Why Men are Sometimes Justified in Avoiding Monogamy (Page 3)

[Anonymous]

Monogamy goes against nature anyways. If anyone disagrees, they are extremely ignorant of their own biology.

[the_rake]

Sure, but what's 'natural' is not necessarily compatible with ethical citizenship.

[Opinion Owner]

I wouldn't call it ethical citizenship, I'd call it societal standards. Because in some societies its perfectly normal. And in societies where its not moral per say, relationships/sex/ martial affairs outside of monogamous relationships occurs... so its like they are polygamous but hide it.

[OpenClose]

It's difficult to say that it specifically "goes against nature", given how wildly adaptable human nature is.

But yeah, anatomically-modern humans lived polyamorously for 200,000 years, living mostly "monogamously" for the past several hundred years.

Remember that polyamorous means not just guys, but also girls, had multiple sex partners.

And remember that dating, courting, remarrying, etc, are also technically non-monogamous in what would be called "serial monogamy". There are very few true monogamous species on Earth, and for them, they are incapable of being attracted to anyone but their first mate. For some, when their mate dies, they die too. For humans, we have strings of relationships. When these relationships end, we have friggin breakup sex. Definitely not monogamy.

I would say a lot of dating and gender issues stem from the idea that women are sexually passive and monogamous, while men are sexually aggressive and "spread their seed".

[OpenClose]

By not acknowledging women's sexual desire, (which is supposedly as high or in some cases higher than a man's, just triggered much differently) we create a false sense of "supply" and "demand", where a woman is the gatekeeper, and has men play court jester, proving they are a sufficient "provider" or "protector" while men do all the work of trying to earn her attraction.

That is, not only does the slut/stud double standard come out of this, the majority of things that piss guys off about dating women may also trace back to this, and that it isn't necessary.

Hell, Sweden has been proving this for years. No gender dating expectations. Just people liking each other and acknowledging it like two grown-ass adults.

[Mekkalyn]

Well, luckily for us, humans are not run by nature and have free will. If they don't like a behavior that is "natural", they can fight against it.

And I've never had any problems with monogamy. I've never had any thoughts about another person when I'm dating someone. I've never felt any "natural" urges. It's is natural for me to stay monogamous, and any other type of relationship disgusts me and I would be extremely unhappy in that kind of a relationship. But, hey, I guess I'm "ignorant of my biology"?

[Opinion Owner]

@OpenClose This has nothing to do with how active each gender's sex drive is. Both must be fairly high in order for evolutionary purposes. My point is that, it is "natural" in the sense that it is biological. I don't mean how long polygamy was practised or has been around. From an evolutionary perspective, concerning natural selection, a man is polygamous.

[Opinion Owner]

@Mekkalyn I'm not saying polygamy is and should be practised by everyone. Monogamy fits better for some people, and many are happy with it. HOWEVER, that being said, a man is by an evolutionary definition more polygamous. THAT is biological. A male's harmones and sex drive are much higher across their lifetime than the average females, which fits with Darwin's natural selection. In order to survive, man must produce, the most optimal condition for that to happen would be a polygamous situation. Society can change how we feel about it but it does not change "nature". Polygomy doesn't just mean marriage or "feeling" for someone, it can be purely sexual. Which still in our day in age is not unheard of and is very common (Cheatings, mistresses, brothels, etc)

[Anonymous]

It does seem the wrong way round.

As in shouldn't they sleep with the guys they like soon.

And not with the jerks who they would never want to be with?

[the_rake]

Yea.

[jjmarvin]

Anybody who doesn't want monogamy is justified. No crazy ideologies are needed. Just be upfront about it

[GreatnessPersonified]

I don't think guys should be monogamy based, until they find that woman worth going that route for.

[the_rake]

Sure. But not many women are truly worth it in this day and age - and they get snapped up pretty quick.

[GreatnessPersonified]

Being Optimistic, I think there is someone for everyone. I think over time, women get smarter with their choices and can be good to good men, even if they "hoe'd" it up before.

[the_rake]

'someone for everyone'

This only truly applies in a world where people have roughly the same attractiveness of attributes (intrinsic - personality, and extrinsic - looks, money) AND where one sex

Realistically, there's not someone for everyone: people have to compete.

'women get smarter with their choices '

Only once they're done with sex and start thinking about 'settling' for a good guy (read: sucker).

[GreatnessPersonified]

I didn't say the someone will be that good.
I've seen junkies find love, that's a beautiful thing to find among all the cracks in life. :P

"Only once they're done with sex and start thinking about 'settling' for a good guy "

What's wrong with that? Means all the shit she wants to do is done. I don't care about someone's past, as long as it doesn't affect my present. Plus, she comes with skill. I love a woman that knows what to do when I pull down my pants. Ya know, I got shit to do.

