Is Polyamory only for Beta Cucks?

[Pugilistic]

I don't like being in an agreement to bang only one person and having to worry if she's banging other people behind my back. An easy solution is for people to do whatever they want. She can bang other dudes and she can't bitch about me not giving her enough attention or time or whatever. And I can just go on my surf trips and spend my precious hours in the gym and sherdogging.

 

[Jay Valero 1]

I knew a poly couple. Was banging the wife, in fact. And no, the guy wasn't a beta cuck. I could never be in that kind of relationship nor do I understand it really but that characterization is inaccurate and ignorant.

 

[Thread]

Watched a documentary on polyamory and all the women were weird as fuck.

Headcases + limp-wrists = polyamory

If you want multiple partners just stick to casual sex and forget relationships, IMO.

You talking about the show on Showtime? Cause those were some ugly people.

 

[Blue_Lou]

Monogamy is a very recent invention in the grand scheme of human history. It’s unnatural, and there’s a reason why it’s so difficult to maintain. There’s a reason why divorce rates are so high.

There’s a reason why you don’t masturbate exclusively to pictures of your wife/girlfriend.

For about 95% of our species existence we lived in close-knit egalitarian tribes where we shared everything, including sexual partners. Egalitarianism was the best way to ensure tribal stability and peace, and in turn our species survival. It’s extremely unlikely there was always a perfect 1:1 ratio of men to women, and the odd man/woman out isn’t just going to sit there twiddling their thumbs while everyone else is partnered up.

There are many cultures around the world that didn’t grow up brainwashed to believe that monogamy is the only acceptable option. Including the US as recently as a century ago, where it was common for husbands to have a mistress on the side.

And every heterosexual man deep down knows this to be true:
New pussy is better than old pussy.

 

[Po]

it's polyamory if it's more than one dude.
if it's one dude and many women, that's just winning.

One dude and many women just means a successful bachelor life.

 

[FedorGOAT]

Monogamy is a very recent invention in the grand scheme of human history. It’s unnatural, and there’s a reason why it’s so difficult to maintain. There’s a reason why divorce rates are so high.

There’s a reason why you don’t masturbate exclusively to pictures of your wife/girlfriend.

For about 95% of our species existence we lived in close-knit egalitarian tribes where we shared everything, including sexual partners. Egalitarianism was the best way to ensure tribal stability and peace, and in turn our species survival. It’s extremely unlikely there was always a perfect 1:1 ratio of men to women, and the odd man/woman out isn’t just going to sit there twiddling their thumbs while everyone else is partnered up.

There are many cultures around the world that didn’t grow up brainwashed to believe that monogamy is the only acceptable option. Including the US as recently as a century ago, where it was common for husbands to have a mistress on the side.

And every heterosexual man deep down knows this to be true:
New pussy is better than old pussy.

We were used to many things. We used to live in caves, We used to eat raw meat, we used to roam naked but that doesn't change the fact that with the progression of Civilization our lives have changed & so have our habits. Monogamy was invented because of the protection of property & lineage. Just because some thing was natural before doesn't gives us the excuse to go back to that custom.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

You talking about the show on Showtime? Cause those were some ugly people.

Didn't know there was a Showtime show, I think this was something on HBO.

 

[SammyPops]

Is polyamory only for cucks?

Yes.

Fuck bro .... you make it sound like a bad thing.

 

[Thread]

Didn't know there was a Showtime show, I think this was something on HBO.

I think it was on Showtime. One dude looked like a lowrent version of Evan Stone who was a definite cuck(I hate using that word but in this case it's actually appropriate) and then there was a lowrent version of a Maya Rudolph.

 

[Yuval Levy]

Depends, if it's one man on multiple women, doubt it.

I doubt Dan Bilzerian and the Sultan of Brunei are beta cucks

 

[leto1776]

Polyamorous people don’t have time to mess around with terms like beta, alpha, or duck. They’re to busy living their lives and getting laid on a regular basis.

 

[TrevorRoss]

The fuck did you just call me? You need to stay in your lane. You enjoy doing what you do man, it's all good but don't you go telling me that because I find my happiness in traditional roles it's because I'm beaten into submission by fucking society.

Why do you think they're traditional roles in as good as every society in the history of the human species?

I'll make it easy for you: it's because we've evolved with that being the most effective desirable model. There's always mavericks and God bless em but chill your shit talking about what is often good people doing what makes them happy.

Men have families.
Men accept responsibility.
Men provide for and protect family.
Most males today don’t make the cut, and they sulk in a corner.

