Why do people get married? Why are we monogamous?

It provides a stable environment for a family and generally produces better outcomes. Makes sense that a team would do better than an individual in the game of life.
Then wouldn't you agree that a team of mothers will be better than one?

I think the bigger question TS is asking is why are we monogamous when in fact we're any but. Human is animal and animals are mostly not monogamous. For sure we've had many mates, GFs, wives, etc. So why is society forcing us to be monogamous? It's unnatural.

As for TS, I too would like to convert to Islam and have 4 wives.

It's only recently that men started having 1 wife by law. Fuck western culture!!
 
Then wouldn't you agree that a team of mothers will be better than one?

I think the bigger question TS is asking is why are we monogamous when in fact we're any but. Human is animal and animals are mostly not monogamous. For sure we've had many mates, GFs, wives, etc. So why is society forcing us to be monogamous? It's unnatural.

As for TS, I too would like to convert to Islam and have 4 wives.

It's only recently that men started having 1 wife by law. Fuck western culture!!

There is a biological connection (chemical bonding) between a mother and her baby and a lot of instincts kick in. Also I'm not sure if this team of mothers idea (where just one is the actual mother but others help out?) is where the mothers all live together permanently? Not really sure what you mean really.

But certainly drawing in help is typical (whether that be from extended family or nannies or whatever). But that isn't the permanent parents.

As to your other comments, I think it is more to do with children and building a life that monogamy (or at the very least a committed long term relationship) shines. For a young guy looking to sew his wild oats maybe it is less appealing but over the longer term there are real benefits to moving on from that mentality.
 
TS is trying to find an excuse to feel better for cheating on his girl.
 
do you think your personal concept of monogamy is the same as in the past by and large?

Yeah, we observe it in many animals too, it's near universal accross cultures throughout known history.
 
50,000 years ago, 9/10 men realized that 1/10 were getting all the women. They couldn't stand it. They couldn't stand not getting laid. Instead of improving themselves, they created the concept of monogamy. The concept of marriage.

Modern society, feminism, in abandoning this, is only moving back into the hands of the alpha male. Feminism is male empowerment.


lmao


i didnt go beyond that, however you should go find some hot guys an bang men instead.
 
A stable nuclear family creates in general a better environment for the offspring, they perform better in school, the family has generally better finances, lives longer, has better health.

That is why cultural marxists despise the traditional nuclear family.
 
Last edited:
Monogamy sucks. If it were socially acceptable, I'd have a harem
 
I think your narrative of hunter-gatherer societies might be off. First, why 50,000 years ago? Agriculture is usually said to have emerged around 10,000 years ago, although there is evidence that it might have happened earlier. Our current modality of marriage and monogamy is a by product of property ownership, which is a by product of settled societies, which is a result of agriculture. In hunter gatherer societies, which are usually nomadic, you wouldn't have any of that. They were far more egalitarian in class and gender, with clear roles for men and women, but those roles were equally important. They also tended to be sexually poly-amorous. It's easy to assume these societies were male dominated since men are naturally stronger, but the role of women were also extremely important. A lot of them if anything, were matriarchal. These societies also had higher infant mortality rates and since the survival of a tribe rested on having healthy babies, female fertility was emphasized greatly, which you can see in their art.

In our modern society, people feel the need to get married to stave off loneliness. We don't have tribes anymore who have our backs until we die so we make arbitrary partnerships and try to force them to last to combat our loneliness. From a practicality stand point, I think marriage is only useful if you intend to have children. Even if you believe in the futile notion of life-long monogamy, you can still be with your partner without a legal agreement to bind you together. But a lot of legal issues would pop up with kids born out of wedlock.

Our current form is predicted to have been more or less constant for at least 100,000 years.

There are plenty of examples of hunter gatherer societies alive today, we don't need to look into history for relevant information. All archeological evidence conforms with current examples.

Monogamy is the standard for our species.

Property ownership is an extention of personal resources which are to be honest both as old as time. They are not a product of agriculture. That's just a matter of scale.

Whether societies are matriarchal or patriarchal is nothing to do with monogamous relationship being the norm. I do not believe you are basing your assertions about previous human society being predominantly matriarchal on anything more than your wishful thinking.

You get married to stave off loneliness?? Is that your experience? Based on a shred of evidence? Marriage is a formal ritual expression to the tribe that two people are going to form a family group and that two extended families will share interests. That is what we actually observe, not some ridiculous twisting of reality to support your lack of success at the purpose of life.
 
Monogamy sucks. If it were socially acceptable, I'd have a harem

We have evolved to allow it should a male be sufficiently successful and the environment be sufficiently dangerous.

