findings have led to a revision of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory from a one-stage to a two-stage developmental theory where the physical violence in 48 of the 49 cultures could be accurately classified.
>>301336
Actually I got kind of bored of copy/pasting
Here's the article: http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html feel free to read it and learn yourself
>>301336
Does that factor for economic class? As in, is it destitute society with restraint vs. destitute society without it? Because some of the highest AIDS rate places in the world are also the most violent.
>>301349
Oh, wow. It looks like in a lot of cases he's just giving female sexual restraint, not male. It's highly unlikely, for instance, that in countries where you can buy wives, there is any taboo whatsoever on men dicking around, just on women.
>>301065
>sexual exploitation and violence against women and children is highest in those cultures (primitive and modern) that are characterized by punishment of pre-marital and extra-marital relationships
But that's just not true. In cultures that allowed divorce easily, then women were just discarded as soon as they aged, because women grow less attractive, while men grow richer and more powerful. Marriage ala Christian, i.e. with no divorce unless you're buddy with the pope, were actually an innovation in favor of women.
And even then, acceptance of adultery led to situation like the modern era aristocracy/high bourgeoisie where taking a mistress was normal and wives were just neglected after a while.
>>301442
OP here.
I should add, by the way, that most of what I posted is speaking in terms of female sexual repression.
That's where the evil arises. Of course males shouldn't be sexually repressed either.
>>301065
A man having many females is moral because it is the natural order, he is masculine and strong, he is born for it.
>>301449
I think you either missed my point or refuse to acknowledge it:
fidelity is something that plays in favour of women. In situations of sexual freedom, women get thrown away once they lose their attractiveness.
This polyamorous degeneracy is an example of how society has its priorities backwards.
It is all about sexual pleasure to our dear cultural elite. If you have sex, you are supposed to be happy. If you don't, you are supposed to be miserable. The more partners you have, the better you are.
Which leads to broken marriages, children being raised badly, depression, drug use, etc.
Charlie Sheen has lived the live that our current culture says its the best one. He has money. he has fame, he had hundreds of beautiful women in his bed, including Denise Richards. He had huge problems with depression, his doctor was afraid he would kill himself and now he has AIDS. Because obviously, happiness lies in the excess of physical pleasure.
If I became the dictator of the world, I would probably force everyone to study Greek Ethics. Aristotle, Epictetus, Epicurus and all that.
>>301081
>Its not. The retarded idea that it was is what lead to women aping men and becoming equally promiscuous.
Exactly.
I wonder how they thought about this: Men are immoral. This is a problem. How do we solve this? By making women equally as bad.
>>301453
read >>301189
Also
>it's natural so it's moral
>implying that morality even exists in nature
>>301485
I am not defending any of that cultural excess. I am arguing for sexual freedom and polyamory.
Willhelm Reich (though admittedly kind of a nut) proposed that suppressing sexuality is what created and caused violence.
If you like check http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html and see how sexual freedom correlates with less violence (in terms of inflicted to others and the self through drugs or physical violence).
>>301485
>now he has AIDS
the ride never ends
>>301485
>morality is objective
>>301469
No, in situations with sexual freedom for men but none for women, men just have prostitutes or concubines or extra wives.
>>301526
Enjoying one's sexuality and having multiple partner's is not the same shit as shooting up drugs and fucking other people nonstop while watching CP.
>>301528
Well yeah, in situations with sexual freedom for men, obviously, that doesn't contradict the point.
>>301538
It is the same thing.
>>301550
wew lad.
on what grounds do you claim it is the same?
>>301556
It is exactly the same thing, except that Charlie Sheen is more successful at it, since he is a rich Hollywood star.
They have the same sort of valuation of what is important in life.
>>301563
It's not the same thing. Charlie Sheen does not love any of the women he fucks.
>>301567
Neither do the degenerates that you are defending.
>>301573
Perhaps romantic love doesn't exist in those polyamorous societies, but at the very least there is love between the mothers and their children, and adult violence is close to none-existent.
>>301579
Adult violence is close to nonexistence because
A: They have a very low population density
B: They're bourgeois as hell
If you go to some shitty neighborhood where both men and women are super promiscuous, you won't find it peaceful.
>>301579
>there is love between the mothers and their children
This exist everywhere. Even birds love their babies. With the exception that in monogamous societies, the children also have their fathers to love them.
>and adult violence is close to none-existent.
Uh, where? Polygamous societies are very violent.
Polyamory is pretty cool, I'm even in a triad relationship, all romantic love and shit. I don't think it would ever be adopted society-wide anytime soon, though, and even if it was most societal ills come from poverty and lack of education. Doubt a lack of enforced monogamy would change stuff like violent crime.
>>301592
>They have a very low population density
True
> They're bourgeois as hell
Not sure what you mean by this. They own large swaths of land and industrial commodities? no they don't have any of that
Let me guess, you're talking about some sort afro-american slum where the average negro is some gangbanger that sells crack? The reason for their violence is complete neglect on both sides of the sexes.
>>301592
>If you go to some shitty neighborhood where both men and women are super promiscuous, you won't find it peaceful.
Yup.
