Post: #26

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  1. As I have been saying, property is not required for hypergamy. This is why it exists even in societies that have historically lacked property rights.

Property and the concept of it is an absolute requirement for the existence of hypergamy.

No socio-economic system can exist without the concept of property.

As hypergamy is a socio-economic trading up system then that means no property means no hypergamy.

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  2. Hypergamy is not strictly linked to economics-men have other forms of capital they can use.

Capital is only distinct from land (which in human history was the very first thing that BECAME property) in that capital must itself be produced by human labour. Changes nothing in that it is still a survival resource that has become a commodity.

None of which is possible without the concept of property.

Post: #27

Now I'm going in circles.

Good talk, bro. My points have been made pretty clearly (folks can judge their merit on their own), I'm out.

Post: #28

(11-12-2011 10:07 PM)Lumiere Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  1. As I have been saying, property is not required for hypergamy. This is why it exists even in societies that have historically lacked property rights.

Property and the concept of it is an absolute requirement for the existence of hypergamy.

No socio-economic system can exist without the concept of property.

As hypergamy is a socio-economic trading up system then that means no property means no hypergamy.

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  2. Hypergamy is not strictly linked to economics-men have other forms of capital they can use.

Capital is only distinct from land (which in human history was the very first thing that BECAME property) in that capital must itself be produced by human labour. Changes nothing in that it is still a survival resource that has become a commodity.

None of which is possible without the concept of property.

According to evolutionary psychologists, females have evolved a preference for higher status males because they offer their prospective children both "better" genes and greater resources, e.g. food and security. Thus, Lumieres's claim that: "Property and the concept of it is an absolute requirement for the existence of hypergamy" is FALSE.
Athlone wins this argument.

Post: #29

(11-13-2011 12:06 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 10:07 PM)Lumiere Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  1. As I have been saying, property is not required for hypergamy. This is why it exists even in societies that have historically lacked property rights.

Property and the concept of it is an absolute requirement for the existence of hypergamy.

No socio-economic system can exist without the concept of property.

As hypergamy is a socio-economic trading up system then that means no property means no hypergamy.

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  2. Hypergamy is not strictly linked to economics-men have other forms of capital they can use.

Capital is only distinct from land (which in human history was the very first thing that BECAME property) in that capital must itself be produced by human labour. Changes nothing in that it is still a survival resource that has become a commodity.

None of which is possible without the concept of property.

According to evolutionary psychologists, females have evolved a preference for higher status males because they offer their prospective children both "better" genes and greater resources, e.g. food and security. Thus, Lumieres's claim that: "Property and the concept of it is an absolute requirement for the existence of hypergamy" is FALSE.
Athlone wins this argument.

Just because thats what is says on the wikipedia page does not mean it can not be questioned.

If you wish to proclaim yourself as judge as to who is correct, please answer the question that I posted earlier which Athlone chose not to answer.

What if the alpha male has good genes but is cash poor?

Post: #30

(11-12-2011 03:35 PM)Gmac Wrote:  You don't trade up based on money and property alone though, that was the point. If that were true, you would see women going from banging millionaires to billionaires, not the pool boy.

Thats my point, they marry the millionaires for the security and bang the pool boy because he is cute (has good genes).

Post: #31

(11-12-2011 08:18 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Humans are not the only species to exhibit this dynamic. Other great apes, birds, lions, and many other species have similar dynamics (male displays supremacy over other males --> attracts more females ---> fights other males for right to reproductive access to said females).

This is the cause of your confusion right here.

Hypergamy means MARRYING up.

It is completely impossible for any other species of animal other than humans to display hypergamy as we are the only ones that marry.

Of course you are spot on in what you say about females being attracted to the allpha and that has always been the case long before property and always will be the case.

We are mostly in agreement anyway.

Post: #32

(11-13-2011 05:20 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  

(11-13-2011 12:06 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 10:07 PM)Lumiere Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  1. As I have been saying, property is not required for hypergamy. This is why it exists even in societies that have historically lacked property rights.

Property and the concept of it is an absolute requirement for the existence of hypergamy.

No socio-economic system can exist without the concept of property.

As hypergamy is a socio-economic trading up system then that means no property means no hypergamy.

(11-12-2011 08:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  2. Hypergamy is not strictly linked to economics-men have other forms of capital they can use.

Capital is only distinct from land (which in human history was the very first thing that BECAME property) in that capital must itself be produced by human labour. Changes nothing in that it is still a survival resource that has become a commodity.

None of which is possible without the concept of property.

