I keep hearing from "polyamorous" sluts and cucks that polygamy is natural because of the similarity between humans and "muh bonobos", or because of some cuck science about "penis heads scooping out cum" and "fire-circle masturbation orgies" and shit.
Is it true? I was under the impression that humans were most closely related to apes, rather than bonobos, and that apes practice monogamy. I was also under the impression that cavemen weren't fucking cucks, and clubbed men to death for trying to rape their wives.
As for women being sluts nowadays, this only makes sense because of our disgusting permissive culture and our atomized social relations.
What's the true science on this?
Are you a chimp, or are you a bonobo?
The bonobo is the leftist's template for the ideal society.
R-selection and K-selection, where the first is roasties who fuck anyone and everyone without care and reproduce much children (niggers, dunecoons,etc) vs the K-selected which involves eugenics and parental involvement with offspring and making sure they are raised well and choosing partners carefully
Yeah, okay, so some people breed differently and some humans are more closely related genetically to bonobos than to apes?
So feminists are genetically closer to bonobos than right-wingers are?
I'm just kidding. That's a dumb post and you should feel bad for making it.
It actually has the opposite effect. The penis behaves like a piston and forces semen deeper into the cervix, and the swelling of the the head creates a seal to prevent semen from being pulled out with the penis.
Actually chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and chimps cheat. Bonobos have open relationships, while chimps have 1-on-1 relationships, and if the mates aren't happy they cheat.
>"Humans evolved monogamous relationships to stop men killing rivals' babies, says study"
>Only about 3 per cent of mammal species are monogamous and it has been a puzzle as to why it evolved in some monkeys and apes but not others.
woman became the norm for rearing children in many human societies.
>A majority of parents in the world are bringing up children in monogamous relationships but this is not a cultural accident but the result of deep-rooted behavioural traits that evolved over many millions of years, scientists said.
>A study of some 230 different species of primates – monkeys and apes – has found that the risk of infanticide by rival males was the driving force that led to monogamy being established in some primates, including humans, scientists claimed.
>Monogamy is rare in primates but in those species where it has evolved it was always preceded by a non-monogamous breeding system where there was a high risk of incoming males killing the infants of rival males in order to take over their rival’s females.
This is a pretty bad place to ask this kind of question. Half of users here think black people are an evolutionary step backward toward monkeys.
Maybe you should trust your instinct as a member of this species instead of trying to apply the monkey see monkey do approach to developing your social values.
All you need to know are the 10 year marriage studies.
Somebody will post them eventually, but basically it proved that the more cocks a woman had before getting married the more the 10 marriage risk for dissolution increased.
Like basically after four partners you’re completely looking up a dead horse’s ass in terms of marriage longevity. Ideally less but after four partners it dropped hard and fast.
There are two extremes among animals for breeding:
1. males (or groups of related males) compete and the strongest male(s) get reproductive access until dethroned by others. When this happens, all babies in the group are killed by the new male(s) to reduce competition and initiate ovulation again in the former mothers.
2. males form monogamous relationships to assist in raising offspring. females typically have less attachment to males and often attempt to cuck them or abandon them.
Humans are somewhere in between. In harsher, more natural societies it skews a bit more towards the "tournament breeding" system, and in safe artificial civilized societies it skews more towards the latter "monogamy/bonobo" system, but it is really always somewhere in between. (Note that I'm not saying the breeding system a society skews towards is a "cultural construct" because its simply the biological programming playing out differently in response to the environment people are in). In human societies, men usually have involvement with their children's rearing and usually do not have more than a few women at most, and are fairly loyal to these women; female infidelity has historically been punished because women can know for sure that a child is theirs but men cannot, so female fidelity is important to prevent men from abandoning or killing children they do not think are theirs. You have more female ancestors than male ancestors, because many men died and did not reproduce, while other men were able to reproduce multiple times with multiple women (partially just due to women dying in childbirth, and then men finding new mates, but also because there has been some polygamy/infidelity/infant abandonment by men). Modern societies have large enough populations that there is variation within any group of people as well so that some will follow one model and some another.
I'm not promoting or condemning either system, they are two valid systems that both seem to work in the animal world, and humans don't entirely fall into either category. I personally see no need to have more women than I need to have as many children as I can support, and I want to be very involved with raising my children, but I would NEVER tolerate my mate(s) to have intercourse with other men.
Their oxytocin receptors get burnt out.
I know the articles you're talking about, I've seen infographics from them posted on/pol/. They are based on a CDC dataset that interviewed several thousand women in the USA about several hundred aspects of their life, mostly about health and sexuality, which included number of premarital sexual partners and number of divorces.