Black neighborhoods in America are in practice "polyamorous". Single mothers with many kids with different fathers. And fathers with many kids with different mothers. Not very peaceful.
>>301607
>The reason for their violence is complete neglect on both sides of the sexes.
Check this out.
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/
Single motherhood is pretty bad for violence.
>>301607
I meant either or, not both. But the promiscuous bourgeoisie, even in urban areas, obviously aren't violent.
>Let me guess, you're talking about some sort afro-american slum where the average negro is some gangbanger that sells crack? The reason for their violence is complete neglect on both sides of the sexes.
Yes, you're less likely to take care of a child if you are unsure if he's yours, and more importantly, taking care of kids is less likely when they're produced by one-night stands rather than long-term, monogamous relationships.
>>301600
Please read the link I provided here:
>>301507
If you're into comparing humans to primates, there's also a correlation found with none-monogamy and none-violence in chimp society.
""To date, savanna baboons provide the best-documented example of males drawn into the protection of particular infants through their past (and in a few cases anticipated future) relationships with the infant's mother. By mating with several different males, females forge a network of alliance with males. Even though only one male can be the biological father of the infant, several males nevertheless often assist a female by "babysitting" or protecting her infant, allowing the infant to forage close by, or moving to pick up the infant should it be threatened by strange immigrant males. In species living in particularly harsh or dangerous environments, or where the costs of motherhood are particularly high, as among barbary macaques or tamarins, females mating with more than one male elicit far more than protection. Being carried about by males -- typically males with whom the female had past consort relations -- is essential for infant survival (emphases added)."
>>301601
Yeah, I don't think I would be comfortable including romantic love here. I haven't done any thinking in this part but romance seems completely possessive for me; if there would be any polyamorous society romance would have to go away.
>>301630
>Yeah, I don't think I would be comfortable including romantic love here. I haven't done any thinking in this part but romance seems completely possessive for me; if there would be any polyamorous society romance would have to go away.
...But polyamory literally means "many loves" as in romantic love. If you're getting rid of romantic love from it, it's not polyamory.
>>301630
>If you're into comparing humans to primates, there's also a correlation found with none-monogamy and none-violence in chimp society.
That's because bonobos use sex for conflict-resolution. Unless you're talking about a society where two men alleviate their hostility by sucking each other off, like bonobos, this really isn't a valid comparison.
>>301639
More as in eros.
>>301623
>Yes, you're less likely to take care of a child if you are unsure if he's yours, and more importantly, taking care of kids is less likely when they're produced by one-night stands rather than long-term, monogamous relationships.
Except there's that theory where the entire tribe would be in charge of bringing up the children rather than just the mother herself. There wouldn't be a lack (or a huge representation either) of a father figure, since the entire tribe would look after the child's well-being.
>>301639
Well, I guess that would be right in this context, but romantic love that isn't exclusive seems pointless by definition. I'm not against the idea, I just can't see it working in that way (for what I know as romantic love, it's an irrational obsession with a single person, but if it actually works with multiple people don't mind pointing it out).
>>301630
>Please read the link I provided here:
It is crap. Read any econometrics textbook.
>>301639
>...But polyamory literally means "many loves" as in romantic love. If you're getting rid of romantic love from it, it's not polyamory.
Yeah, it is just perverts being perverts.
>>301647
>Except there's that theory where the entire tribe would be in charge of bringing up the children rather than just the mother herself. There wouldn't be a lack (or a huge representation either) of a father figure, since the entire tribe would look after the child's well-being.
And guess what... Societies that did this didn't advance. I wonder why.
>>301639
Why do you have to have sex with people to love them?
Seems like what you're saying is that the more love people have for each other, the less violence. But just more sex doesn't actually do anything, because as you said yourself, it's ineffective without love.
So why not instead just say we need more love?
>>301647
>Except there's that theory where the entire tribe would be in charge of bringing up the children rather than just the mother herself.
Okay, Plato, but we aren't talking about tribes, which are essentially just very, very large families.
>>301666
Love and sex are very close, Satan.
>Steele noted that almost without exception the women who abused their children had never experienced orgasm. The degree of sexual pleasure experienced by the men who abused their children was not ascertained, but their sex life, in general, was unsatisfactory. The hypothesis that physical pleasure actively inhibits physical violence can be appreciated from our own sexual experiences. How many of us feel like assaulting someone after we have just experienced orgasm?
>>301666
If anything, men who have more sex tend to be more violent than those that don't have (yeah, causation, correlation and all that)
>>301647
>(for what I know as romantic love, it's an irrational obsession with a single person, but if it actually works with multiple people don't mind pointing it out).
That's like Romeo and Juliet shit, man. The stuff that's in media. That sort of obsessive love burns out fast. The romantic love in a relationship is harder to explain; slower burning, affectionate. You might still fight or disagree at times, but it can be resolved. I dunno, you just... enjoy being around that person or multiple people. It's like a best friend, but closer.
The comparison to a status of best friends is intentional because that's sort of how the aforementioned triad started. Really close best friends grew closer and closer until the word love finally came out.
But there are so many different ideas of love out there. Conscious devotion, platonic love, et cetera.
