Post: #51

(09-02-2012 04:22 AM)RealityX Wrote:  I know this is an old thread, but it came up in my search engine while writing my thesis. I regret to inform the participants that you all pretty much have no idea what you're talking about.

Coming in with an aggressive opening salvo, I see.

Alright, then. Let's talk.

Quote:Both male and female are polygamous by nature. It hurts men's souls to admit that women aren't some form of monogamous (either hypergamous or purely monogamous) but they aren't.

You are not speaking to a bunch of naive betas. We're all red-pill takers here. We don't bother with pretty lies designed to protect our feelings.

Hypergamy is not some form of imaginary special relationship designed to make us feel better.

Quote:The only reason they even appear this way is entirely societal influence. As a poster who was on the right track mentioned, if it weren't natural you wouldn't need heavy societal norms and practices to reinforce it.
m.

The amount of shaming of women's sexual behavior and shaping of their relationship ideals from birth throughout their entire life, is a clear indication that forces are at work to counteract what we know are their natural inclinations.

Society works to counter female hypergamy as it does male polygamy.

With regards to the source of this shaming, however, I question the notion that females themselves are not providing the impetus for much of this social engineering.
As most here already know, men do not do most of the slut-shaming in this society. A slut's peers are her own worst enemies in that regard, and women are absolutely not opposed to labeling females who do not deserve such shaming if it serves their social interests.

In previous generations, women used their influence as mothers and grandmothers/matriarchs to instill in their daughters the importance of avoiding impropriety, thus playing the crucial role in upholding the monogamous, patriarchal system.

I question the notion that there was no benefit in the maintenance of this system for these women, and I question the claim that they weren't aware of said benefit.

(09-02-2012 04:30 AM)RealityX Wrote:  However, female mammal species cannot even know if they are pregnant until well into their pregnancy (for humans, at least a month if not more because of irregular menstrual cycles). This proposes a conundrum. If we agree that man is by nature polygamous, and will mate and leave to find another to mate with, it makes little logical sense to assume that the first female mate for instance, will focus all her attention on the one, now absent male, without any real assurance whether she was successfully impregnated by him or not.

I do not think this is an irreconcilable issue.

Man may be polygamous, but this does not mean he lacks the ability to impregnate multiple females within good time-the expression of male polygamy does not require the maintenance of harems beyond his own reproductive capacity to satisfy on a timely basis. A virile male in good health could regularly mate with 2, 3 or 4 females at any given time and have enough in him to impregnate all of them (assuming their fertility).

Your scenario seems to assume that said male is likely to engage in intercourse a couple of times and then disappear for large spans of time, creating wide intervals of time between instances of intercourse that force her to find other mates to guarantee impregnation.

While this is very possible, it is not a certainty. Even with 2-4 females in a small harem, it would not be necessary for a male to go many days or weeks between intercourse with each one while still maintaining enough in the way of sexual stamina to offer a reliable chance of impregnation to each one.

Quote:Even in hypergamy situations, the idea that females only mated with the alpha male is proven false repeatedly. They engaged in outside sex rather frequently.

Fair enough, but my definition of hypergamy has already left open this possibility. I state that hypergamous females are looking out for the best deal, and if said deal appears tomorrow (and said deal is clearly superior and/or her chosen male is simply not getting it done), they'll take it and engage in outside sex.

Quote:This produces another conundrum. If the females are looking to be impregnated one way or the other, being the 200th in line on day 30 when alpha male can get it back up and give adequate sperm isn't going to cut it, is it?

No, that would be untenable.

The problem is that the expression of male polygamy does not require such a large harem, and in practice does not usually consist of such large harems. A healthy alpha male would have problems servicing 200 mates, but he'd have a better time servicing 2-5 well with a good chance of maintaining stamina and offering a good shot at impregnation to each one.

In such a small-harem scenario (which I would contend was much more common than the big, three digit harem scenario you outline as a template here), much of the impetus for your argument (which hinges on natural male refractory periods) is taken away. With a smaller number of females, this is less of an issue.

Quote:So, females will receive the extra resources and status that come with being one of the alpha male's harem, but also continue searching outside to increase her chances of being impregnated by other attractive males.

...assuming said harem is too large for her to mate with her chosen alpha male regularly without waiting too long.
On this we can agree.

That doesn't prove innate female polygamy, however. You've merely established an upper limit to the expression of male polygamy (read: the size of a harem), whereby female hypergamy (the desire to become impregnated by an attractive male) will act to undermine it.

Quote:Secondly, females not only want to ensure impregnation, but ensure being pregnant by the best possible sperm. As many pointed out, the BEST genetic partner is not so easily defined as property or resources. When you are talking about genetics, none of us truly has any idea of our genetic fitness or propensities, let alone those of our partners. You can get hints from physical traits (i.e. why I keep hinting at attractive males) but this is far from absolute. Its why the physical specimen and "Iron Horse" Lou Gehrig has a debilitating disease named after him, and none of us saw it coming. So for this reason, females enact some version of 'internal competition' amongst the sperm of their many different partners. The logic behind this being that whichever sperm makes it to officially impregnate her, chances are high its the BEST of the bunch because it beat out several other competitors for the spot.