 

[TrevorRoss]

There's nothing progressive about these other types of sexuality. They've existed for as long as humans have existed. They only seem to be progressive because in the Western culture Christians took over and made everything as prude as can be over the past centuries. So people weren't brought up exposed to the reality that human sexuality is complicated and diverse.

That said, I'm pretty vanilla when it comes to sex. I'm all about doing whatever between me and my significant other, but I'm not bringing in another person. So other girl or man is getting in the bed with me and my lady. Fuck no.

You’re opening up Pandora’s box when that goes on.

 

[Blue_Lou]

We were used to many things. We used to live in caves, We used to eat raw meat, we used to roam naked but that doesn't change the fact that with the progression of Civilization our lives have changed & so have our habits. Monogamy was invented because of the protection of property & lineage. Just because some thing was natural before doesn't gives us the excuse to go back to that custom.

It’s human nature, which doesn’t change no matter what time period we live in. At least not in the ~10,000 years or so since the dawn of agriculture (and subsequently monogamy) which is a blink of an eye compared to the 300,000+ years we lived as hunter-gatherers.

A good rule of thumb: when you try to suppress human nature, it ends up creating way more problems than it solves. In regards to monogamy, that’s fairly self-evident today.

 

[FedorGOAT]

It’s human nature, which doesn’t change no matter what time period we live in. At least not in the ~10,000 years or so since the dawn of agriculture (and subsequently monogamy) which is a blink of an eye compared to the 300,000+ years we lived as hunter-gatherers.

A good rule of thumb: when you try to suppress human nature, it ends up creating way more problems than it solves. In regards to monogamy, that’s fairly self-evident today.

One argument in favor of polyamory is that monogamy is unnatural for human beings. We see this sort of argument often bolstered by ideas from evolutionary psychology, comparisons with bonobos who live in a more “free love” community than most humans, or more insidiously with evolutionary adaptations that have taken place to ensure competitiveness amongst sperm from different men inside of one woman (so-called “sperm wars”).

This argument fails due to the naturalistic fallacy. Cyanide, war, and polio virus are all natural, but not good. Just because something is natural, doesn’t mean it is good.

Furthermore, humans have never lived polyamorously— in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, it’s monogamy with cheating, and this cheating causes a great deal of suffering such as in determining paternity.

 

[FedorGOAT]

It’s human nature, which doesn’t change no matter what time period we live in. At least not in the ~10,000 years or so since the dawn of agriculture (and subsequently monogamy) which is a blink of an eye compared to the 300,000+ years we lived as hunter-gatherers.

A good rule of thumb: when you try to suppress human nature, it ends up creating way more problems than it solves. In regards to monogamy, that’s fairly self-evident today.

It is a magnet for drama, energy vampires, and people who desperately need to feel special and in control. I witnessed high levels of manipulation, abuse, and relational aggression in this community. The thing is, you have to be a master of relationships to juggle it all. And few can honestly claim to be masters. Polyamory often attracts young people (and predators) who think that all that human relation stuff is unnecessary-- that they've discovered the true secret, that they see past all the bullshit. Guess what, they don't. It's all still there, but now there is a directive to ignore it or pretend like it's not real. There are no short cuts. You can't just skip over all those annoying parts. Relationships take intense time and energy investment; you're deluding yourself if you think you're the exception.
Beware the sales pitch.

One of the mantras of poly is that it's crazy to expect one person to meet all your needs. This is true. But what I've observed in the poly community is that the individual fails to look to themselves for wholeness, favouring instead the constant search for wholeness via the "right" collection of others.Polyamory discourages people from introspection and personal growth in favor of always searching for someone else. You never fix your own problems, instead you just shuffle your collection of lovers.

 

[Blue_Lou]

One argument in favor of polyamory is that monogamy is unnatural for human beings. We see this sort of argument often bolstered by ideas from evolutionary psychology, comparisons with bonobos who live in a more “free love” community than most humans, or more insidiously with evolutionary adaptations that have taken place to ensure competitiveness amongst sperm from different men inside of one woman (so-called “sperm wars”).

This argument fails due to the naturalistic fallacy. Cyanide, war, and polio virus are all natural, but not good. Just because something is natural, doesn’t mean it is good.

Furthermore, humans have never lived polyamorously— in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, it’s monogamy with cheating, and this cheating causes a great deal of suffering such as in determining paternity.