According to evolutionary psychologists, females have evolved a preference for higher status males because they offer their prospective children both "better" genes and greater resources, e.g. food and security. Thus, Lumieres's claim that: "Property and the concept of it is an absolute requirement for the existence of hypergamy" is FALSE.
Athlone wins this argument.

Just because thats what is says on the wikipedia page does not mean it can not be questioned.

If you wish to proclaim yourself as judge as to who is correct, please answer the question that I posted earlier which Athlone chose not to answer.

What if the alpha male has good genes but is cash poor?

Obviously, hypergamy is not the only mating strategy available to the female. In the case you mentioned, where the alpha male has good genes but is cash poor, cuckoldry would be an effective strategy. She could marry the beta provider and mate with the alpha "on the side".
Lumiere, I think the disagreement between you and Athlone stems basically from how you define the word hypergamy (as requiring marriage and property rights). Therefore, your definition of hypergamy is strictly a socio-economic one with an emphasis on the economic.
Athlone defines it more broadly as a female reproductive strategy based on an evolutionary preference for a partner of higher social status.

Post: #33

(11-13-2011 08:17 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  Lumiere, I think the disagreement between you and Athlone stems basically from how you define the word hypergamy (as requiring marriage and property rights). Therefore, your definition of hypergamy is strictly a socio-economic one with an emphasis on the economic.
Athlone defines it more broadly as a female reproductive strategy based on an evolutionary preference for a partner of higher social status.

Well that the thing. It's not MY definition of hypergamy.

Every single dictionary definition you will find of hypergamy will tell you that it means marrying up therefore making it uniquely human.

I also would not say that it is just economic. Hypergamy in order to move up to a high caste in India for example is very common meaning that hypergamy must be socio-economic, not just economic.

Broadly speaking, me and Athlone are in agreement.

Interesting debate anyway.

Post: #34

(11-13-2011 05:20 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  If you wish to proclaim yourself as judge as to who is correct, please answer the question that I posted earlier which Athlone chose not to answer.

You should read post #24 a little closer.

Post: #35

How does a girl get monogamy?

Mostly through guilt or fear, the way things are set up.

How should they get monogamy? Well that's a better question.

In order to answer that question, we have to set the premises. The premises are that

a. Men are polygamous
b. Women are hypergamous

In order to reach monogamy, a woman and a man, must, with the use of their minds, combat their nature, which requires a lot of energy, discipline and hard work. If a woman wishes a guy to do that, she then has to initiate it (unless of course the guy wants it from the start - which never happens). She should:

a. Combat or keep in check her hypergamous nature
b. She should bring things to the guy that he finds valuable (attraction, loyalty, intelligence, femininity etc)
c. She should bring a lot of energy into the relationship

All these things are risks (the guy might not want a monogamous relationship), and because they are so, women are more likely to rely on society to provide insurance against risk, or try to use other things (pussy) as leverage. However, all relationships are typically a result of a man and a woman agreeing to a degree to combat their nature. When one or either side no longer feels the need to invest their energy into combating their urges, a relationship is bound to fail, especially a monogamous one.

As for doing threesomes or having a girl buy into a polygamous relationship, either requires the girl to be sexually deviant, to have poor options in life, or the man must have an extremely high level of game that transcends the amount needed to maintain a monogamous relationship. That my friend is hard to do.

Post: #36

(11-14-2011 09:09 PM)Jevioso Wrote:  a. Men are polygamous
b. Women are hypergamous

Should be noted that women are not monogamous by nature.

(11-14-2011 09:09 PM)Jevioso Wrote:  As for doing threesomes or having a girl buy into a polygamous relationship, either requires the girl to be sexually deviant, to have poor options in life, or the man must have an extremely high level of game that transcends the amount needed to maintain a monogamous relationship. That my friend is hard to do.

It's really not that hard to do if you know how. Polygamous relationships are the only ones that I do and all the women I am currently banging know so because I tell them.

Women are amazingly open to alternative mindsets and philiosophies as long as you are honest about it and your philiosophies and ideas are properly presented.

Post: #37

(11-15-2011 06:28 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  

(11-14-2011 09:09 PM)Jevioso Wrote:  a. Men are polygamous
b. Women are hypergamous

Should be noted that women are not monogamous by nature.

(11-14-2011 09:09 PM)Jevioso Wrote:  As for doing threesomes or having a girl buy into a polygamous relationship, either requires the girl to be sexually deviant, to have poor options in life, or the man must have an extremely high level of game that transcends the amount needed to maintain a monogamous relationship. That my friend is hard to do.

It's really not that hard to do if you know how. Polygamous relationships are the only ones that I do and all the women I am currently banging know so because I tell them.