>>301666
>Seems like what you're saying is that the more love people have for each other, the less violence. But just more sex doesn't actually do anything, because as you said yourself, it's ineffective without love.
I didn't say any of that. I was speaking purely definition-wise. Polyamory is a romantic relationship involving more than two people; the way OP was using it didn't involve the romance part.
>>301505
Gender dymorphism you twat.
>>301691
Well, what I meant with polyamary was intimacy.
>>301674
Supposing he actually got the data and this is not just "clinical experience" and that the people interviewed were talking truthfully about their sexual life (both strong assumptions). You can't reach those kinds of conclusions due to endogeneity.
>>301674
This is some nonsense, women in the ghetto get orgasms all the time because men are obsessed with pleasuring them as that is a part of their masculinity.
Furthermore, do you think this also applies to men? That they are only violent if they don't have orgasms?
Do you think you need multiple partners to have orgasms?
>How man of us feel like assaulting someone after we have just experienced orgasm?
Heroin is a lot more intense than the feeling you get from after orgasm, but drug ridden neighborhoods are still violent.
>>301712
Heroin is brain damaging.
The problem with polygamy is that marriage is less an issue of morality and more of a legal one. You can't have multiple wives or husbands without extensively changing tax laws, inheritance laws, divorce laws ect.
This is also why I don't understand debate about gay marriage. It's not the governments job to decide these sorts of things in my opinion.
The morals of these things I don't care about. Do whatever you want, as long as it's two, or more, consenting adults there is no problem.
>>301725
You kind of missed my point. A temporary, severely relaxing high isn't going to fix the underlying causes of violence, which are poverty and lack of morals.
>>301065
Polygamy is shit because men don't like sharing, are you oblivious to this fact? We want to pass on OUR offspring and OUR genes, not take a fucking gamble and spend the rest of our lives breaking our backs to support a child that COULD be mine when it might as well just be the child of any of the other half dozen men the woman is sleeping with.
There's a reason why monogamy sprung up all across the globe in any civilization worth a damn, it's because it works and it leaves everybody satisfied. All men get access to a wife, sex and can reproduce while at the same time it creates an obligation for them to work hard to support their growing family, increasing productivity, tax revenue and so on. One man can easily father five children with a woman - an 'alpha' with a harem can't father five children with ten different wives - that's fifty fucking kids right there, how is he supposed to support and raised them all? There's a reason why only kings and other extremely wealthy and powerful men had harems and several wives - they were the only ones that could possibly support it. The average Joe can't, and it's fucking stupid to dictate policy based on what 0.1% of society can achieve and afford.
Not to mention another HUGE danger with this - a lot of men will be left out. It's easy enough to ridicule them and call them losers who only play video games and whatnot, but they pose a real threat. They're frustrated with society, they have no families to provide for and are thus willing to take more risks and gamble with their lives since no one depend on them and so on. Put a rifle in their hand and fill their mind with radical ideas and voila, you've created the next generation of extremists.
Ask yourself, why would a young man give up the wealth, luxury and safety of Western society to travel halfway across the world to fight for religious extremists in a godforsaken shithole? How can ISIS grow? Why do so many young men grow to resent our society?
>>301749
My point was that heroin is a destructive drug that carries its own bag as problems and you make a mistake in comparing its high to that of the orgasmic high.
Basically, apple to oranges, not an argument, etc.
>>301761
Promiscuity also is destructive and carries its own bag of problems.
>>301759
1. at the outset you're posting exactly what's wrong with monogamy, because monogamy in practice does not work and usually ends up with violence, you are also treating women as property.
2. the latter would be solved by men getting sex with other women, they do not necessarily have to produce offspring.
in a polyamorous society, paternity wouldn't even have to be a thing to concern oneself.
>>301766
a polyamorous person doesn't mean promiscuous. polyamory isn't about sex, it's about intimacy.
>>301759
Historically, there have been many men that never married without problems.
The biggest problem is that our society considers sex the ultimate good and that those that don't have it are ridiculous and should be mocked. They absorb those values and end up feeling like shit.
Anyway, my impression is that the ISIS guys have no problems in finding women (willing or not). The reason they get crazy is another one.
>>301761
But you're ignoring my point and the rest of my argument.
Even if you could come up with some drug that got people high like heroin without the ill effects, it wouldn't necessarily alleviate violence.
>>301771
>in a polyamorous society, paternity wouldn't even have to be a thing to concern oneself.
This would totally end well.
>a polyamorous person doesn't mean promiscuous
In practice, it does. It is just perverts trying to paint their fetish in a positive light.
>>301771
>a polyamorous person doesn't mean promiscuous. polyamory isn't about sex, it's about intimacy.
What kind of intimacy can you have with someone you barely know? And if you're talking about committed relationships with multiple partners, well you will not find many test societies for that except places where polygamy is practiced.
>>301771
>in a polyamorous society, paternity wouldn't even have to be a thing to concern oneself.
So the state pays for the upbringing of all children, 100%?
>>301771
>because monogamy in practice does not work
What are you on about? They've worked just fine for thousands of years.
>the latter would be solved by men getting sex with other women
Not all men are desirable to women. Why should they fuck average Joe when they can spend all their time with Chad?
