Ask Tiger Woods and Suzy Favor Hamilton.
Ask Tiger Woods and Suzy Favor Hamilton.
Genetics Math wrote:
Genes still get diluted pretty fast with this strategy from 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16... so the many children strategy for spreading your genes is still pretty terrible strategy from a fathers genetic strategy. Best strategy if your goal is to pass on your full genetic material would be to father children with a twin sister.
Good genetic traits will spread exponentially because anyone who has them will likely have more than one kid. Where bad ones will weed themselves out regardless of how many copies you make in generation 1.
If you want to pass on your full genetic material, wouldn't you need to reproduce asexually?
Poly Want A Cracker? wrote:
Ask Suzy Favor Hamilton.
Save yourself for Zurich, not one person.
Yipyip wrote:
Have you seen "polyamorous" people? Ugliest people ever.
Truer words...
Our closest ancestors, bonobos and chimps, have a genetic profile about 97% the same as ours. And they’re both polygandrous. They both live in mm-mf groups. For chimps, a strategy they often use is “pair-bonding,” which gives them exclusive access to a female for a few days/weeks. Interestingly, pair-bonding is a crucial aspect of monogamy in that having a pair-bond relationship let’s a male know that he is indeed the father of his mate’s child (in monogamous circumstances). If a male weren’t to know whether it was his or not, he’d have no reason to support that child or provide food/care, which can be a big problem for females in polygandrous species.
However, a really small percentage of mammals are monogamous. Like 3%. I’d also point out the fact that despite our tendency to be monogamous, we’re pretty shitty at it considering how often people cheat or get divorced.
While I wouldn’t say that humans are “meant” to be monogamous, I think it’s more of a cultural adaptation.
The belief that we’re supposed to only want one person is why most marriages fail. When someone inevitably starts desiring someone else, they see it, either consciously or subconsciously, as a sign that the marriage is no good, and they give up on it. We are biologically programmed to seek multiple partners. That’s why you make vows/commitment. If it were easy you wouldn’t need to.
LM wrote:
Stats tell the story pretty well. 2/3 of people married in urban areas get divorced, and a marriage has about a 50-55% chance or reaching 25yrs. 82% are initiated by women.
80% say they would cheat if they wouldn't get caught. Let that sink in. 80%. Estimated cheating rates are 25%-75%.
Does that sound like a system that is "working"? Presumably not. Monogamy worked pretty well 50+ yrs ago when we had a very patricarchical society. In present society? Not so much.
I think those stats make it clear that monogamy is not a natural state for humans. While essential for the rise of civilation, it's definitely against our biology, which was thought to be serially monogamous (woman is with a man for 3-5yrs to get a child to where it's more self dependent and less need for a man, then move on to next guy-> good because more sexual variation than lifelong single partner).
Also explains why women are biologically set up to get sexually bored of a guy after 3-7 years. There is a reason the "post nuptial shutoff" thread exists, and it's not all from crappy husbands and stress.
Monogamy does work in some cases. Will of course depend on the mindset of the two people and their level of commitment and understanding of what will happen. Usually good if both partners have busy/robust careers and/or a low sex drive.
That in mind, knowing the stats I can't recommend monogamy. I can't recommend polygamy (multiple relationships) either, very few humans can love multiple people and keep that under control. What does that leave? Open relationship/marriage. One long term pair bonded relationship with emotional investment. Then one other girl (could be more, but one is plenty) who is a pure FB. Sex with her at least once a month. More frequent outside sex or more than one FB would depend on your sexual desire and being a high sex drive guy.
Obviously, woman is free to have FB type relationship with other guys. Some women will on and off, others never will. Horrible, biased system if a guy tries to say "I can have sex with whoever but you have to be exclusive to me".
It's a solid system, kids are possible, still get pair bonded deep relationship.
Ridiculously insightful post.
Bad Wigins wrote:
I knew a few women wrote:
Yo Brad; yeah, blah blah ...but what if you just wanna blow loads into a little group of woman that love your personality..?!
If you really knew women, you'd understand they aren't so willing to share. It's their instinct to view a man as property.