My statements before implied that a hypergamous female will remain on the lookout for more appealing mates. She cannot be precise as to how superior another male is, but her attraction will give her an idea and, if it is strong enough (and/or her current partner dissatisfying enough, i.e. maintains too large a harem and is unable to satisfy her regularly), she will stray. Sperm competition will ensue between her partners, confirming or denying the superiority of her chosen outside mates.

This is merely another expression of female hypergamy, not a refutation of it. Other partners are sought only as another means for her to attract the best seed possible when a better deal (as signalled by her attraction) comes by or her own chosen mate is not getting it done, and sperm competition follows.

Quote:Actually, the idea that females are more monogamous period than men is actually pretty laughable when you really do your research and/or just examine biology.

Nah, I don't think so.

Quote: In fact, from an sociological standpoint, the very creation of monogamy was not for women, but for men.

While monogamy is no doubt a boon to average (read: most) men, I do not think it lacks benefits for females as well, nor am I convinced that they have not played the most crucial role in upholding monogamy for much of this time (as I mentioned earlier).

Quote:In the first place, if you consider the time a male would have to spend hanging around the pregnant female to ensure the safety of his own seed (that another male would not run in after him, kill his seed and impregnate the woman with his own), he could not dedicate as much time to finding extra partners. So monogamy would be a natural progression for him anyway.

...assuming a large harem scenario.

An alpha male with a smaller harem of 2-5 women at a time could have less trouble. The expression of male polygamy doesn't require the neverending chase for mates and the subsequent three-digit harem. A strong alpha male could viably maintain and guard a smaller harem, especially if not all of the women are pregnant at once.

The limiting factor you describe here (time needed to guard male offspring) is not necessarily a factor that would force monogamy. What it actually does is limit the expression of male polygamy and force smaller harems, lest a male be unable to guard all of his mates and end up losing them to other men.

Combine this with the other limiting factor you mentioned (male refractory period/sexual stamina limits encouraging scarcely satisfied women in large harems to stray) and you have two very reliable natural checks on the erosion of human genetic diversity. Even the most alpha of males can only service and impregnate so many women without getting cuckolded or having them taken by force. This, in turn, prevents a scenario where too small a number of alphas make nearly ALL the genetic contributions to a pool, and thus weaken it down the road due to a lack of diversity/inbreeding.

Post: #52

If a chick comes over to cook me a filet mignon, served over a bed of sauteed vegetables and rice pilaf, all cooked from scratch, jesus- look no further thats my soul mate.

Post: #53

A women doesn't get monogamy, the guy gives her monogamy. But only if she deserves it. Few do.

Post: #54

(09-02-2012 12:02 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Coming in with an aggressive opening salvo, I see.

Alright, then. Let's talk.

You are not speaking to a bunch of naive betas. We're all red-pill takers here. We don't bother with pretty lies designed to protect our feelings.

Good to know nothing I say will hurt any feelings then haha

Quote:Hypergamy is not some form of imaginary special relationship designed to make us feel better.

No, it is certainly not. One can very much argue for its existence, I would generally support that. It is the denial of female polygamous nature that we are addressing here, not the existence of hypergamy (in both sexes btw)

Quote:Society works to counter female hypergamy as it does male polygamy.

Actually, society does nothing to counter female hypergamy, it encourages it.

If society tells a female that having sex with multiple partners is wrong and she will be shamed for seeking it, she will logically seek to mate with less partners but with a higher status. This is to set up an exchange for her giving up the goods and risking social outcasting. This is why she will flock to the man with the most “resources” in exchange for the social risk she’s taking for her giving up the snatch.

Quote:With regards to the source of this shaming, however, I question the notion that females themselves are not providing the impetus for much of this social engineering.
As most here already know, men do not do most of the slut-shaming in this society. A slut's peers are her own worst enemies in that regard, and women are absolutely not opposed to labeling females who do not deserve such shaming if it serves their social interests.

Men not doing most of the slut shaming in society is untrue. They definitely do. Women simply uphold it for the sake of appearing more attractive to their potential mates. If men didn’t set this standard for acceptable sexual behavior for females, females would not give a rats ass about what another woman was doing. That is the reason they slut shame. So as to one up other females in the eyes of males. Its competition between women because men have set some standards on those grounds.

You saying women uphold slut shaming is like saying men uphold materialism because they seek to get flashy identifers of wealth (nice cars, name brand clothing, etc.) to compete with other males for females. That’s a bad logical leap, wouldn't you say?

Quote:In previous generations, women used their influence as mothers and grandmothers/matriarchs to instill in their daughters the importance of avoiding impropriety, thus playing the crucial role in upholding the monogamous, patriarchal system.

I question the notion that there was no benefit in the maintenance of this system for these women, and I question the claim that they weren't aware of said benefit.

In previous generations, women had no choice but to instill this in their daughters, or else they’d be incapable of living fruitful lives. In the days you are referencing, women had little to no rights and thus had to depend on men, either father or spouse, to provide for them. But father will not live forever, and daughter cannot reproduce with father. So mothers told daughters to do what they had to do socially to pass on their genes.

Keep in mind, I’m not claiming that monogamy has no benefit to women. In terms of humans, monogamy is actually ideal, and I hinted to why there would be a natural progression towards it in evolution. But it does have less benefit to women than it does men for the factors I mentioned.

Quote:I do not think this is an irreconcilable issue.