[the_rake]

'Means all the shit she wants to do is done. '

As long as she is not manipulating a sexually inexperienced man who has his own shit that he wants doing.

[GreatnessPersonified]

If a dude gets sexually manipulated nowadays, then that's on him.
I mean dude, if she ain't giving you any, spank off to some porn and move on.
Sex is sweet, but lack of it ain't going to kill me.

[the_rake]

I think eventually you get to a stage where you're getting what you want and you don't really care anymore. before that though, there's definitely that psychological hurdle to overcome.

[GreatnessPersonified]

True

[BangBadBxtches]

TFW you realize humans were not, are not and never will be monogamous.

[RationalLioness]

BS. There is no scientific proof in that.

[BangBadBxtches]

@RationalLioness Ignorance these days. Humans are naturally polygamous. Marriage was never even about love, it was about property. I'm also not saying humans are all polygamists either, there's a spectrum but all throughout human history monogamy has been the more prevalent, look at our ancestors.

[Tarvold]

Excellent take.

[Entity]

This makes no sense.

[the_rake]

feel free to make a (valued) contribution.

[Entity]

You want me to actually explain why this is senseless?

[the_rake]

it's better than essentially conveying no information whatsoever.

[Entity]

I disagree. However, fine:

"But this advice is neither fair nor pratical in a commercialised world where more and more women are being promiscuous, especially favouring a small minority of high status males - celebrities, very attractive models, and wealthy, successful men."

Your explanation is lacking. If a woman makes a choice not to be promiscuous then what does it matter that the world at large is promiscuous? That has no actual effect on the individual's choice. Yes, most of the world is omnivorous, but do vegans care and should they take this into consideration when choosing their diets? Not particularly.

"The majority of men outside this clique will by and large be inexperienced and yet asked to wait for sex, maybe even choosing just one woman as their lifetime partner. This is in spite of being more sexually experienced than a woman."

Again, non-issue, because the goal isn't to punish a type of man but instead maintain personal integrity. Unconnected.

[Entity]

"What's wrong with this? For one thing, it's plain hypocrisy: women can sleep with whomever they want to ("go feminism!") while men are demonised for owning their sexual desires and not wanting to be with a partner who denies them this ("you can't have your cake and eat it... why would anyone want their cake if they couldn't eat it anyway")."

But you said... "This is in contrast to the notion that society idolises the player - this is not strictly true, or if it is true it is only true after the fact."

These two completely contradict. As a matter of fact not only do they contradict but I don't know why you've left out the common occurrence of slut-shaming, a very real problem, because you won't sit down to dinner with a prostitute the same you would a john and that's just the truth. You're pulling empty self-victimization but feminism doesn't even care about promiscuity and doesn't encourage it in any unified way. Rubbish.

[Entity]

"What's more is that most men would wonder why all these other guys were so special that they did NOT have to wait for sex and if that's really the case that they simply were more *worth it* why would this girl wasting time on this new guy who isn't *worth it* for a relationship."

The error of externalization. You could argue that there was indeed a difference and that this should count towards the decisions but ultimately any parent with multiple children faces this; the eldest got this but the middle did not and the youngest got that but the eldest did not and really there's no point to justification outside of a current timeline. So she had sex with hot guy X 4 years ago on the drop of a dime, that was 4 years ago, and you are not entitled to the same thing.

Again, you only build empty despair for yourself.

[Entity]

"Next time you read cosmopolitan magazine then, and it tells you to apply the '3 month rule' maybe you should be thinking about your own integrity (are you a virgin?) and whether it's worth alienating good men because society tells you that all men are horndogs that want to treat you like a piece of meat."

Irony. Pure. Irony.

"Next time you read cosmopolitan magazine then, and it tells you to apply the '3 month rule' maybe you should be thinking about your own integrity..."

They are.

[the_rake]

'If a woman makes a choice not to be promiscuous then what does it matter that the world at large is promiscuous?'

Ok, but similarly you can't expect men to put up with her double standards. And this further explains the title of the article: 'why men are sometimes justified in avoiding monogamy'.

'the goal isn't to punish a type of man but instead maintain personal integrity.'

But this is the after-effect - intended or not.

'These two completely contradict.'

I said, 'men are demonised for owning their sexual desires ' (in the context which I'm describing - e. g. go through the comments on this article and read them) and that the notion that society glorifies the player is false or at least in this notion, hence why I said,

'this is not strictly true, or if it is true it is only true after the fact'

[the_rake]

'So she had sex with hot guy X 4 years ago on the drop of a dime, that was 4 years ago, and you are not entitled to the same thing.'

Didn't say I am entitled, but I would be wondering,

a) am I as attractive to this woman as men she's been with in the past
b) if she is acting on the premise of morality / personal integrity, is there really any ethical consistency behind these notions?

'Irony. Pure. Irony... They are.'

Way to deliberately misinterpret what I was saying.