>in a polyamorous society, paternity wouldn't even have to be a thing to concern oneself.
Not going to happen. Mammals want to pass on their genes, not anyone else's. Kekoldry and other shit-tier fetishes need not apply.
>>301799
>The male partners of the female do.
Get a load of this sexist pig.
>>301799
>It actually would
Yeah. See how wonderful black neighborhoods are. Single motherhood totally didn't break them apart.
>>301799
>The male partners of the female do.
I laughed loud.
Are you John Green?
>>301798
>What are you on about? They've worked just fine for thousands of years.
Yeah, with a lot of bullshit, war, death, poverty, etc. but it works just fine right?
>Not all men are desirable to women. Why should they fuck average Joe when they can spend all their time with Chad?
Go back to /r9k/
>Not going to happen. Mammals want to pass on their genes, not anyone else's. Kekoldry and other shit-tier fetishes need not apply.
read about the baboons, it was in an earlier post.
>>301802
sorry, I was thinking about chimps in this post. in reality it would probably be some mix of the entire group of lovers raising the child
>>301811
black neighbourhoods aren't polyamorous in any sense of the word. or do you see several men being affectionate towards the same women rather than pumping and dumping?
>>301781
>Historically, there have been many men that never married without problems.
A minority, yes, but this idea suggests that it should become the policy for the broad mass as well, which is stupid.
>The biggest problem is that our society considers sex the ultimate good and that those that don't have it are ridiculous and should be mocked
Side effect of female promiscuity. They get attention, money, sex and protection through male courtship so they shame and manipulate their male lackeys into bullying men who don't devote their life and resources to chasing women.
>Anyway, my impression is that the ISIS guys have no problems in finding women (willing or not). The reason they get crazy is another one.
I hit the post cap before I could finish off with saying that this isn't the sole reason for men becoming frustrated in society, just one of them.
>>301799
>It probably would tbqh
Why? Everyone who lives in shitty neighborhoods love marijuana, it doesn't make them laid back.
>The male partners of the female do.
Why would I want to pay for kids that aren't mine?
>I am not arguing for promiscuity or fucking people you barely know, jesus.
Then you don't have any test data to work from, because there is no society where relationships generally have several partners except societies with bigamy, and they are violent as hell.
>>301823
are you keks just posting without reading any of my other posts?
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html
>>301819
>Yeah, with a lot of bullshit, war, death, poverty, etc. but it works just fine right?
And polygamous societies are super peaceful, rich and with immortal people, right?
>>301819
>war, death, poverty
How are monogamous relationships responsible for this?
>Go back to /r9k/
Go fuck yourself.
>read about the baboons
Baboon behavior isn't compatible with civilized society.
>>301830
This study is shit.
>>301833
Yeah, just look at the Arabs. I mean, they spent about half a millenia conquering and enslaving all of the MENA region but after that it was almost okay!
>>301822
I'm also against polyamory or whatever. I'm just mentioning that people take sex more seriously than it should. Sexual pleasure is not what leads to happiness.
>>301830
Does this actually use societies where women are in steady relationships with multiple sexual partners?
Also, does it classify Middle East as sexually restrained? Because by your standards, it's not, at least for men. They can have multiple wives. Therefore maybe women should be violent, but not men, correct?
No one is stopping anyone from being a slut or a manwhore.
>>301819
>black neighbourhoods aren't polyamorous in any sense of the word. or do you see several men being affectionate towards the same women rather than pumping and dumping?
They certainly have a lot of sexual freedom and African American women certainly are not being "tied" by monogamy. And black neighborhoods have a lot of violence.
>>301870
>you're shit
No, I actually know enough econometrics. Your study is complete crap.
>>301878
Why is it complete crap?
>>301870
>sexual pleasure is related to love
First, you were saying that promiscuous people don't feel love. Do you still maintain that?
>which in turn relates to happiness.
Happiness is not found on excessive physical pleasure or in other people. Saying so shows ignorance.
>>301889
It's possible to have sex without feeling love. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm arguing for is love between multiple partners, and sex would be included in that.
I'm also not arguing for excess, but you can't seem to remove the strawman for some reason.
>>301088
>The ultimate human spiritual-sexual state, however, can only be realized when the human female (whose brain is uniquely designed for the spiritual-sexual state) is completely free to express her sexual love according to her own terms which means multiple sexual relationships without fear of male reproach, control or violence.
What about the human male's freedom to frely express his sexual love with other females?
Or is it only a one way thing?
>>301908
Nah it's both ways, but it was written in a time when female sexuality was considerably more suppressed than male's sexuality.
Either that or the author is a genuine kek.
>>301888
Selective choice of samples.
No controls of any kind.
HUGE endogeneity problems
Too many variables
and so on
This is more or less an example of how you do not do a study.
>>301900
Polyamory is about sex. Amorous refers to sexual desire, not simple amor (love). There's nothing wrong with a girl having girlfriends, or a guy having a bromance, or in some historical contexts even a chaste lady-love relationship.
>>301870
>Arabs are not polyamorous, they're polygyny-ists and their women are far from being sexually free.
So, wouldn't Arab women be very violent and Arab men very pacifist?