Man may be polygamous, but this does not mean he lacks the ability to impregnate multiple females within good time-the expression of male polygamy does not require the maintenance of harems beyond his own reproductive capacity to satisfy on a timely basis. A virile male in good health could regularly mate with 2, 3 or 4 females at any given time and have enough in him to impregnate all of them (assuming their fertility).

He could. This of course, is based on knowledge of science that we have now. We're talking about male and female instinctive motivations for reproduction though. Mammals don't pull out their sexual science textbook before they bone, so its not like they have access to this information (nor would their hormones care, since they are only there to maximize potential, not perfectly predict it).

Quote:Your scenario seems to assume that said male is likely to engage in intercourse a couple of times and then disappear for large spans of time, creating wide intervals of time between instances of intercourse that force her to find other mates to guarantee impregnation.

While this is very possible, it is not a certainty. Even with 2-4 females in a small harem, it would not be necessary for a male to go many days or weeks between intercourse with each one while still maintaining enough in the way of sexual stamina to offer a reliable chance of impregnation to each one.

An assumption perhaps. The most logical one to make? Absolutely. You seem to believe as if mating between male and female happens in separated vacuums. Or even further, that there is no such thing as male competition. This is where your supposition fails.

The length of time the male is away to reproduce with another female doesn't matter, because it will be the same for all males in the society. If one male can disappear for 3 minutes and mate with another female, so can male 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. with other females, INCLUDING the first male's first female mate. So length of time has zero effect on this point, because we are not talking about crossing species who take different times to mate or have different refractory periods.

Also, do a little research about the mating behavior of mammals. You seem to think that these harems actually consist of confined living quarters. They would not. In addition, you seem to think the male animals mate back to back to back. They don't. They mate with one, eat, sleep, hunt, rinse and repeat. So with that in mind, your point really becomes nonsensical. Even a virile man with potential capacity to impregnate is not mating with one female, sitting around and waiting for his refractory period to pass, and then immediately mating with the next in the harem. He will likely seek to attain resources after mating, or go to sleep.

Quote:Fair enough, but my definition of hypergamy has already left open this possibility. I state that hypergamous females are looking out for the best deal, and if said deal appears tomorrow (and said deal is clearly superior and/or her chosen male is simply not getting it done), they'll take it and engage in outside sex.

Then the problem is clear. You are not using the true definition of hypergamy. Hypergamy is the practice of becoming exclusive with one person in an effort to use their resources. This is about social construct, not about mating behavior, so I think you are confusing the two. If you admit that she is looking to engage in extra-"marital" affairs of her own, this is an exhibition of polyandry. Your point is the equivalent of saying men today marry one female, so therefore are monogamous by nature. Completely ignoring the extra-marital affairs that are bound to happen.

Just because a woman enters a social contract of monogamy for resources (hypergamy) does not make her sexually monogamous by nature.

Quote:No, that would be untenable.

The problem is that the expression of male polygamy does not require such a large harem, and in practice does not usually consist of such large harems. A healthy alpha male would have problems servicing 200 mates, but he'd have a better time servicing 2-5 well with a good chance of maintaining stamina and offering a good shot at impregnation to each one.

In such a small-harem scenario (which I would contend was much more common than the big, three digit harem scenario you outline as a template here), much of the impetus for your argument (which hinges on natural male refractory periods) is taken away. With a smaller number of females, this is less of an issue.

I brought up the large harem example to address the common (bunk) thought that 100% of women mate with 20% of men. People who seem hellbent to subscribe to hypergamy for women often hold that notion of alpha male dominance of access to sex too (kind of the only way hypergamy can hold completely up against the sniff test to be honest).

But I'm glad you brought up the 'small harem' example. Let's examine that further:

As stated earlier, in a small harem of 2-5 females and one male, you neglect to factor in that it must be maintained. Keep in mind, even in the animal kingdom, males have to bring resources to females in order to convince them to have sex. So even in a situation of a small harem, the male must spend an adequate amount of time providing resources to all the females in order to maintain it. Even if the male has sufficiently attained resources for the moment so that he does not need to immediately go hunt for more, he must defend it from male competitors who ALSO want to maximize their potential to reproduce, and need resources to convince female companions to engage. This leaves a lot less time for him to sit around and mate all day even in the instance that he is virile enough to do so successfully, and would want to rather than eating or sleeping.

This is why I alluded to you earlier that you must do a lot more research on sexual behavior. Males aren't just sitting around screwing all day, unfortunately. Other things must be done. And in the midst of all this, there is plentiful opportunity and motivation for females to seek other multiple partners. And they do.

Quote:That doesn't prove innate female polygamy, however.

I certainly did. You just happened to ignore those points. Mysterious indeed. I'll spell them out for you again though.

Females are innately polyandrous because they want sperm competition, they want to maximize the amount of resources given to them (more males, more resources), and biologically, they are equipped if not designed to be polyandrous (no refractory period, no question of maternity). Maybe you'd like to address those points in your response?

Quote:You've merely established an upper limit to the expression of male polygamy (read: the size of a harem), whereby female hypergamy (the desire to become impregnated by an attractive male) will act to undermine it.

This is not the definition of hypergamy. Hypergamy has nothing to do with sexual motivation and everything to do with social construct. Hypergamy is referring to marrying and so-called long term partnering. Has nothing to do with sexual behavior. A woman can be hypergamous and polyandrous by nature the same way a man can enter into marriage and still desire to mate with other females. Nature doesn't disappear with social contracts.

