Monogamy May Be Even More Difficult For Women Than it Is For Men

[Thanos]

It's fuckin Planet Thotville

 

[panamaican]

You make decent points but I stayed with a shipibo tribe in Peru for two weeks. And while they didn't have farm lands there was an absolute abundance of river fish, wild fruit, and avocados... seemed like pretty easy living compared to places with winters where you'll die without proper preparations. You don't even really have to build a house/hut out there, I slept outside on a hammoc with a mosquito net(didn't even need a blanket). Obviously all climates have their challenges but I don't see how anyone can make a case that equator living isn't significantly easier then the latter

The range of predators that you have to deal with in temperate zones is greater. More animal diversity, larger animals, in the predator department. No "offseason", a la hibernation. I can't find a clear answer on viruses and bacteria spreading.

But mosquitos and their various ways of harming people are definitely more of an equator problem than the wintery one.

So, I doubt it's easier. Just different problems.

 

[cleetus]

The range of predators that you have to deal with in temperate zones is greater. More animal diversity, larger animals, in the predator department. No "offseason", a la hibernation. I can't find a clear answer on viruses and bacteria spreading.

But mosquitos and their various ways of harming people are definitely more of an equator problem than the wintery one.

So, I doubt it's easier. Just different problems.

How the hell did a thread about loose women turn into an anthropology debate about living conditions at the equator?

 

[panamaican]

How the hell did a thread about loose women turn into an anthropology debate about living conditions at the equator?

Truthfully? Because the conversation turned to evolutionary pressures for human mating decisions and that led to evolutionary pressures for other stuff.

Also...WR.

Facetiously? Because I'm setting all of you up for thread derail infractions.

Kidding...or am I?

 

[esdoornblad]

As an addition though, the choosiness of females extends far past human societies, and past even primate sexual selection strategies. Females are choosy because the cost of choosing a weak partner are drastic as compared to males with a 9 month pregnancy placing her already in a radically vulnerable position, as well as the relatively undeveloped offspring after birth.

It's funny also that you mentioned "the patriarchy", because however men are, their aggression levels, their status seeking behavior, etc. is all reactive to the sexual selection strategies of women. Women... females of our common ancestors created all of it. Why? Because women are the ones who choose their partners. They choose because while, you're saying they don't have a "recovery period" between sessions* of intercourse, they can also only reproduce once every 9 months from the contribution of one male. Men, in comparison, can contribute their genes once every 15 minutes assuming the willing partners.

You make a good point about women creating "the patriarchy" as they are the ones who have provided the selection mechanisms for it via their choices in male partners. In the period where I met my wife, I was in a phase of acting "arrogant" and being deliberately aloof with respect to any women who I was interested in. During marriage counseling many years later, my wife brought up what a jerk I was when we met, and I told the therapist it was because it was "common knowledge" among men to do this. I said I really liked her and this seemed to be the proven way to succeed. He smirked, and my wife was not happy to say the least.

 

[WandySaku2]

Not sure I buy the 'women want to go find another guy while the one she had sex with just went to sleep' angle, and instead women tend to bond emotionally, but either way I think you are missing an entire half of the equation, which is the point of mating to begin with, and that is children.

Monogamy provides a stable unit to raise children and raises the success of the child. Women want that stability and having a 'nesting' instinct also and look for a man that can offer that.

Human babies are helpless and need a lot of focus for quite a long time relative to animals.

I only read 3 pages in, so maybe someone else mentioned something similar, but if monogamy and living in the modern one man + one woman + kids household was our default, then I could see your point...but if our true default is to live in a tribal group where the group essentially lives together and shares things, then it would make sense for the woman to have multiple partners and get the best genetics because then the "it takes a village..." saying comes into play...so I feel when a guy gets genuinely cucked, it's because he's one guy that has to take the evolutionary role of "the village".

...IMO.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

Women are born sluts who cant get enough cock. Huston 500 anyone?

Men invented marrage so women could grasp that being a slut is ungodly.

 

[Greoric]

You make a good point about women creating "the patriarchy" as they are the ones who have provided the selection mechanisms for it via their choices in male partners. In the period where I met my wife, I was in a phase of acting "arrogant" and being deliberately aloof with respect to any women who I was interested in. During marriage counseling many years later, my wife brought up what a jerk I was when we met, and I told the therapist it was because it was "common knowledge" among men to do this. I said I really liked her and this seemed to be the proven way to succeed. He smirked, and my wife was not happy to say the least.

The odd part is that's likely what attracted her to you, despite what she said or tried to rationalize later. As a general rule, I never really listen to what a girl is telling me, only how she's acting. The fact that your wife ultimately still swallowed your meat stick down her magical hole is the ultimate compliment given the risk she bared evolutionarily for choosing a "wrong partner", and I'd offer the fact that you were acting "a jerk, and being aloof" was an attractor for your wife. It very much wasn't an unattractive signal to her. I say that because those actions are all the things of what a high value male would do. Low status males don't go around dismissing female attention. They do the precise opposite. The fact that you acted like a jerk or were being hard to get was just a signal of abundance to her... Something she actually found attractive. Something she's unavoidably attracted to naturally. Hence the cliched reports about women falling for the jerk, but saying something different.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

well...ya.