Women are amazingly open to alternative mindsets and philiosophies as long as you are honest about it and your philiosophies and ideas are properly presented.

Do they have sex with other dudes? And what I meant by polygamy was that the two or more girls actually know each other.

Post: #38

(11-15-2011 06:37 AM)Jevioso Wrote:  Do they have sex with other dudes?

All the women i am banging know that they have the option of seeing other guys if they want. Some exercise the option and some don't. It's totally fine with me either way.

(11-15-2011 06:37 AM)Jevioso Wrote:  And what I meant by polygamy was that the two or more girls actually know each other.

Well technically speaking polygamy is a man having more than one wife although in modern day usage you will find it being used to mean multiple partners regardless of marriage.

As the word polygamy has this historic baggage I prefer the term 'unfenced' which just means relationships not based on sexual ownership and may or may not be exclusve.

In other words, both parties have the option which they may or may not excerise and excercising the option does not require the permission of the other partner.

Post: #39

(11-15-2011 06:55 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  

(11-15-2011 06:37 AM)Jevioso Wrote:  Do they have sex with other dudes?

All the women i am banging know that they have the option of seeing other guys if they want. Some exercise the option and some don't. It's totally fine with me either way.

(11-15-2011 06:37 AM)Jevioso Wrote:  And what I meant by polygamy was that the two or more girls actually know each other.

Well technically speaking polygamy is a man having more than one wife although in modern day usage you will find it being used to mean multiple partners regardless of marriage.

As the word polygamy has this historic baggage I prefer the term 'unfenced' which just means relationships not based on sexual ownership and may or may not be exclusve.

In other words, both parties have the option which they may or may not excerise and excercising the option does not require the permission of the other partner.

Oh ok. Well in that case, yeh it is easy, when you're offering girls options. Most guys who claim they want polygamous relationships don't want their girls to have sex with any other men, which in order to have happen, they must have a tremendous amount of game. That was what I was trying to say before.

Post: #40

For the average guy (a no-game having fool), simply showing up will suffice.

For a guy with game and options, there are a few things she needs to do to reach above and beyond the other girls in his pipeline;

1) Be hot...slender, in shape, with a pretty face, she needs to take care of her body, her face, her hair, all that. If you want a boyfriend but you aren't hot, working to fix this (gym, diet, growing out your hair, dropping a few extra $ on better skincare products and makeup, etc etc etc,.) will make it much easier for you.

2) Resist the urge to fuck on the first date. I'm not gonna deny that guys love sex, but have any of you ever stayed monogamous to a girl who you fucked on the first date? I bet not. Yeah sure, you're like 'Awesome...', but at the same time, as a man you're like 'I've known this broad exactly three hours and I just came all over her face...I wonder how many times she's done this before? I don't think I can trust this chick...so I'll put her in a place where I won't have to.'

3) That being said, if you dangle him along long enough with no sex, he will eventually get bored and stop calling you. This is where the three-date rule comes into play; sex after three dates spread over two-to-three weeks is acceptable, and in fact expected.

4) Stop selecting assholes and badboys. These guys do not want to be in an exclusive relationship with you. The question is 'how the girl gets monogamy', when she's be able to cut her work in half by selecting for guys that want monogamy. I know that your 438-point checklist (must be over 5'11, must have a good job, must love kids, must be close to his family, must get along with my friends etc etc etc,.) is really a three-point checklist (must make my vagina tingle, must be at least semi-good looking, must have some baseline finances), but sometimes you have to make a sacrifice in life.

Chances are the more the guy turns you on, the more other girls are turned on by him, and therefore you'll get less of a commitment from him.

5) Finally, intangibles; what do you bring to the table aside from your looks and sex? Can you cook? Are you fun (but not too much fun)? Are you easy to talk to? Do you get along with everyone? Do you have a brain, but at the same time know when to keep your mouth shut?

Ladies do all of this and you're golden.

Post: #41

(11-15-2011 12:13 PM)Nonpareil Wrote:  2) Resist the urge to fuck on the first date. I'm not gonna deny that guys love sex, but have any of you ever stayed monogamous to a girl who you fucked on the first date? I bet not. Yeah sure, you're like 'Awesome...', but at the same time, as a man you're like 'I've known this broad exactly three hours and I just came all over her face...I wonder how many times she's done this before? I don't think I can trust this chick...so I'll put her in a place where I won't have to.'

I have had a long term relationship with I girl I did on the first 'date'. We didn't even date actually and I took her out on a date a few days later to make her feel special. It wasn't 3 hours later, more like 6-7 hours although. It was an awesome relationship.