Quote:My statements before implied that a hypergamous female will remain on the lookout for more appealing mates.

Then she is polyandrous, sir.

Quote:This is merely another expression of female hypergamy, not a refutation of it. Other partners are sought only as another means for her to attract the best seed possible when a better deal (as signalled by her attraction) comes by or her own chosen mate is not getting it done, and sperm competition follows.

False. Again, do some research. You say "only" as if this is a rare occasion, or as if females can be absolutely sure of the best seed possible, and better yet if she cares to wait to see if her chosen mate was able to get it done. I think the big problem you are having in this debate BASED ON SCIENCE AND NOT ON WISHFUL THINKING, is that you are offering little to no insight on female motivation. You keep glossing it over and attempting to explain female sexual behavior through the lens of males ("But but but men CAN impregnate more than one female if he's virile enough. So she doesn't NEED to go anywhere to be impregnated." Okay, cool, and how does the female know that? And why would she waste months of potential mating time waiting to find out if that one male can/did?). You also attempt rudimentarily to look at it through the lens of what we currently know through research, as if our bodies would naturally have access to that information throughout history and thus shape our sexual behavior.

Doesn't work that way player.

Quote:Nah, I don't think so.

And yet you have not been able to offer one legitimate point that explains why.

Quote:While monogamy is no doubt a boon to average (read: most) men, I do not think it lacks benefits for females as well, nor am I convinced that they have not played the most crucial role in upholding monogamy for much of this time (as I mentioned earlier).

I address this earlier. It benefits women too, just men more. Both sexes play their part in upholding it, but it was created by men and for, as you stated, the average man.

Quote:...assuming a large harem scenario.

An alpha male with a smaller harem of 2-5 women at a time could have less trouble. The expression of male polygamy doesn't require the neverending chase for mates and the subsequent three-digit harem. A strong alpha male could viably maintain and guard a smaller harem, especially if not all of the women are pregnant at once.

Again, you refuse to factor in female motivation. This could be all great and good for the alpha male. What about the female? I mean look at your last sentence. Think logically, why would females wait around for one female in the harem to be done with pregnancy before seeking to be impregnated? Its ludicrous. She does all that waiting and might be dead before she gets a chance to reproduce. How are her genes passed on then? What motivation does she has to be monogamous to the alpha male in this situation?

Quote:The limiting factor you describe here (time needed to guard male offspring) is not necessarily a factor that would force monogamy. What it actually does is limit the expression of male polygamy and force smaller harems, lest a male be unable to guard all of his mates and end up losing them to other men.

EXACTLY! Now you are getting it, I think. Because you are finally factoring in male competition in your thought process. Please reread what I said above about how this pushes towards monogamy even with smaller harems. Even with only 2 females, the male has to provide sustenance for himself, the females, and the offspring (since he wants them to survive). If he doesn't, the female goes away entirely to find a male who will. If he does, while away, the female can and has motivation to mate with others for all the reasons I listed above.

Quote:Combine this with the other limiting factor you mentioned (male refractory period/sexual stamina limits encouraging scarcely satisfied women in large harems to stray) and you have two very reliable natural checks on the erosion of human genetic diversity. Even the most alpha of males can only service and impregnate so many women without getting cuckolded or having them taken by force. This, in turn, prevents a scenario where too small a number of alphas make nearly ALL the genetic contributions to a pool, and thus weaken it down the road due to a lack of diversity/inbreeding.

...

If you read the rest of my post and don't know why this last part is wrong I'll break it down again, in simpler form. For now, I don't feel like reiterating again unless absolutely necessary.

Post: #55

(09-02-2012 05:14 PM)RealityX Wrote:  Actually, society does nothing to counter female hypergamy, it encourages it.

You're right, that's my mistake. I should have said that western society generally society worked to counter both female hypergamy and male polygamy prior to the outbreak of the sexual revolution, when most of those constraints were eroded.

Quote:Men not doing most of the slut shaming in society is untrue. They definitely do. Women simply uphold it for the sake of appearing more attractive to their potential mates. If men didn’t set this standard for acceptable sexual behavior for females, females would not give a rats ass about what another woman was doing. That is the reason they slut shame. So as to one up other females in the eyes of males. Its competition between women because men have set some standards on those grounds.

You saying women uphold slut shaming is like saying men uphold materialism because they seek to get flashy identifers of wealth (nice cars, name brand clothing, etc.) to compete with other males for females. That’s a bad logical leap, wouldn't you say?

Fair enough, then, though this begs the question as to what the true natural state of each sex really is.
Take the last scenario, whereby men seek status to impress women. They're responding to a natural female preference. We could infer that, since the preference is natural, males have historically gained a reproductive advantage (possibly since prehistoric times) by playing to said preference, thus increasing their contribution to the genetic pool.

Would it not then be possible for most of their descendants (read: modern humans) to, in fact, be more naturally inclined to seek status?

Similarly, if female slut shaming has historically given women a reproductive and resource edge (since males naturally force it), is it not possible that the descendants of such women may very well be naturally inclined to slut shame? Could these catty, competitive shaming traits have been selected for?
Or would you maintain that the natural preferences that existed independent of these possible forcings are still around, and are merely hidden?
...or is there perhaps a combination of these results, with the outcome varying by environment?

