I've heard interesting arguments for both. Theres the usual 'most animals aren't monogamous and don't feel guilt for fucking everything but on the other side I remember reading about the evolutionary advantages to couples that weren't polygamous. What do you guys think. I for one feel like we're always gonna want to fuck others. I have no issues with committing to one person but should we scold people those who can't? After all they're just after the chemical rush.
>>8190081
polygamy =/= being a manwhore
You still need to take responsibility.
>>8190083
Polygamy =/= being a whore
You can take several dicks but you still have responsibilities.
>>8190081
Well, I for one would love to have multiple women.
bumping in hopes of there being a quality discussion
>>8190081
I always thought a group would be best. The females would be breeders or caretakers if not incubating. The males would either be workers, foragers or soldiers, with subsets of each. Which ones get to mate with the females or who directs these groups is beyond me. Also, I feel like sexual dimorphism and a caste system would help.
Pic possibly related.
Bump for interest.
>>8190137
>Polyandry
Fuck no.
>>8192934
>Humans growing fur back
What kind of drugs was the guy on who made this?
>>8192964
Kek.
I get to thinking that it's in our nature to not want to commit to one person for the rest of our lives but we're socially bound by these stigmas against 'cheaters'. I say if you want to fuck around with others go ahead as long as you not string someone one along. A few weeks ago I was at the beach with a cousin of mine, his girlfriend, and a few friends. His girl has always been easy going and friendly but she seemed to touchy feely with me that time. Shed rest her calfs over mine and at one point asked me for a massage. I imagine most people would not like their gf being massaged by someone else so I didn't really acknowledge the request. I don't know. People are strange. Life is strange.
>>8193499
The merits, ethics and morals of Polygamy and Monogamy are like time and tides and have changed from one extreme to another over the long span of human existence and across different cultures/ethnicities.
Most people look at all these things, like they do with everything else in society, primarily through a biased perception cause by social conditioning into the modern western paradigms. They accept it all and take it blindly, like a religion, as being inherently "right" or "Proper" or the correct mode of living.
Mother Nature however, isn't a prudish school marm and accordingly, whatever is good for the biological survival of the species and its evolution is fair game
>>8193514
Valid points. Most people only know 'right or wrong'. They're either completely for abortion or against. Then there's the reasonable approach which is the balanced one. If it's still in the first few weeks go ahead and pull the plug. If it's in the late development stages do not as it can respond to external stimuli making it a 'person' in the eyes of the state. Where would you say the middle line is with monogamy and polygamy? Our biological purpose is to fuck and survive.
>>8193531
A big problem with these is the picking and choosing of the naturalistic fallacy. Sometimes people will bring up the "natural/biological/other animal" stuff, and that's totally fine -- but also acknowledge that just because something happens in nature doesn't mean it should happen to us.
We are human. And that is a big difference, no matter how "hard wired" or basal some of our traits are.
So, one of the traits of humanity is our quest for equity/equality (whether you like it or not). That means that we can't just fuck and procreate unhinged. This puts women at a clear disadvantageous position. Would men just rape and fuck whoever they like to procreate?
Well who takes care of these children?
Monogamy works because of the family unit. It legitimately makes life easier for the couple and their child when there is a union of some kind.
Does that union need to last forever? No. But a union is beneficial nonetheless.
Monogamy was a trait that arose before humans were around, there are reasons why it exists. Humans adopted monogamy (not obligative) for its benefits.
Sure, polygamy is still around, but monogamy is not a new concept.
>>8193580
>We are human
>Implying humans are something infinitely and universally super special and somehow above and beyond "Nature"
I'm not saying its perfectly ok to go full hedonisms, or to let base instincts always rule. But were are nothing more than an advanced animal
also most of your points are exactly what I was referring to when i said "biased perception caused by social conditioning into the modern western paradigms"
some tribal societies did pretty well for thousands of years "sharing" responsibilities for raising, nurturing, protecting, educating the children.
Times and Tides, ebb and flow. what is lawful today is unlawful tomorrow and vice versa according to the whims of social and cultural evolution and the desires of power mad fools in places of authority who have moral superiority complexes
>Want to fuck becky
>she has nicest boobs in our group
>why is she fucking danny again?
>good i hate danny so much
>i don't want him fucking all the girls
>need to kill him
next week
>christ, why does jennifer always say my penis stinks like a ferret and laughs at it
>that bitch has it coming
and the week after
>fox new
>REPORTING LIVE
>CRAZY POLYGAMIST KILLS HALF OF THE GANGBANG WHILE FUCKING THE OTHERS
>IT SEEMS THAT SOME OF THEM EVEN GET TURNED ON BY IT
years pass
>humanity has been destroyed
>packs of polygamist rape and kill through the country
>all because of that frickin danny
true story
>>8192947
I don't know, anon. What I do know is that he was paid to do so.