I downloaded the dataset, imported into excel, and filtered for women who had reported both of these numbers on the survey. There were several hundred women (800 or so I forget) who had reported both, which is a good sample size. I filtered the divorce data by whether or not a women ever divorced rather than on number of divorces (0 or non-zero).
The data showed something a bit different that what the articles had been saying. Women who had no premarital sex had a slightly (~10%) lower than average divorce rate. The data then quickly spiked to a very high divorce rate (20-30% higher than average iirc) for women who had had 1-3 premarital sexual partners (including their husband). The data then dropped back to average for women who had had more than 3 pre-marital sexual partners, and gradually rose again from thereon out as number of sexual partners increased. Interestingly enough having 4-6 pre-marital sexual partners meant a lower divorce rate than having only 1 pre-marital sexual partner. Women who had had 10+ pre-marital sexual partners typically had very high divorce rates again. I did not add in treatment blocks and do ANOVA to determine whether other factors had a statistically significant impact on divorce rate. I'm not sure why this data was the way it was, but it was certainly not what the articles/infographics I was seeing linked on /pol/ had led me to believe. It was definitely true however that having no pre-marital sexual partners (including the husband) decreased the divorce rate significantly. I'm not sure as to whether this is because having no pre-marital sexual partners correlated with some other 3rd factor (like religion, morals, looks) that also happened to decrease the divorce rate, or whether it was actually a causative effect coming from having no pre-marital sexual partners. Either way, it was disturbing how divorce rate was very high regardless of pre-marital sexual partners.
This is why leftist females push for polyamorous relationships. Instead of being chaste and monogamous to one partner for life, they can double down on whoredom and enjoy the benefits of marriage and cheating without bothering with marriage and cheating. The behavior is the same, but the immorality of it is cleansed using self-serving leftist language such as "polyamorous unions."
Leftist ideology is always about using language manipulation, double speak and mental gymnastics to legitimize selfishness, greed, laziness and immorality.
Monogamy is a sweet idea in practice but I find it hard to sustein such a feeble illusion.
1. everybody ages. old people are less attractive
2. nobody loves an old woman
3. old women cant have kids
4. old womens pussies are blasted out, disgusting and smelly
5. old women are cunts
Herthereto, I am of conclude that you should pump a woman full of 8 kids, cheat on her (oral sex so you dont impregnate the side whore), raise the kids well (bankers and STEM), then divorce and remarry an 18 year old.
Bonobos are apes, dingus.
That said, I can honestly buy the argument to a degree. The thing is, we don't live in a state of nature anymore. We live in a society. Society is built by betas to keep the Chads and, more importantly, the Stacies, in line. Without us they'd just be living in the woods like cavemen and they'd reproduce just fine, while the betas get left out to die. So betas work because they need to, rather than getting to reproduce for free like Chads and, again even moreso, Stacies. And their work is every invention and innovation you've ever seen. Their work is society. And in return for that work all they ask is not getting cucked. Of course they have still been cucked throughout most of history, but now feminism has made women stop even hiding their cucking tendencies, which is making the betas realize there is no gold at the end of their rainbow, so they're checking out. They're refusing to work. This was first largely noticed as a problematic social phenomenon in Japan, with Herbivore Men. Now we're getting it here, with "/tv/ trannys." Both of these terms are used to try to shame betas into continuing to prop up society, but the people doing this don't understand that they already constantly shame these people even when they do prop up society, so there is no point for them to bother. And now societies will crumble, because Chad cannot pay for all of Stacy's bastards by himself, and you know Stacy isn't going to actually work. Neither of them will do any work that will actually improve or advance society in any way. They'll do what they need to to reproduce, and that is very little for Chad, and nothing for Stacy.
So they're left with a choice. They can either start treating betas with some basic respect, or more and more of them will just check out. And I don't mean they'll all be NEETs, but even if they work, they would be working much harder if they had a family to support, and not simply a collection of anime figurines. But as much as the Japanese government tells them to have a family, they don't understand that these people want to have families, but women and society won't let them. The closest they'll get is breaking their backs to support Chad's bastards while their so-called family hates them for it. And because feminists are only increasingly demonizing men, especially these men, it seems that they're not learning their lesson. So society will crumble, as Japan is already afraid of (and so is the west, as seen with their /tv/ tranny hysteria). So be it. It's better to die free than live as a slave.
>You have more female ancestors than male ancestors, because many men died and did not reproduce, while other men were able to reproduce multiple times with multiple women (partially just due to women dying in childbirth, and then men finding new mates, but also because there has been some polygamy/infidelity/infant abandonment by men)
Also by women. You have more female ancestors not just because many men died, but also because many got cucked, as you point out women tend to do to them historically.
Look at modern polygamous societies like the Islamic world. Polygamy means the top 20% or so of men have access to about 80% of women, which in turn breeds a whole army of useless left over people who will never be able to fulfill their biological imperative. Societies full of angry young men tend to fall apart quickly… unless those men set out to conquer other people's women for themselves.