Quote:An assumption perhaps. The most logical one to make? Absolutely. You seem to believe as if mating between male and female happens in separated vacuums. Or even further, that there is no such thing as male competition. This is where your supposition fails.

The length of time the male is away to reproduce with another female doesn't matter, because it will be the same for all males in the society. If one male can disappear for 3 minutes and mate with another female, so can male 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. with other females, INCLUDING the first male's first female mate. So length of time has zero effect on this point, because we are not talking about crossing species who take different times to mate or have different refractory periods.

Right, but we have been talking specifically about "alpha males" here. If we assume then that any given alpha male has an enhanced ability to fend off male competition (lowered chance of being crossed by other males and/or having his small harem violated), then wouldn't the presence of male competition be less of a factor?
Such a mail, by the definition of his dominance, could theoretically have fewer true competitors (or simply fewer men willing and/or able to challenge him) within his given realm at any given time.

Quote:
Then the problem is clear. You are not using the true definition of hypergamy. Hypergamy is the practice of becoming exclusive with one person in an effort to use their resources. This is about social construct, not about mating behavior, so I think you are confusing the two. If you admit that she is looking to engage in extra-"marital" affairs of her own, this is an exhibition of polyandry. Your point is the equivalent of saying men today marry one female, so therefore are monogamous by nature. Completely ignoring the extra-marital affairs that are bound to happen.

Just because a woman enters a social contract of monogamy for resources (hypergamy) does not make her sexually monogamous by nature.

A fairly reasoned argument.

Quote:I brought up the large harem example to address the common (bunk) thought that 100% of women mate with 20% of men. People who seem hellbent to subscribe to hypergamy for women often hold that notion of alpha male dominance of access to sex too (kind of the only way hypergamy can hold completely up against the sniff test to be honest).

Well, I'll not speak for everybody, but I do not see many subscribing to quite that stark a view, certainly not myself.
Many believe that the top 20% of men do in fact get the lion's share of sexual access with the lion's share of women, but we understand that they're clearly not monopolizing all of it. There is a possibly a sizable subset of reasonably attractive guys below that top 20% of men who are getting occasional sexual access to attractive women (even if it is less frequent than that of their peers at the top of the pyramid), and there is a possibly sizable subset of women that does cannot maintain or perhaps doesn't even desire access to that top 20% of men.

I think some generalizations can be made (top guys may get a lion's share), but we shouldn't go too far with them.

Quote:But I'm glad you brought up the 'small harem' example. Let's examine that further:

As stated earlier, in a small harem of 2-5 females and one male, you neglect to factor in that it must be maintained. Keep in mind, even in the animal kingdom, males have to bring resources to females in order to convince them to have sex. So even in a situation of a small harem, the male must spend an adequate amount of time providing resources to all the females in order to maintain it. Even if the male has sufficiently attained resources for the moment so that he does not need to immediately go hunt for more, he must defend it from male competitors who ALSO want to maximize their potential to reproduce, and need resources to convince female companions to engage. This leaves a lot less time for him to sit around and mate all day even in the instance that he is virile enough to do so successfully, and would want to rather than eating or sleeping.

This is a very interesting path for the discussion to take because I believe it may introduce another factor to the equation we're trying to draw here: the environment.

Is it not possible that a male's ability to gather said resources (and the time he would be required to spend doing so) could be extended or reduced depending on the harshness of his environment?
In much of Europe, for example, the cold may have expedited the process of locating game, and it would have proven difficult to maintain even a smaller harem in such an environment. A male may have required longer stretched of time away from said harem just to maintain it, a reality which, as you've shown, would have undermined its continued existence.

In a warmer, richer environment, it may have been possible for men to devote less time to resource gathering and other time-costly maintenance duties, thus allowing for easier maintenance of a harem (greater ability to fend of competitors, more time to mate, etc).

This is just a theory, though I have seen it applied to try and explain the rise of strict monogamy in the likes of Europe as opposed to the looser, more polygamous societies that were seen through most of the non-European world.
Just want your take on this and on the notion that environment could influence the expression of the dynamics we are discussing.

Quote:Again, you refuse to factor in female motivation. This could be all great and good for the alpha male. What about the female? I mean look at your last sentence. Think logically, why would females wait around for one female in the harem to be done with pregnancy before seeking to be impregnated?

I am not saying that she would intentionally do so. I simply implied the possibility that not all females in a harem will be pregnant at any given time, for whatever reason.

Post: #56

Your analysis fails to explain a simple fact RealityX: Why do women push for monogamy if they are polyandrous?

Post: #57

(09-02-2012 09:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Your analysis fails to explain a simple fact RealityX: Why do women push for monogamy if they are polyandrous?

and why have 99% of societies in human history been monogamous or polygnous?

Post: #58

(09-02-2012 08:49 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  [quote='RealityX' pid='261410' dateline='1346624048']
Actually, society does nothing to counter female hypergamy, it encourages it.

You're right, that's my mistake. I should have said that western society generally society worked to counter both female hypergamy and male polygamy prior to the outbreak of the sexual revolution, when most of those constraints were eroded.