Post: #42

This seems almost like a question asked by a woman.
1. An alpha would probably never settle on monogamy because an alpha male by definition is a male who gets to sleep with all the women in his pack.
2. If a woman is serious about monogamy then she should find a beta, gamma, delta or omega male.
3. Many women say they want something but when they experience it and it is no fun then they burn guys, divorce them, say they are boring and then go have fun.

Post: #43

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.

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. 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. Pissing yourself at the moment you get the urge to is completely natural, but society has instilled shame in you as a child not to. They've also enforced laws against doing this unless in certain areas (bathrooms) to force you to behave a certain way. Same goes for violence. People are violent by nature, and thus laws are enforced to keep people from going through with that nature.

Ever notice that there are no laws against hurting yourself? You can go to jail or be shamed for hurting an animal, hurting plants, destroying property, and the like, but nothing that says if you attempt suicide and survive you will go to jail. Why? Because it is unnatural. From an evolutionary standpoint, its an unnatural practice and goes against the very core of existence: survival. So other than the small subset of the population who are mentally ill or disturbed, laws are not needed to discourage people from going around and offing themselves at random.

Societal practices are never created or enforced unless they are to combat a natural act we have within us. 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. And if you think further about it, the inclination must be incredibly strong, because even with the threat of complete ruin of social status for women, they still engage in non-sanctioned sexual behavior. In some cultures, even with the threat of DEATH they still engage in sexual behavior that's frowned upon. Its because what they are being forced to do and their nature are not aligned.

Don't believe me? I'll back these facts up for you all with evolutionary psychology. Peep true game...

Post: #44

So we all know the truth that men are polygamous. Its pretty easy to see. Spread seed and all that. But female polygamous nature is often kept hushed, despite pretty blatantly obvious evidence of its truth. For one, similar to the spreading or seed for men, females too want to ensure they are impregnated and can pass on their genes. 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.

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. How could they not? Every mammal male species suffers from a refractory period after ejaculation. And each ejaculation thereafter carries less and less viable sperm. 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? 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.

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.

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. In fact, from an sociological standpoint, the very creation of monogamy was not for women, but for men. 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. Even further, since our inclination is to have our genes live on after we die, it is to our benefit to protect our offspring and ensure they are provided for until they can fend for themselves. But how do men ever know when a child is theirs or not?? And to do so without the help of recent technology? Exactly. Unlike the female, they have no way of knowing!

So to help ensure paternity and that the offspring they are using time to protect and resources to provide for are theirs, men in modern society instituted the practice of monogamy. A social contract that says "I'll be with only you, if you're with only me". Of course this never/rarely happens, its merely a contract to 'trick' monogamist behavior out of women and practice polygyny discreetly, but it is done nonetheless to improve knowledge of paternity.

Women actually don't really need monogamy as much as men when you think about it, because they 1) will always know what children they sire and 2) can still use men for protection and resources because of this problem of uncertain paternity.

Of course, it is truly remarkable how society has been able to turn this on its head and have women beg for monogamy as opposed to men. That's game!

Post: #45

(11-10-2011 11:20 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  And how can men get through those defenses?

I think there is a definite tension, where a woman needs to screen guys and hold out long enough to eliminate most of the guys on this forum (4-6 dates), but not too long. Then she needs to satisfy the guy.

ok if you KNOW you got a good product you should feel good about selling that product HARD without fear. well the same thing is with yourself, if you know you're cool guy and she will have awesome time with you then you should be very persistent to make it happen and push button hard to close the deal in short period of time. you so have to pull the trigger hard and have the balls to let's say take a girl by her hand and lead her out of the venue etc

also those defenses is very often just a shittest. she will have sex with somebody who will manage to get through the wall. she will not wait for months for this perfect guy to take her for endless dates. she might say she will but i don't believe it at all. she's human like me so it's a given she likes intimacy physical contact and sex.

so if you are good dude then you definitely should feel no concern about leading and escalating the interaction forward fast and making her have exciting time with you.. basically making the choice to elicit that adventurous self from her to the surface instead of going in all safe/slow/indirect all friendly meak & weak.

that way you can distunguish prudes or boring '3 dated rule' girls from the receptive open ones who want to have an amazing time with you asap cause you just aroused them well.

Post: #46

QUote: "Women naturally are not monogamous. Nor are men. In nature.

Almost none of the 8.7 million species on the planet are monogamous in nature.

The ones that are monogamous are mostly birds.

We are mammals.

Of the tiny percentage of mammals that are monogamous in nature, none of them are primates.

We are primates."