>>301900
>What I'm arguing for is love between multiple partners, and sex would be included in that.
>I'm also not arguing for excess, but you can't seem to remove the strawman for some reason.
Didn't you say:
>Perhaps romantic love doesn't exist in those polyamorous societies, but at the very least there is love between the mothers and their children, and adult violence is close to none-existent.
>>301923
Nope.
I think there was a sexual dimorphism link posted around here, it wasn't me but I would be willing to believe that sexual repression has different effects on both sexes (males become violent and women become more submissive)
>>301934
But would you say that an Arab noble with a huge harem is "repressed". Or that a Roman Emperor with plenty of concubines is "repressed"?
>>301930
Well, what I meant by romance was that one-sided obsession; romance without jealousy doesn't seem like romance to me at all. What I'm advocating for in polyamory (and what seems most logical to me) is intimacy, but then again intimacy is sexual and romantic (eros) in itself, so there's probably no real distinction to be made but that of the romantic, one-sided possessive love and the other form of love which is shared romance (or the shared person to whom romance is directed towards) without jealousy.
>>301944
I wouldn't, but those men have another factor added to them for their violence: they are completely possessive.
>>301946
Which is not romance. It is just having a fucktoy.
>>301065
>implying even singular girls would want to be with me, let alone multiple ones
>>301948
So, what would you say about your theory about the cause of violence?
>>301956
if that's your idea of intimacy - okay.
>>301957
>>>/r9k/
I would also like to say that it's probable that since females are limited to a single mate they have to choose the best of the bunch, rather than allowing themselves multiple simultaneous sexual partners which she wouldn't consider before having that option. said in a shorter way, she would be willing to fuck her orbiters.
>>301960
female sexual repression
>>301965
>female sexual repression
How would that cause violence?
Men get angry that their partners are not sluts?
>>301948
That doesn't make them more violent, since their women are kept at home and have to wear veils and need male escorts, and so on.
>>301065
Isn't this just kekoldry? Personally, I'm glad to live in a country where sluts are still rightfully shamed for their misguided deeds.
>>302023
Look up the definition of kekold.
Kekoldry is only possible under a monogamist marriage.
>>302046
Yes, what you're talking about is being a wittol.
>>301065
>/his/ - History and Sociology
>>302054
Nothing wrong with it. Its opposite (aka what's in effect as of now) is treating women as property, which leads to other problems (read the original posts).
>>302072
There's nothing wrong with wanting sexual exclusivity from women so long as you return it. Where both parties are subject to the same obligations, this isn't treating someone as property.
>you are now aware that over the course of human history more than 80% of women managed to reproduce their genes in at least one child, while for men the portion is considerably smaller
>>301065
>why aren't you a kekold?
>>302099
Ultimately, I wouldn't be against anything done by one's own freedom, but I will advertise that there is danger in being a monogamist and that polyamory is inherently more ideal since it reduces violence and the like (and thus more ethical).
>>302105
Kekoldry only makes sense under the assumption of a monogamous relationship. You can only be kekolded by a girl that is exclusively yours.
The feeling of humiliation that seems to be the main reason for kekolding as a sexual practice that all parties consent on would simply be inappropriate in a poly relationship.
>>302119
>a man was way more likely to have more than one wife over the course of his lifetime
but that's the same man reproducing twice, not two men reproducing once each
>>302113
No, people who are less violent are more likely to be accepting of multiple sexual partners. That doesn't mean watching your wife fuck another guy is going to make you less violent.
>>302113
>polyamory is inherently more ideal since it reduces violence
Yeah, see the American ghettos. Single motherhood is always a great recipe for a peaceful society.
>>302133
>letting other guys to fuck the girl you are in a relationship with
>not cu.ckoldry
those mental gymnastics must get exhausting
>>302134
It means that when a man's wife died, he was in a lot better of a position to get a new wife, whereas if a woman lost her husband, she had a much weaker chance of producing more children. Therefore, the average man probably had more kids than the average woman did.
>>302133
>You can only be kekolded by a girl that is exclusively yours.
Uh, in the case of cücks, I'm pretty sure their girl is not exclusively theirs.
>>302138
I don't think people in american ghettos have even heard of such a thing as a polyamorius relationship. It is a distinctly upper-middle class white people thing.
Or, in terms you'd understand, infidelity, casual sex and polyamoury are entirely different things.
>>302158
And you think they're more peaceful because they're polyamorous, or because they're upper-middle class white people?
>>302158
Polyamory leads to single motherhood. Singlemotherhood is a recipe for violence.
Also, for all purposes, there is no practical difference between polyamory and casual sex.
>>302142
Since the other guys are also in a relationship with her, no, that's not kekoldry. Can a saudi man cheat on his one wife with his other wife?
>>302155
The assumption of exclusivity being broken is precisely what is meant by kekoldry. If there is no such assumption in the first place, the term cannot apply.
>>302172
>Polyamory leads to single motherhood
[citation needed]
>for all purposes, there is no practical difference between polyamory and casual sex.
there definitely is, polyamory seems to require quite a lot of talking and checking if everyone's comfortable with the situation. Casual sex is not even a type of relationship, on the other hand.