Quote:Men not doing most of the slut shaming in society is untrue. They definitely do. Women simply uphold it for the sake of appearing more attractive to their potential mates. If men didn’t set this standard for acceptable sexual behavior for females, females would not give a rats ass about what another woman was doing. That is the reason they slut shame. So as to one up other females in the eyes of males. Its competition between women because men have set some standards on those grounds.

You saying women uphold slut shaming is like saying men uphold materialism because they seek to get flashy identifers of wealth (nice cars, name brand clothing, etc.) to compete with other males for females. That’s a bad logical leap, wouldn't you say?

Fair enough, then, though this begs the question as to what the true natural state of each sex really is.
This, now is the natural state of each sex now, the state between the sexes is always changing to adopt according to the environment. What u are asking is just speculation of the likely state in past where people lived in tribes or making an ideal world. It is undoubtedly true, females will seek hypergamy, dominant males will seek for promiscuity, but the beta males they have monogamy in mind conflicting with promiscuous desires.

Post: #59

i've seen it explained on 4chan a few times that it's the same as how a guy wants a girl who's a slut but only for him. i don't know how much i agree with it.

personally i think part of it is that a girl wants to latch onto something stronger and more powerful than her. it obv has its sexual roots in our ancient monkey history...

but i think there's almost something religious about it, too... it gives emotional order (through drama and uncertainty) and clarity (through vagueness, empty promises and mouthed falsehoods) to them.

for women, sex with the "one who got away" is beyond ecstatic because he won't submit to her. deep down, she's aware that she doesn't know anything about herself or the world, or about life, and she wants desperately to believe that there's some powerful, ravishingly sexual force to give her a bedrock, an assurance that there's something greater to give her life meaning.

she wants stability, in other words... but not "monogamy" stability. do you know what i mean?

i guess i'm indirectly calling all women fox mulders. hey, if the shoe fits.

Post: #60

(09-02-2012 08:49 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Fair enough, then, though this begs the question as to what the true natural state of each sex really is.
Take the last scenario, whereby men seek status to impress women. They're responding to a natural female preference. We could infer that, since the preference is natural, males have historically gained a reproductive advantage (possibly since prehistoric times) by playing to said preference, thus increasing their contribution to the genetic pool.

Would it not then be possible for most of their descendants (read: modern humans) to, in fact, be more naturally inclined to seek status?

Similarly, if female slut shaming has historically given women a reproductive and resource edge (since males naturally force it), is it not possible that the descendants of such women may very well be naturally inclined to slut shame? Could these catty, competitive shaming traits have been selected for?

Thats too slippery of a slope. A response to a natural inclination is not the same as it being natural itself. If we continue down that line of thinking, then you could very well easily argue for anything present prevalently in society being natural. "Lots of tall buildings in cities. Must mean humans naturally selected for traits that cause them to build as large structures as possible for various purposes." Meh.

It also could get pretty circular. For instance if we accept the fact that monogamy was a response to the natural inclination for males to want to help survival of off spring and to know which they actually sire, then can we say that males are naturally monogamous?

The answer is no.

Quote:Or would you maintain that the natural preferences that existed independent of these possible forcings are still around, and are merely hidden?
...or is there perhaps a combination of these results, with the outcome varying by environment?

Male and female natural inclinations are going to be present regardless of societal influence. The only difference is that acting on natural inclinations will happen less frequently and/or less overtly when societal influences come into play.

Quote:Right, but we have been talking specifically about "alpha males" here. If we assume then that any given alpha male has an enhanced ability to fend off male competition (lowered chance of being crossed by other males and/or having his small harem violated), then wouldn't the presence of male competition be less of a factor?
Such a mail, by the definition of his dominance, could theoretically have fewer true competitors (or simply fewer men willing and/or able to challenge him) within his given realm at any given time.

The lower chance of being crossed I wouldn't buy. Competition is competition, and males are going to do what they need to do to pass on their genes. A ton of species actually show that males become incredibly violent during mating season for the very reason that they know they will need to physically compete to copulate.

The idea that the alpha male has a heightened physical ability to fend off male competition could be true in some populations though. But it still does not correct for the need to continuously provide resources to females to incentivize them to stay within the harem and monogamous to only that alpha male. After all, alpha or not, he is only one male and cannot be in several places at once. If the alpha must maintain his harem by fending off competitors AS WELL AS hunting and gathering resources for females, there is still ample opportunity for other males to copulate with his females regardless.

Alphas have enhanced abilities to a certain extent, but they are not super-species.

Quote:Well, I'll not speak for everybody, but I do not see many subscribing to quite that stark a view, certainly not myself.
Many believe that the top 20% of men do in fact get the lion's share of sexual access with the lion's share of women, but we understand that they're clearly not monopolizing all of it. There is a possibly a sizable subset of reasonably attractive guys below that top 20% of men who are getting occasional sexual access to attractive women (even if it is less frequent than that of their peers at the top of the pyramid), and there is a possibly sizable subset of women that does cannot maintain or perhaps doesn't even desire access to that top 20% of men.

I think some generalizations can be made (top guys may get a lion's share), but we shouldn't go too far with them.

Yeah, we are working on something involving this. One of the most annoying myths any sexual psychologist and some evolutionary psychologist has encountered as of recent. The bulk of the fallacy with this 'theory' is that it assumes that because the females copulate with the top 20% of men, that they do not copulate with others. Or that they copulate with the top 20% more frequently. This is logically impossible without even doing further examination unless the female population is heavily underpopulated. And in the instance that this was the case, the scenario would be entirely flipped on its head, involving the top 20% of women and 100% of men.