Did I say that they are willing to share, no I never said that ... I do know ..you don’t go telling each and every one of them your next move or what you’re doing ...no need to worry them ..they’re all special.
Sex at Dawn book Dr. Chris Ryan Ph.D
I knew a few women wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
If you really knew women, you'd understand they aren't so willing to share. It's their instinct to view a man as property.
Did I say that they are willing to share, no I never said that ... I do know ..you don’t go telling each and every one of them your next move or what you’re doing ...no need to worry them ..they’re all special.
They find out through the grapevine. The only way to prevent that is if they're all in different states.
Kvothe wrote:
Humans aren't "meant" to do anything, unless you believe in religion. Most religions advocate monogamy. Further, monogamy makes sense because it helps for 2 parents to raise children. Children take at least 18 years to develop.
They take longer than that to develop
Pre marital, extramarital, and post marital sex ruined everything.
some are and some aren't.
live and let live.
The way I see it is when you do the deed with someone then you are cheating on your soulmate. Maybe you don't realise that because you haven't met her yet and are just with a girl for debauchery.
Let's say a guy hooks up with a girl. Call him Billy and her Daisy. Billy's soulmate could be another girl, lets call her Sharlene, who he will meet at some point in the future as he is going about his life. I consider Billy to be cheating on Sharlene, because when he meets her, he will already have been with the other girl(Daisy). If he had morals and ethics he would not get physical with Daisy if he doesn't consider her his soulmate, and doesn't intend to stay with her. Let's say he does consider Daisy his soulmate, then that is fine. He can marry her and then do the deed.
Unevolved human beings, no. Evolved human beings, yes.
I'm not sure if humans are meant to be monogamous in regards to genetics, but we surely aren't meant to be monogamous in regard to emotion. None of us, even the tough guys, can handle watching their significant other sleep around. If you say you could, you're lying and have never had a wife or a long term girlfriend.
Picture this. Society somehow morphed that it's totally acceptable to bounce around to different partners. You'd have people "accidently" reproducing and having random kids left and right. And you'd likely see the woman stuck with raising the kids because the actual father is no where to be found or claim it isn't his. Then you'd have everyone getting flaming mad at each other for sleeping with someone else.
None of us can handle a polygamous society. What would happen is everyone would be out to kill one another and poorly raised children (who then turned into terrible adults) would run rampant. I see poverty and hate developing from a polygamy accepting society.
I'll take the social norm of monogamy any day.
PolygasaurusRex wrote:
Are human beings meant to be monogamous?
Are human beings meant to eat fast food? Fly in the air? Bomb down the highway at 100 mph? Domesticate and breed wild animals? Take antibiotics?
Your question is flawed, so any answer or argument in response is equally flawed.
PolygasaurusRex wrote:
Are human beings meant to be monogamous?
Not all people. For example, you are meant to be incel so you don't reproduce. Nature at work. Natural selection.
everyoen is different wrote:
PolygasaurusRex wrote:
Are human beings meant to be monogamous?
Not all people. For example, you are meant to be incel so you don't reproduce. Nature at work. Natural selection.
Substitute homosexual for incel, then you're on to something.
Genetics Math wrote:
Your kids have half of your genes and half of their moms genes. Your grand kids have a 1/4 of your genes and great grand kids have 1/8, great great grand kids 1/16 of your genes and so on.
It doesn't matter how many kids you have your individual genes are diluted pretty fast.
You want to increase the number of genetics your kids have similar to you incest would do a better job of accomplishing that but that doesn't seem to work out very well. Look at dog breading that sort of one dad to a 1000 puppies seems to have caused lots of problems in purebred dogs.
Genetics like variety and monogamy to a few partners accomplishes this best. Having one guy pass on tons of his genes is great for the short term but bad for the long term survival of a species.
Good DOG, are you really THAT stupid?
If you are a SUCCESSFUL man you should have 20 or more kids. Then, it is likely that you will have 40 or more grand kids. Then 80 or more great grand kids, 160 or more great great grand kids and so on.
It doesn't matter how quickly your genes are diluted, the number of descendants you will have gets multiplied pretty fast.
///
Moron!