>>302168
I wasn't even the person you intitially replied to, my entire point was that polyamory is not a thing that happens in ghettos.
>>302198
Can you give some examples of polyamrorous societies beyond the clan level?
>>302177
>Since the other guys are also in a relationship with her, no, that's not kekoldry.
That is LITERALLY the definition of cückoldry.
>>302204
I have no idea wether there is or ever was such a thing, I only know it as a lifestyle choice of white hipsters desu.
>>302215
No, the definition of kekoldry, as it was used before it became a fetish, was someone else fucking your wife.
The sexual fetish consists in you getting off to the fact that someone, usually a total stranger, is fucking your gf/wife while you watch, without the slightest revocation of marriage/relationship status.
Neither of these things has anything to do with polyamory.
You have to solve the beta question.
In the Middle east and africa where it is a present as an institution, surplus males kill each other off.
What solution is there for modern and civilized peoples?
>>302240
They are the same thing.
>>302263
No, they're not. Kekoldry in the classical sense is something to get mad about, because she is your wife and not the wife of the guy fucking her.
The sexual fetish is for people who find the humiliation involved in that arousing for some reason. Polyamory, on the other hand, can be characterized as an outright rejection of the premise that she is yours and therefore not his.
>>302282
They are both equally humiliating.
>>302302
If you reject the premise of ownership, where does the humiliation come from?
This is a typical example of the so-called typical mind fallacy: because you can't see yourself not being humiliated by this (which, in and of itself, is perfectly fine, I'm on the same page there), you assume that it would hold true of everybody.
>>302425
>where does the humiliation come from?
Jamal is fucking your girlfriend.
>>301065
>on 4chan.org
>"why don't you have multiple sexual partners at once?"
LITERALLY FUCK OFF
>>302545
First if all, polyamory is, as I pointed out, a very white thing, so that scenario is somewhat unlikely. Second, she'd also be his girlfriend, which we'd all have agreed on precisely because we're not the jealous type.
>>302565
She probably wouldn't be his main girlfriend.
People should be encouraged to live out their sexuality freely regardless of gender. It would change society to the better in a number of ways.
Sex would lose its social status as something valuable and special. It would, however, not lose the exchange of positive feelings which it usually brings with it.
Men would not be humiliated for having less sexual partners anymore, and females would not be shamed for having "too many".
It would become easier to find a mate that fits to you.
On the other hand, the view of relationships would be much more relaxed, because the normative succession of dating, sex, moving in together, marriage and children is broken.
It would partially take away the anxiety that some people have when it comes to sex.
It would allow for a more communal upbringing of children instead of forcing a child to stay with its family and thus limit the chances it gets in its life.
Just imagine a society were you can love whoever you want to love, fuck whoever you want to fuck and where everyone would be a mother or father for all the children around.
I can see myself having multiple wives for multiple children, proving that I'm competent for the survival of the species and a capable and desirable mate
But being one husband of multiple to one woman? What is the point, I doubt any woman is worth that amount of competition, for lack of a better word
>>302572
How could you possibly have any knowledge of the probabilty of specific racial constellations in a type of relationship you are completely clueless about?
>>301065
No anon the future is in
BREEDING TANKS
R
E
E
D
I
N
G
T
A
N
K
A
If you have a key that opens a lot of locks it's a great key, but if you have a lock that's opened by a bunch of keys it's a shit lock.
Think about it anon.
>>302709
HU HU HU YU SO SMART öpö
Because it's disastrous for the lower strata of men, who take up roughly half of of the male population.
Marriage was created and refined for that reason.
>>302630
>you will never be enslaved in a matriarchal society and used for the sole purpose of breeding
>>302578
Do you realise you've just written a blurb for Aldous Huxley's Brave New World?
>>301065
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/feb/27/mormon-polygamists-fruit-fly
Fucking read this you dumb kuck
>>302259
>What solution is there for modern and civilized peoples?
Go to the middle east and kill people
Before agriculture, a small fraction of men reproduced with the majority of women. As a result, numerous unwanted infants were murdered or abandoned.
With agriculture, the nuclear family began to develop, and distribution of men and women approached 1:1. Infanticide dropped markedly.
Nowadays, a majority of women are flocking to a small amount of men again, and marriage and family are becoming increasingly meaningless. In this context, abortion and birth control fill the exact same function that infanticide did millennia ago, except the operation itself is cleaner.
>>302800
No. Shamefully I have to admit that I never read that book, but wasn't it about a dystopia where people were enslaved in a golden cage of entertainment, mass distraction and a rigid class system?
>>302852
free market will fix it
>>302853
I don't know if it's a dystopia as such. It's kind of left up to the reader as to whether it's a dystopia or not.
>>301065
>>302900
This is why polyamory is retarded.
I can't imagine there actually exists a man who thinks it's okay his wife fucks other people, no matter how much mental gymnastics he tries to do.
>>301065
>We're free honey, we can do everything....except when I dont like it
>>302900
I thought this was confirmed to be fake?
>Sex questions
>on a history board
Fuck outta here faggot this isn't a place to shill I don't care what the cunt mod tells you
>>302915
By who?