Quote:This is a very interesting path for the discussion to take because I believe it may introduce another factor to the equation we're trying to draw here: the environment.

Is it not possible that a male's ability to gather said resources (and the time he would be required to spend doing so) could be extended or reduced depending on the harshness of his environment?
In much of Europe, for example, the cold may have expedited the process of locating game, and it would have proven difficult to maintain even a smaller harem in such an environment. A male may have required longer stretched of time away from said harem just to maintain it, a reality which, as you've shown, would have undermined its continued existence.

In a warmer, richer environment, it may have been possible for men to devote less time to resource gathering and other time-costly maintenance duties, thus allowing for easier maintenance of a harem (greater ability to fend of competitors, more time to mate, etc).

But aha, these environments are the exact instances in which we see less evidence of maintenance of harems. In fact, the two extreme environment instances, extremely poor in resources and extremely rich in resources, is where we have seen the most instances of polyandry in humans.

In the case of plentiful resources, there is naturally enough to go around for everyone. So yes, less competition between males and less time-costly maintenance for harems, but also easier access for females to get the resources themselves. Offspring is easier to protect and ensure survival. Females are less dependent on males to provide resources and can reasonably gather them on their own, as the environment is rich with them. This is what you see often in pre-colonial/socialized Africa.

In the case of fewer resources, there is seen to be a move towards limiting population so as to increase each offspring's resources (rather than split few resources amongst several offspring) so that chances of survival can too be increased. This is what you see in places like Tibet and supremely cold and harsh environments.

Quote:This is just a theory, though I have seen it applied to try and explain the rise of strict monogamy in the likes of Europe as opposed to the looser, more polygamous societies that were seen through most of the non-European world.
Just want your take on this and on the notion that environment could influence the expression of the dynamics we are discussing.

I think the deductive reasoning in your last few paragraphs is superb though. It makes sense, there just isn't much research to support the part of your point that says more resources --> more male harems. I definitely agree with the logic that less resource rich environments also produced heightened reason for a quicker transition towards monogamy though. But other situations where there are more resources we actually see more flat out polyamory (multiple females multiple males) and general promiscuity.

Quote:I am not saying that she would intentionally do so. I simply implied the possibility that not all females in a harem will be pregnant at any given time, for whatever reason.

Okay, I thought you were trying to make that into a supporting point for your argument. I was merely stating that female motivation would be to not allow that to happen (have any one female be pregnant and she not, so she would be motivated to increase her chances of becoming pregnant with multiple partnerings).

In fact I'd argue that she'd probably want her children to be birthed earlier than other females, so that their development would exceed those of the offspring of the other pregnant females. That would then give her offspring a physical advantage, as well as sooner access to resources.

Post: #61

(09-02-2012 09:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Your analysis fails to explain a simple fact RealityX: Why do women push for monogamy if they are polyandrous?

Except I explained that in my very first post Because society tells them to their entire lives, even before they feel any sexual urges. Its been proven time and time again that behavioral programming has a clear outline that works in pretty much every scenario. Pavlov, Zimbardo, Brown Eye-Blue eye test, and the list goes on and on. Its a social thing, simply put. If they weren't naturally polyandrous, shows like Maury wouldn't exist, there wouldn't be countless examples of men raising children that turn out to not be theirs, and again, shaming and discouragement of the behavior would not be necessary let alone so prevalent.

Consider it this way, look how harshly men are shamed for doing anything that even remotely goes against what is seen as masculine behavior. A male will immediately be called a fag or a bitch or a pussy or the like, which will cause him to fall in line with whatever behavior is expected for him, or else risk being shunned by his peers and society at large. Same happens for women with their sexual behavior.

Quote:and why have 99% of societies in human history been monogamous or polygnous?

Because polyandry has only recently began to be studied. Researchers worldwide will attest to this fact. It is no surprise that with an emergence of research, polyandrous behavior in females, once said to exist nowhere in nature, has suddenly been found to be prevalent in every species from avian, to reptilian, to mammal.

Side note, in my opinion the reason why it hasn't been studied is not accidental. For one, it would kind of defeat the purpose of social programming to make this revelation public wouldn't it? Secondly, much research that is currently described as "sexual harassment" by outsider males could have (should have) been classified as female choice to mate with other partners. This is especially true in human populations.

Post: #62

Quote:Because society tells them to their entire lives, even before they feel any sexual urges.

Then why have women been forming monogamous pair-bonding relationships in every culture, who had no contact with each other, for thousands of years?

How is it possible for women in ancient China, who never encountered a woman in ancient Aztec society, to desire marriage just as they did in ancient Aztec society?

Post: #63

(09-03-2012 12:24 AM)RealityX Wrote:  Because polyandry has only recently began to be studied. Researchers worldwide will attest to this fact. It is no surprise that with an emergence of research, polyandrous behavior in females, once said to exist nowhere in nature, has suddenly been found to be prevalent in every species from avian, to reptilian, to mammal.

Where has this research been carried out? Is there any recent research of this kind published online where I can take a look at it which makes these claims? This could turn the theoretical background of game on its head.