My point is more nuanced than a simple promotion of the broad category of “natural”. Obviously I don’t think it’s healthy to eat poison ivy, hug wasp nests, or jump off naturally-occurring cliffs into naturally-occurring sharp rocks below.

I’m saying that biologically, we are still hunter-gatherers. Evolutionary changes are very slow. When you significantly deviate from a kind of lifestyle that our hunter-gatherer bodies are biologically wired to experience, there will be negative consequences.

Your last paragraph is just false. Both in regards to the prevalence of polyamory and paternity certainty. There are some tribes that believe that babies are formed from the accumulation of semen from multiple men, and some women deliberately seek a variety of partners so that the baby can get the best attributes of each. They certainly didn’t understand the dynamics of sperm cells and egg cells. And when you live in close-knit egalitarian tribes, children are raised collectively by everyone. Every woman’s child was ultimately the child of the tribe.

 

[Blue_Lou]

One of the mantras of poly is that it's crazy to expect one person to meet all your needs. This is true. But what I've observed in the poly community is that the individual fails to look to themselves for wholeness, favouring instead the constant search for wholeness via the "right" collection of others.Polyamory discourages people from introspection and personal growth in favor of always searching for someone else. You never fix your own problems, instead you just shuffle your collection of lovers.

That’s a problem that commonly exists in people in general, it’s not really a poly or monogamy issue. The people I’ve known who were the most hardcore about traditional marriage and monogamy were some of the most broken people I’ve ever met. They didn’t love themselves and couldn’t stand to be alone, so they NEEDED someone else to “complete them”.

 

[FedorGOAT]

My point is more nuanced than a simple promotion of the broad category of “natural”. Obviously I don’t think it’s healthy to eat poison ivy, hug wasp nests, or jump off naturally-occurring cliffs into naturally-occurring sharp rocks below.

I’m saying that biologically, we are still hunter-gatherers. Evolutionary changes are very slow. When you significantly deviate from a kind of lifestyle that our hunter-gatherer bodies are biologically wired to experience, there will be negative consequences.

Your last paragraph is just false. Both in regards to the prevalence of polyamory and paternity certainty. There are some tribes that believe that babies are formed from the accumulation of semen from multiple men, and some women deliberately seek a variety of partners so that the baby can get the best attributes of each. They certainly didn’t understand the dynamics of sperm cells and egg cells. And when you live in close-knit egalitarian tribes, children are raised collectively by everyone. Every woman’s child was ultimately the child of the tribe.

If you truly wants to bring biology into this then you have to understand that our forefathers were poly nonetheless, but that version of Poly was Polygynous.one male to several females. Scientists think this because when we spot polygyny in other animals, the males tend to be much larger than the females. (So, there’s one big male who fights other men to keep his harem.) And it’s estimated that among our ancestor Australopithecus afarensis, who lived 3 million years ago, the female was about two thirds the height of the male.

polyandry – that is, one female and many male partners was never been a part of Human evolution. Polyamorus means allowing both types of sexual configuration, When it's already been proved that polyandry had no place in human history. So arguing in favour of it to call it natural is disingenious. It has also been proved that polygamy should have no place in our modern society. (If you want details then watch the documentary "Sister Wives" on Hulu)

So this argument in favour of Polyamory being natural doesn't stand.

Also The tribe you are talking about are the losers of this evolution game. As a species we don't take notes from losers.

 

[Blue_Lou]

If you truly wants to bring biology into this then you have to understand that our forefathers were poly nonetheless, but that version of Poly was Polygynous.one male to several females. Scientists think this because when we spot polygyny in other animals, the males tend to be much larger than the females. (So, there’s one big male who fights other men to keep his harem.) And it’s estimated that among our ancestor Australopithecus afarensis, who lived 3 million years ago, the female was about two thirds the height of the male.

polyandry – that is, one female and many male partners was never been a part of Human evolution. Polyamorus means allowing both types of sexual configuration, When it's already been proved that polyandry had no place in human history. So arguing in favour of it to call it natural is disingenious. It has also been proved that polygamy should have no place in our modern society. (If you want details then watch the documentary "Sister Wives" on Hulu)

So this argument in favour of Polyamory being natural doesn't stand.

Also The tribe you are talking about are the losers of this evolution game. As a species we don't take notes from losers.

Harem-based polygynous species have males about twice the size of females, like in gorillas. In strictly monogamous species the males and females are the same size, like gibbons. Polyamorous species’ males are about 10-20% bigger than the females, like in bonobos, chimps, and .... Homo sapiens.