>>302910
>"this is too weird for me"
>coming from someone in open relationship
Literally "Im tolerant except of what I can't tolerate"
>>301065
A man can impregnate several females at a time while a woman can only be pregnant from one male at a time.
Wow that wasn't hard at all
>>302915
It's anonymized, so there's no way to prove that it's true. Read it as a kind of thought experiment
>>302922
History and humanities, mong
>>302740
>mad because his cluck fetish isn't logical
Dude no fetish is inherently logical except insemination
>>302877
Okay I just read up a summary online and what I wrote is similar to only a small aspect of the society in the book. And I left out the whole mind control, artificial birth and death and indoctrination thing.
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
>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.
>>302969
/thread
>>302969
>pre-nuptial continence
That is a brilliant turn of phrase
>>302969
>google this
>only conservative and right-wing sites mention it
>mainstream op-eds and bloggers like Salon don't even try to refute it
I hate this shit. Enormous blind spots for what information even gets noticed.
Females are the sexual selectors.
They have to be selective, i.e., choose the best male because they invest a lot more energy in their eggs (which cannot be made again in addition) than men do in sperm.
A shitty sexual selector will make offspring with a less-than-ideal male. Monogamy, muchasimo, and harems of concubines are just social results of this biological fact.
>>303035
and if betas don't get their pound of flesh they uprise and destabilze civilization. marriage was the best shot they ever had but no the 60s happened
>>303027
its too 'problematic' to link a civilization's cultural achievements with its sexual mores. something about the patriarchy i suspect.
>>302969
>>303027
>>303155
This article is loaded with ideology.
What even is a rise in cultural condition?
What is sexual cohesion, impetus and purpose of a nation?
What is being civilized?
Why should we want to have a society that displays more mental and social energy than others?
I believe we have reached a state where we can allow ourselves to become more sexually liberal without barbarian hordes from anywhere invading and wrecking our Rome. The world is connected enough for it to be possible to be shown that everybody profits from love, peace, and a more relaxed attitude to life in general.
>>303369
you'll be disadvantaged when pitted against a patriarchy like Islam.
>>303374
Of what does that disadvantage consist?
>>303382
being outbred and replaced, demographic collapse.
>>301065
You know, when you're as much obsessed with sex as the catholic church, you pretty much done goofed.
>>303369
>I believe we have reached a state where we can allow ourselves to become more sexually liberal
And why would you do that?
Is sexual pleasure the way to achieve happiness?
>>303403
Among other things, yes.
Does sexual pleasure make you happy?
Yes?
Then it is something that can contribute to your happiness.
>>303414
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we need ethics education.
>>303420
What are you getting at?
>>303420
but that's all relative mate =p
>>303422
Pleasure is not happiness. If anything, pleasure can be in the way of achieving happiness.
The good life, that will make you happy, is not one of liberal sexuality, liberal drug use and so on. Hell, you can see how those that live this kind of life end up. Isn't there even a show about the downfall of celebrities?
Follow a virtuous life, and you will be happier. True believer nuns are extremely happy, for example (there are other non religious examples you can think of)
Polyamory is wrong. Call it either multiamory or polyphilia.
>>303475
conservative and religious women are the happiest.
feminists on suicide watch, more literally than usual.
>>303369
>without barbarian hordes from anywhere
I see what you did there. Nice.
>>303961
just desserts for all
>>302834
That's not a study done where a single women had multiple men - it isn't valid.
>>303071
Betas don't get women because confidence is the single most important mental trait in human history.
In order to take down a mammoth or defend your family, you've got to have the confidence to do it or otherwise you're fucked.
>taking sociology/psychology fags seriously
I see these people as toddlers given highly advanced technology and they just use it without really knowing how to use it in the first place.
NO sexual relationship "works" for everyone
Some DO work more than others, by insisting on polygamy because "aw women are oppressed through the traditional relationship :(" is just as fucking stupid as saying "only monogamy works".
Which works MORE? I can only argue monogamy works more because women are fucking stupider than men, this is a fact. Women are for some reason, whether societal or biological, emotional or act on their emotions more than men, and thus women are fucking retards when it comes to making decisions- unfortunately this is shown in relationships. Bitch doesn't know when she has it good. This is why women are far more likely to initiate a divorce. They're just idiots who think being emotional justifies being emotional.
>>303961
>hmmm I'm not sure about this marriage, I really want to try different men just to feel "fully" satisfied
>"hon let's just date other people, ok? :)"
>oh his new girlfriend is pretty, whatever though it's fine
>omg why is he paying more attention to her than me
>I DON'T WANT HER AROUND MY HUSBAND ANYMORE I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT ME
>ugh what I did do I'm much worse than I was before all this ;_;
Fucking typical. Stuff like this is hilarious. This dumb bitch was selfish and now she dares ask people for help for HER fucking up and being a dumb bitch in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with it except that it creates issues when the other males don't have access to any women.
Marriages started as a way to reward the hardworking betas with women as well so that they wouldn't become sexually repressed keks. This is why almost all advanced cultures have a huge emphasis on marriage, and if not, they often compensate with some sort of organized prostitution.