Our land of plenty leads to a lack of polygamy examples. Societies acceptance is just a mediator.

Currently it does not benefit a woman to be part of a harem when she can aquire a man who has her interests as primary.

After the nuclear holocaust you'll be better placed should you control many resources to action your wish.
 
This red pill shit is sad. Like a little kid kicked out of the house for being naughty screaming "fine I don't need any of you!".
 
Our current form is predicted to have been more or less constant for at least 100,000 years.

There are plenty of examples of hunter gatherer societies alive today, we don't need to look into history for relevant information. All archeological evidence conforms with current examples.

Monogamy is the standard for our species.

Property ownership is an extention of personal resources which are to be honest both as old as time. They are not a product of agriculture. That's just a matter of scale.

Whether societies are matriarchal or patriarchal is nothing to do with monogamous relationship being the norm. I do not believe you are basing your assertions about previous human society being predominantly matriarchal on anything more than your wishful thinking.

You get married to stave off loneliness?? Is that your experience? Based on a shred of evidence? Marriage is a formal ritual expression to the tribe that two people are going to form a family group and that two extended families will share interests. That is what we actually observe, not some ridiculous twisting of reality to support your lack of success at the purpose of life.

Unless i'm completely remembering things wrong, I've always read it's been about 10,000 years since agriculture started which lead to settled societies and of course civilization. Looking at currently existing tribal societies, you can see examples of monogamy not being the standard. There's a tribe in the south america where they believe as many men as possible have to ejaculate in a woman for her to be pregnant. There's one china that don't even have the concept of fatherhood because males are kicked out after a certain age. I also remember seeing a documentary about a tribe in the amazon that's also made of only women. But I wasn't trying to link matriarchal societies with monogamous relationships, I was addressing TS' assertion that hunter gatherer societies are male-dominated which doesn't seem true to me. They seem way more egalitarian than what we have in almost every aspect.

And how can you have the concept of owning land, if your whole society doesn't stay in place for an extended period of time? Many hunter-gatherers are also nomadic, so I don't see how property ownership is possible. Of course you can own yurts and horses like nomadic people's of the steppes, but not land. Marriage and monogamy becomes less of an issue if you have less to pass down to your children.

It seems I have offended you because (I assume) you are married and I am insulting your way of life. I don't mean to disparage people like you who happy with being married. Marriage has a utility in society, and for the individuals engaged in it, but I think for most people in modern society, that utility is glossed over by more abstract notions of "love" because marrying for pure utility sounds cold. Now we have societal mechanisms in place where we don't need marriage so we should all think about exactly why it is that we should get married. Personally I see no utility in it for myself and I think most people who get married don't either but they get married due to the pressure of feeling like they have to, which can't be healthy for the relationship or the kids. A lot of people, if not everybody, I know who argue that I should get married is because "I will get lonely." It's something a lot of people actually think about when it comes to marriage and once again, I don't think it's a good reason to get married. You said it's the purpose of life. I of course disagree since we're more than just animals and I'd like to transcend my primal desires. I'm fine with my genetics not being passed on and with 7 billion people in the world, I don't think more fucking will do our species any good.
 
Because influential men are furious that their beloved daughters are being treated like trash by the same men like them. Marriage is nothing more but a binding agreement between families or trading of livestock/properties.
 
Don't do it then.. go a round and fuck all the women who will let you.. see how happy it will make you..

Marriage i dont care for.. family with a Male/Female at the helm is what's very important though
 
We have evolved to allow it should a male be sufficiently successful and the environment be sufficiently dangerous.

Our land of plenty leads to a lack of polygamy examples. Societies acceptance is just a mediator.

Currently it does not benefit a woman to be part of a harem when she can aquire a man who has her interests as primary.

You are on to something.

Historically, cultures that allowed polygamy did so because there was no such thing as life insurance & social security when a woman became a widow.

Therefore, it was expected for her to get married to any man that could provide for her children.

Once society "invented" things like insurance and social welfare, polygamy became less necessary and started to evolve out of existence.
 
Unless i'm completely remembering things wlife", I've always read it's beedesires" 10,000 years since agriculture started which lead to settled societies and of course civilization. Looking at currently existing tribal societies, you can see examples of monogamy not being the standard. There's a tribe in the south america where they believe as many men as possible have to ejaculate in a woman for her to be pregnant. There's one china that don't even have the concept of fatherhood because males are kicked out after a certain age. I also remember seeing a documentary about a tribe in the amazon that's also made of only women. But I wasn't trying to link matriarchal societies with monogamous relationships, I was addressing TS' assertion that hunter gatherer societies are male-dominated which doesn't seem true to me. They seem way more egalitarian than what we have in almost every aspect.