Post: #64

(09-03-2012 01:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Then why have women been forming monogamous pair-bonding relationships in every culture, who had no contact with each other, for thousands of years?

How is it possible for women in ancient China, who never encountered a woman in ancient Aztec society, to desire marriage just as they did in ancient Aztec society?

You are merely proving my point with this comment. You are speaking of societies, which inherently imply a situation in which natural human inclinations are curbed by laws, rules, and customs for the betterment of the entire community. But we are talking about what is natural behavior, not what society promotes. It makes sense for societies to have a history of monogamous pair bonds between males and females because it plays into males knowing their offspring, which helps for better distribution of resources (from the father to the children) and less violence and confusion.

Perhaps you came in late in this argument, but I explained earlier that the entire reason for monogamy comes from the male desire to better ensure paternity of his children. What better way to do this than to enter into a social contract that says "I'll be with only you, but you have to be with only me". Of course, despite the contract, because of human's inherent nature, it rarely happens this way. The male cheats as does the female. But the point is for males to better ensure they know whose kids are theirs. This is a positive as opposed to living in a society where natural human behavior is strictly followed and everybody is screwing everybody, with males having the unfortunate disadvantage of never knowing what offspring is theirs.

Furthermore, don't you think your strong resistance to the idea signals something?? It is evidence of the absolute validity of the paternity theory. Think about it...what other reason would males, who claim their desire is to be as polygynous as their options allow them, seem to have vested interest in females being the exact opposite of them, completely monogamous by nature? Especially if the combination of these two clashing behaviors are well known to breed drama, jealousy and in general a more complicated lifestyle for the male. You would think an openly polygynous man would find a community of openly polyandrous females to be ideal, because it means more sex for him. So it makes zero sense for males to be as resistant to female promiscuity as they historically are, UNLESS the man has a natural want to ensure paternity for himself. And if he has this natural inclination to know, he was/is willing to forgo some part of his nature (at least socially) in order to try to force monogamy on the woman through social contract.

(09-03-2012 01:32 AM)Ramon Zarate Wrote:  Where has this research been carried out? Is there any recent research of this kind published online where I can take a look at it which makes these claims? This could turn the theoretical background of game on its head.

Research on polyandry has been done all over the world. In animals it is pretty much an accepted fact that polyandryous women produced offspring the most consistently and her offspring had the best rate of survival as opposed to "monogamous" females, who had it considerably worse. Polyandry is the best reproductive strategy for female animals. Here is one of the earlier studies done on it:

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10236.full.pdf

Some of the suppositions have since been disproved (such as that it was only done covertly, or that it was any higher risk than other reproductive strategies), but I think it gives a good basic explanation of the research.

With humans it is trickier though, because "research" keeps it under wraps for the most part, or flat out mis-categorizes it. I hate Wikipedia, but it has a good basic list of some of the historical human observations of polyandry that are undeniable and can't be misplaced as something else that doesn't point to female proclivities for multiple mates. We know that there are far more instances though, because there is much evidence in later civilizations of polyandry being outlawed, the most well known and popular case being the Islamic Quran. You don't outlaw something that wasn't prevalent enough to need outlawing before haha.

I believe pre-colonial Africa probably had the most outstanding evidence of polyandry, but as most know, much of the history about those societies has been destroyed.

Post: #65

I don't think anyone has mentioned this - if so I apologize.

Think about it..property/material wealth often comes and goes very quickly (you conquer - new stuff, you get looted/conquered - all is lost) and this happens all the time throughout history in various forms. It is simply too volatile a factor to really drive the process. Women are wired to want something more timeless...aka GOOD GENES (strong physical, social, intellectual metrics) which simply creates material wealth as a byproduct at a certain point.

Post: #66

(09-02-2012 04:22 AM)RealityX Wrote:  Both male and female are polygamous by nature.

I don't think you're going to get very far with "Gender as a social construct" here. Men and women are slightly different. No matter how much people try to claim they're not, they are.

I'm sure women have some "polygamous" tendencies. And men have some hypergamous tendency (want the hotter girlfriend, trophy wife etc.). But who feels which tendency more?

Post: #67

I think people aren't really thinking though the property critique properly either. The earliest form of property was the kill the pack had just chased down - the baddest mofo got the "Lion's Share" (sometime literally). The weaker ones got scraps or nothing at all. That's the beginning of our programming for "wealth". You don't need a sophisticated agrarian society for this to start having a big impact.

And a "Good Provider" was just someone that could consistently bring home game...and keep rivals from taking it.

Post: #68

(09-06-2012 11:09 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 04:22 AM)RealityX Wrote:  Both male and female are polygamous by nature.

I don't think you're going to get very far with "Gender as a social construct" here. Men and women are slightly different. No matter how much people try to claim they're not, they are.

I'm sure women have some "polygamous" tendencies. And men have some hypergamous tendency (want the hotter girlfriend, trophy wife etc.). But who feels which tendency more?

I don't think he's trying to point out "gender is a social construct" here. I think what he means is that there is still a huge difference as to how women and men are polygamous. Women = wants to either fuck lots of alphas or if not then nothing at all.
Men = wants to either fuck lots of 10s, if not then 9s, if not then 8s etc. With men the standards for who they fuck are a lot lower. Women are still fucking the top guys, they just don't innately want to commit to any of them if they can fuck others. Think the Duke Hookup List girl.