The biological reason for why males take more wifes than women taking men is because a male can just dump his sperm in a female and go on to the next one. A female takes nine months for her to give birth, then, she needs to take care of that kid up until it's teens, and she will probably need someone to provide for her care during that time.
>>304102
>Women are stupider than men
>Have better grades than men in school
>More likely to go to college
Yeah man sure
>>304138
>most STEM degrees are dominated by men
>thinking psychology degrees are worth much
>thinking liberal arts degrees are worth anything
If anything, the fact that women are more "educated" yet are severely lacking in numbers in STEM just prove my point that women are emotional morons that can't handle themselves when they don't feel good, so they go for the easy subjects.
>>304102
No sexual relationship works for everyone, but some work for more than others.
Polyamory works for the most and is healthier and better for society
>>304164
except for all the sexless betas that will go and chimp out.
>>304171
Even betas will get sex.
Actually, nevermind this entire thread, I just remembered robo-waifus and VR are coming. I was advocating for polyamory because I felt that this was probably the solution to what is inevitably to come (WWIII, a nuke here and there, etc), but now that I think about it we're probably going Brave New World before any of that stuff matters. Too bad I can't delete old threads.
PS I'm actually in STEM, I only make bullshit up on the spot for fun :^)
>>304164
Doesn't work that way considering women are much more likely to get laid if they wish than men, and the fact that jealousy still exists except for a FEW polyamorous relationships.
Polygamy is simply a selfish desire to fill your sexual cravings, at many times at the expense of your partner. If you truly loved your partner, you wouldn't be okay with them fucking somebody else or even worse falling in love with somebody else unless you're a kek, which is an entirely different, unexplainable thing. My partner is my personal property, and visa versa.
>>304189
Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make talking about romantic love earlier in the thread. Romantic love seems utterly posessive to me and anyone who would like to announce that they feel it for multiple people must surely be bullshitting. But for all the hype romantic love gets, it eventually dies off and what's left is just a bunch of fights unless --as Schopenhauer says-- the couple would have been agreeable friends without love in the middle.
What the other guy said was romantic love, which is just a warm, not passionate type of love (as in, not the Romeo and Juliet type of love) has surely never experienced romantic love. What he has there is a community of close friends, and hey, someone might argue that friendship is better than romance, but they're two different things and if someone wants one or the other they should not place either in such close ju
>>301065
But I am, anon. I'm just too ugly to have a partner willing to let me fuck around.
>>304138
>implying test taking means anything
>espicially when girls are given funding out of ears at the expense of boys
Hmm
>any year
>not being a kekold
ISHYGDDT
>>301065
Basic biology
One man and ten women can have ten babies
One woman and then men can have one baby
>>301255
>tfw actually asexual and not attracted to males and females and never masturbate
i shall never be a mother, lads
>>304625
LONDON
O
N
D
O
N
>>304625
>lads
dont appropriate male language I find that offensive to my gender identity as a practicing muslim.
>>301065
>I studied women science and now I need to pander to the lowest common denominator
>I put western society above all else and call other cultures primitive for not letting women fuck around without repression
>>301065
This thread is utter shit, don't bother posting, OP is an ignorant retard who won't accept any argument and throws around stupid assumptions without meaning or basis. Go along, don't be baited.
>>301065
Because I'm not a fucking kekold
Can we talk about things that matter instead of shitting up this board with threads like this?
Polyamory is unchristian and thus unEuropean
inb4 varg posters and fedoras
>>301065
This is fucking retarded.
![18427%20-%20The%20Brothers%20Karamazov[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/y2nVsCW.jpg "18427%20-%20The%20Brothers%20Karamazov[1].jpg")
>Both sex want to reproduce as much as possible.
I think we can all agree on that.
>Men can reproduce every day, or several times a day. Women can only reproduce about once per year.
I think this is self evident as well. I can inject a few babies a day, while a woman cant bear a new baby every day, and typically no more than one group (1-3) per year.
>Men's reproductive ability scales with the number of partners they have, women's reproductive ability doesnt.
This is the big one. A man who has sex with fifty women is simply more viable than a man who has sex with one.
Meanwhile, this isnt necessarily the case in women. Having sex with many men doesnt yield more children per year for a woman.
So I think we can all agree that a man who has sex with a new woman every week is following biological imperative, while a woman which does the same is acting silly, since she only increases the odds of sexually transmitted disease.
That said, the cultural monogamy that we practice today is pretty outdated and makes no sense unless you are a christian.
And even then it only makes sense as in you are already doing all the other stupid shit your religion demands, might as well do this too.
>>304640
>lad culture and identity
Is this just british slang for hipster?
Except I guess you replace ironically watching VHS with playing FIFA.
>>305123
Nah. You're a gross fuck if you're fucking 50 people a day. High promiscuity is a sign of mental illness.
Usually turn into homos or pedos because they need more thrills
>>305220
I like how you provide zero logic or proof, and just state your opinion expecting people to treat it as fact.
And by like I mean kill yourself.
>>305228
> zero logic or proof, and just state your opinion expecting people to treat it as fact.
Yeah, that's what opie is doing, just with some other irrelevant faggot's opinion
>>305238
Whataboutism isnt an argument either.
>>305244
Argument from fallacy isn't an argument either :^)