By the way, most birds practice actually serial monogamy or social monogamy, many female bird species will mate with multiple males in order to seek for the best male, but will stay with one male for the resources and for the commitment . Or they mate with one male, next mating season another one.

Post: #47

(11-13-2011 05:57 AM)Lumiere Wrote:  

(11-12-2011 08:18 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Humans are not the only species to exhibit this dynamic. Other great apes, birds, lions, and many other species have similar dynamics (male displays supremacy over other males --> attracts more females ---> fights other males for right to reproductive access to said females).

This is the cause of your confusion right here.

Hypergamy means MARRYING up.

It is completely impossible for any other species of animal other than humans to display hypergamy as we are the only ones that marry.

Of course you are spot on in what you say about females being attracted to the allpha and that has always been the case long before property and always will be the case.

We are mostly in agreement anyway.

Hypergamy is not just marriage, it can be any resource or genetic factor making the male better than the female. For example, a robin bird will mate with another male robin that can provide way more resources than she does or the previous male she mated with, that is mating up.
Or a female rabbit is mating with a rabbit with stronger legs and faster than the previous rabbit she mated with, she mating up.
It is simple, a female is simply has to mate with someone that has some reproductive values more than she has or the previous mate had, she is mating up whether it is socio-economic or physical, etc..

Post: #48

(09-02-2012 04:30 AM)RealityX Wrote:  So we all know the truth that men are polygamous. Its pretty easy to see. Spread seed and all that. But female polygamous nature is often kept hushed, despite pretty blatantly obvious evidence of its truth. For one, similar to the spreading or seed for men, females too want to ensure they are impregnated and can pass on their genes. 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.

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. How could they not? Every mammal male species suffers from a refractory period after ejaculation. And each ejaculation thereafter carries less and less viable sperm. 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? 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.

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.

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. In fact, from an sociological standpoint, the very creation of monogamy was not for women, but for men. 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. Even further, since our inclination is to have our genes live on after we die, it is to our benefit to protect our offspring and ensure they are provided for until they can fend for themselves. But how do men ever know when a child is theirs or not?? And to do so without the help of recent technology? Exactly. Unlike the female, they have no way of knowing!

So to help ensure paternity and that the offspring they are using time to protect and resources to provide for are theirs, men in modern society instituted the practice of monogamy. A social contract that says "I'll be with only you, if you're with only me". Of course this never/rarely happens, its merely a contract to 'trick' monogamist behavior out of women and practice polygyny discreetly, but it is done nonetheless to improve knowledge of paternity.

Women actually don't really need monogamy as much as men when you think about it, because they 1) will always know what children they sire and 2) can still use men for protection and resources because of this problem of uncertain paternity.

Of course, it is truly remarkable how society has been able to turn this on its head and have women beg for monogamy as opposed to men. That's game!

I think that men have combination of polygamous desires from older animal instincts and newer instincts to ensure and protect their young feeble offsprings. Women want to resources from men, monogamy is a good way to do sure, but it does not she won't fuck other men(more sperm competition). It has show that many women are actually serial monogamous, they would fuck and have kids with one man, after the child has old enough(like 5-6), she will want to mate with other male.

Post: #49

Men's brains are more capable when it comes to facial recognition. What I mean is that, the old way of paternity tests was to see if the child looked like you. The men who developed this capacity reproduced because they weren't being cuckolded.

The most ideal condition for a woman would be to have the sperm and resources/protection of a superior alpha male. Barring that, the resources/protection of an inferior male is fine by most women, so long as the children are the alpha's.

Post: #50

To answer the original question, to wash out the players, the girl must make him do things a player wouldn't do.

1. Insist on being seen with him in public as a couple. Meet his friends and his family, and have him introduce you as his girlfriend.

Players hate being linked with a girl they deem inferior.

2. Profess your love to him. Show that you are committed and won't abandon him the moment you meet a hotter man.

If I met a girl I wanted to date, and she was putting up major roadblocks to sex, I will seriously question seeing her exactly for this reason. It's like deciding whether to work at a job for a month or two without knowing if you're going to get paid or not, when you can find decent jobs where there is no such uncertainty. Reduce that element of uncertainty, and he has more reason to stay.

3. Please him with food, sex and domestic help to the point of creating dependency. Forget what feminists say, dependency confers the woman with power over her man. You're giving him a reason to pick you over all the other girls.

If you're talking about marriage, the girl must specifically screen for willingness to marry relatively soon. In circles where marriage is expected, it may be addressed on a first date, or assumed because matchmakers have ensured that both parties do want to get married. Outside these circles, the girl must take it upon herself to inquire whether he wants to get married soon or not.