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>living in a state of nature
>getting to reproduce for free like Chads
Chads only get to reproduce for free within the safety of a civilized society. Once again, betas cuck themselves by making it even easier for alpha males to breed with women.
It doesn't really matter. Betas are betas, mainly because they have lower testosterone levels, i.e. less sex drive. Some are even totally asexual like Tesla, so they don't mind Chad wetting his dick all the time. Lots of betas feel gratified by their intellectual pursuits and only want female companionship for the "emotional benefits" of cuddles and feeling loved. This can be easily replaced with a dog and sex can be bought in a civilized society.
In short, most betas are comfy in modern society and only envy Chads for their relative social power, not for their sexual prowess. If most betas had a harem, they would still probably have less sex and prefer to masturbate to their anime waifus that satisfy them more emotionally because they are "perfect."
>more female ancestors
Do you know how reproduction works?
hes not wrong. rape incest and nieces / et cetera.
Humans are most closely related to bonobos, bonobos are apes and our DNA is more similar to theirs than any other living animal.
70% of all bonobo sexual encounters are lesbian
>Polygamy means the top 20% or so of men have access to about 80% of women, which in turn breeds a whole army of useless left over people who will never be able to fulfill their biological imperative
citation needed past "i heard some guy on a message board say it"
>Societies full of angry young men tend to fall apart quickly
Islamic culture has lasted longer than western Christian culture
Monogamy is literally a Jew thing unironically .
Jews got the idea of passing things on via father to son lineage. Last names, lines of heredity and passing on power etc..If you are going to do this in a world before DNA testing the only way to be 100% sure your children are yours is to find a virgin and keep her locked up so only you can fuck her.
Other people such as the Native Americans had a different idea. They had tribes such as the "raven" tribe. If your mother was raven tribe then you were raven tribe. Simple, maternity is always known unlike paternity. In their society the women would raise the kids till they got old enough and the men would then teach them to hunt and do man stuff as a group. In this case it matters far less who the exact father is. You would just make sure the next group of men coming up were taught properly but if you were not sure your son were your son that was OK
bonobo = leftist
chimp = rightist
they even live on left and right bank of congo river, respectively
>Islamic culture has lasted longer than western Christian culture
>This is what browns unironically believe
>Jews got the idea of passing things on via father to son lineage.
Yet modern day jewry is matrilineal.
Islamic culture is lasting 620-present.
Christian culture lasted 325-18th century (""""Enlightenment"""" era)
a pic someone on /r9k/ made in MS paint with no citations is not a citation anon
you are better than this
>>Islamic culture has lasted longer than western Christian culture
It has, christian culture is dead. "Christian culture" in the west means "get on birth control at 15 and have casual sex till you feel like getting married while saying you are christian even though it impacts your life in no way"
Women literally think ~80% of men are ugly.
>Half of users here think black people are an evolutionary step backward toward monkeys
The other half should go back to reddit, where they came from.
>Women literally think ~80% of men are ugly.
not an argument or citation
Because free speech is what matters here.
Seriously tho, what do you want, OP? Permission to be unfaithful? Validation in not having the courage to seek the relationships that make you happy in the face of social pressure? Authority to judge others’ social lives and personal decisions?
Why do you think the answer to human social behavior lies in the behavior of apes? Why aren’t you looking at the history of man, and how polygamy and marriage and monogamy have fit into modern and ancient cultures all over the world? The internet has laid at your feet the entire body of human philosophy, science, and arts, and you’re choosing to use it to ask a bunch of unemployed insecure racists which species of monkey you should try to be.
>doesn't know the meaning of ancestor
The citation is right there in the picture. Of course, you'll say "loool OKCupid xD"
The 80/20 principle applies to beauty, therefore it is perfectly viable to assume it applies to who women are going to go after.
We need artificial wombs. They would be subsidized, and men would be allowed to have at least one child through them.
Feminism has made specially clearer than you won't receive any love or respect from your wife, so I think that most betas would be happy as long as they can at least have children.
We also have surrogacy. It's expensive, but right now is a good option if we want to reproduce without ruining our lives.
>Julia Heiman, the Kinsey Institute’s current director
not the original thing we were talking about anon, are you dense?
>Women who were higher in erotophilia and self-esteem and who had more frequent consensual sexual fantasies and more frequent desirability fantasies, particularly of performing as a stripper, had more frequent rape fantasies. Women who were higher in erotophilia, openness to fantasy, desirability fantasies, and self-esteem reported greater sexual arousal to rape fantasies.
>Current evidence indicates that there is nothing abnormal or even unusual about women having rape fantasies.