And how can you have the concept of owning land, if your whole society doesn't stay in place for an extended period of time? Many hunter-gatherers are also nomadic, so I don't see how property ownership is possible. Of course you can own yurts and horses like nomadic people's of the steppes, but not land. Marriage and monogamy becomes less of an issue if you have less to pass down to your children.

It seems I have offended you because (I assume) you are married and I am insulting your way of life. I don't mean to disparage people like you who happy with being married. Marriage has a utility in society, and for the individuals engaged in it, but I think for most people in modern society, that utility is glossed over by more abstract notions of "love" because marrying for pure utility sounds cold. Now we have societal mechanisms in place where we don't need marriage so we should all think about exactly why it is that we should get married. Personally I see no utility in it for myself and I think most people who get married don't either but they get married due to the pressure of feeling like they have to, which can't be healthy for the relationship or the kids. A lot of people, if not everybody, I know who argue that I should get married is because "I will get lonely." It's something a lot of people actually think about when it comes to marriage and once again, I don't think it's a good reason to get married. You said it's the purpose of life. I of course disagree since we're more than just animals and I'd like to transcend my primal desires. I'm fine with my genetics not being passed on and with 7 billion people in the world, I don't think more fucking will do our species any good.

"But I wasn't trying to link matriarchal societies with monogamous relationships, I was addressing TS' assertion that hunter gatherer societies are male-dominated which doesn't seem true to me."

Yeah I agree. Patriarchal society is clearly the dominant paradigm though.

"Marriage and monogamy becomes less of an issue if you have less to pass down to your children."

You have your genes and your experience to pass down to your children, these are the most important things, the greatest resources of all, by far. Legal marriage facilitates passing of property but monogamy is the thing that enhances the survival off offspring the greatest!

"It seems I have offended you because (I assume) you are married and I am insulting your way of life"

I came down on you hard, not because of anything you said in particular, it is obviously some defensiveness, but mainly (I would like to think) tiredness at hearing the same shit from young males not in committed, healthy, long term relationships. Broken families, men raised without father figures and the drive in young men to sow their oats if possible are not a cogent argument for the dominant paradigm of our species relationships and child rearing. Those are the causes, I suspect, for the anti marriage sentiment.

The key aspect of marriage is the invitation of both extended families and friends to come together in the affirmation of the couples commitment to union. You're right that people should examine why they go ahead with it, but i think that a thorough examination of the evidence leads to a greater respect for the benefits of monogamy.

"You said it's the purpose of life. I of course disagree since we're more than just animals and I'd like to transcend my primal desires"

Yet I would say your disagreement is just signalling to potential mates, reforming your position as one of strength rather than weakness, that your behaviour is that which maximises your chance at attaining monogamy, or at least by and large is behavioral traits that have been evolved to do so.
 
Last edited:
Humans are much stronger in groups.
 
Yeah, we observe it in many animals too, it's near universal accross cultures throughout known history.
I was under the impression that most monogamous cultures had arranged marriages until recently.
 
My "Red Pill" awakening actually came as I got older.

I'm not against marriage, and for the right woman I'd do it (she'd literally have to check all the boxes of what I want in a mate), but I don't see the point unless kids are involved/desired. Why put a legal hurdle in front of something that doesn't need it. My dating philosophy is basically let's stay together for as long as we both want to be together, whether that's a night or forever, but I don't feel the need for us to make a pinky promise to each other.

Young me would have never thought like this, but for me, I saw that a lot of that was insecurity. Just observing different sex lives of couples, peoples desires, and seeing how the brain is functioning under the influence of love or lust, idk, just made it clear that for the most part my desire for marriage/long-term monogamy was "promise you won't leave me" more so than "you're so awesome, I want you around forever", and I wouldn't doubt that a lot of people are more in the former than the latter.

Sans kids and cohabitation, I don't like putting invisible barriers around people if they aren't needed. ...and even though it may not seem that way, I'm still a very monogamous person by nature, but I'm also more flexible in the parameters around that. With certain caveats, I could see how a (semi-) open marriage would be an ideal set-up. My mind could change, but at 34, this is where it's at now.
 
This red pill shit is sad. Like a little kid kicked out of the house for being naughty screaming "fine I don't need any of you!".
Marriage is a trap. Say i do and the fake mask they wear is taken off, and you get to deal with the demon inside.
 
Back
Top