>Romance novels, which are extremely popular forms of literature written for women, allow the reader to participate in a structured fantasy. In these novels, rape of the lead character is a common theme.
>And although fantasies about unpleasant events, such as a feared performace evaluation, are not rare, these fantasies are not pleasurable. In contrast, fantasies of forced sex are often exciting, pleasurable and sexually arousing.
>[. . .] the existence of these fantasies, along with the belief that fantasies often operate in terms of wish fulfillment, allows a possible interpretation that, at some level, women may want to be raped.
>Seriously tho, what do you want, OP?
Well, I'm not OP, but I personally just want you to go back to reddit.
It's the exact same concept, dumbass.
views on an online dating profile are not the same thing as citing hundreds of years of actual sex in society in the culture as you claimed, is this really too complex for you to understand?
girls not finding X% of guys hot is not the same thing as them only fucking one in five men in practice
If you think you’re not a “cuck” and some other guys are, then you shouldn’t care about marriage or being monogamous, because those are just excuses to stop being the top male in your pack and rely on some artificial church concept to keep your status.
And if you think women are just things you put jizz in to procreate and claim your ownership of this earth then you also shouldn’t care about monogamy because women are just things like cars or boats that you own and use for your enjoyment.
Monogamy and marriage are just for people who believe in a: women as human beings and b: the concept of loving someone.
And I want you to go back to reddit. So what?
yes. In case you can't comprehend it, what it means is that only half the men reproduced with all of the women. Over 50% of men who ever lived never passed on their genes, but nearly 100% of women did. It's not rocket science.
Betas are mostly comfortable in modern society because they built society. But now it's being torn and used against them, so they are becoming less happy, and thus less willing to continue propping up and advancing society.
However, you might be correct that it's not that betas want a harem. Plenty of us here just want consensual monogamous sex in the missionary position for the purposes of procreation. Which is something betas used their social power, gained by being the ones to build society, to construct and attempt to enforce. How successful that enforcement has been is questionable at best, but it was enough for many to remain blissfully ignorant at least. Many were not, but it placated enough to keep society going. But now feminism has dropped the facade and is openly promoting cuckoldry, openly hating betas for being betas, openly promoting sluttery, and it's causing more and more betas to realize how cucked they've (probably) been this entire time, and thus they check out, and thus society falls apart.
>and I want you to go back to reddit
But anon, I'm not from reddit.
>girls not finding X% of guys hot is not the same thing as them only fucking one in five men in practice
Luckily we also have the genetic evidence that twice as many women have passed on their genes compared to men. Women have historically been so much more happy to share a chad rather than have a normal guy to themselves that it is baked into our DNA.
>If you think you’re not a “cuck” and some other guys are, then you shouldn’t care about marriage or being monogamous, because those are just excuses to stop being the top male in your pack and rely on some artificial church concept to keep your status.
Not about being a cuck, but about being a beta. If you're here, you're a beta. But even beyond that, I'd argue that monogamy benefits betas, and betas build society, so this breakdown is ultimately bad for society overall.
>And if you think women are just things you put jizz in to procreate and claim your ownership of this earth then you also shouldn’t care about monogamy because women are just things like cars or boats that you own and use for your enjoyment.
It's much less enjoyable to have a used car. Especially if a bunch of other guys jizzed in it.
A lot of people aren’t aware that the chromosomes aren’t the only repository of DNA, and that we inherit some genetic traits only from our mothers. Some people seem to think that because the guy sticks his dick in the girl to create a pregnancy that he’s the one who makes the difference.
But I am still curious about why OP thinks there’s a science to human monogamy. God tells us to get married and stay faithful. Not science.
Choosing a “correct” course of evolution by looking in the rear view mirror is not a very logical move. If our most recent ancestors made it work a certain way, there’s no evidence to suggest that’s how we should do things.
Even if you believe in teleology you gotta admit that the world has changed a lot even thru human history.
Nor am I.
You are a dumb kid. You don't stop loving your wife because her looks fade. You look at her and in your mind you imagine her in her prime. Plus you have kids to take care of and leaving your wife ruins the family unit and will harm your kids.
When you grow up you stop being a selfish degenerate who only cares about getting his rocks off, there's more important things in life than an orgasm.
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Maybe this will help clear your mind
In primitive societies where women reign men aren't even considered related to their children in the first place. See the Trobriand islanders, Mosuo people of China, etc.
God damn, women in the 30s (40s?) had some stocky thighs. I don't even care if they're someone's great grandmother, I'm fapping to this.
bonobos are apes and are very closely related to chimps. and if you are in a monogamous relationship, your gf/waifu isn't
Monogamy is a social construct nya~
Chemical pair bonding for a time isn't nya~
It's like looking at a bizarro virgin/chad.