As Chris Rock said, every guy that is nice to a girl is essentially offering up D. Whereas, unless you're like Ryan Gosling or some ish you're not getting that reciprocated.

 

[Greoric]

well...ya.

As Chris Rock said, every guy that is nice to a girl is essentially offering up D. Whereas, unless you're like Ryan Gosling or some ish you're not getting that reciprocated.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

whoever first tagged that Notebook scene to a women being undecided about where to eat is a Genius btw

 

[Greoric]

whoever first tagged that Notebook scene to a women being undecided about where to eat is a Genius btw

Fuuuuuuuuucking brilliant.

 

[sub_thug]

Truthfully? Because the conversation turned to evolutionary pressures for human mating decisions and that led to evolutionary pressures for other stuff.

Also...WR.

Facetiously? Because I'm setting all of you up for thread derail infractions.

Kidding...or am I?

Does the WR have entrapment rules?

 

[Rod1]

You make decent points but I stayed with a shipibo tribe in Peru for two weeks. And while they didn't have farm lands there was an absolute abundance of river fish, wild fruit, and avocados... seemed like pretty easy living compared to places with winters where you'll die without proper preparations. You don't even really have to build a house/hut out there, I slept outside on a hammoc with a mosquito net(didn't even need a blanket). Obviously all climates have their challenges but I don't see how anyone can make a case that equator living isn't significantly easier then the latter

Im not particularly knowledgable about that particular native tribes, but i doubt they can survive without agriculture.

In the end its no coincidence that higher civilization developing has been directly tied to agriculture.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Vice = alt-left propaganda wing of democrats

Advocating that women whore themselves out, which is essentially what this "research" promotes, serves a couple of different purposes for the alt-left. For one, promoting this behavior will subsequently destroy family stability, something the left relishes. Second, it could lead to either more abortions or more unwanted babies that are statistically more likely wind up jailed or on welfare - with welfare being another HUGE boon for the democrat voting block. Third, it allegedly "empowers" women while neutering men. We already see this in society with the societal enforcement of feminism of men, highlighted by the current beard/beanie/tight jeans look that these sensitive nancy boys are really proud of. A beard used to mean you could change a tire or cut down a tree. Now it means you hang out at the local poetry stage and sip on wine coolers while taking selfies with other males confused about their identity.

Research has shown that religious teens have just as much premarital sex as the general population. All that religious indoctrination does is make them feel guilty about it.

Same with pornography use, but you actually see higher consumption of porn in states like Utah and Mississippi.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

I would agree with the article if they didnt base it on the "new science" of the radical left which is doing everything backwards and with the intent of destroying the west.

The monogamy forced upon us by backwards desert skygod religions needs to go away and we need to get back to our Pagan ways which are nature based. Sex is not a sin, nor is it dirty or wrong.

 

[Greoric]

Im not particularly knowledgable about that particular native tribes, but i doubt they can survive without agriculture.

In the end its no coincidence that higher civilization developing has been directly tied to agriculture.

Not in a set location, no. That's particularly difficult, for apex predators to do anyways. A nomadic existence is more or less necessary.

The major point here, even if you want to argue the objective harshness of a climate that has 10 month long winters versus, ones that have an abundance of available biomass year round and only wet and dry seasons is that our species and our common ancestors evolved for millions of years in the latter. Only recently (tens of thousands of years) have populations of our species adapted to northern climates. Those grounds alone make those environments less hospitable at minimum for our species specifically.

There's literature out there that describes the relative sizes of prehistoric communities if you want to dig. It's not especially controversial.

 

[Rod1]

Not in a set location, no. That's particularly difficult, for apex predators to do anyways. A nomadic existence is more or less necessary.

Indeed, so the point remains the same, humans are natural hunters who followed large migratory species until they developed agriculture.

Humans are quite ill-equipped to consume the vegetal biomass of a particular enviroment, but specially the perennial forests.

The major point here, even if you want to argue the objective harshness of a climate that has 10 month long winters versus, ones that have an abundance of available biomass year round and only wet and dry seasons is that our species and our common ancestors evolved for millions of years in the latter. Only recently (tens of thousands of years) have populations of our species adapted to northern climates. Those grounds alone make those environments less hospitable at minimum for our species specifically.

Again, which climate has an "abundance" of biomass that humans are adapted to consume? we are obviously quite ill equipped for a jungle enviroment. For once we cant climb for shit, we cant eat grass or anything of the like either, if we had evolved in perennial forests we wouldnt had evolved like we did, we would had stayed as chimp-like or gorillas-like hominids..

Only recently (tens of thousands of years) have populations of our species adapted to northern climates. Those grounds alone make those environments less hospitable at minimum for our species specifically.

Hominids made several attempts to colonize winter climates, these hominids died out during major glaciations or driven out by us.

Humans also didnt colonized the northern climates until the neolithic age so we didnt "evolved" in the cold climates. Paleolithic europeans lived in the warmer parts of Europe hunting the abundant game (just like paleolithic humans everywhere) and werent really "physically" adapted to the cold, unlike the European Neandertal who did evolved physically to survive in the cold.

There's literature out there that describes the relative sizes of prehistoric communities if you want to dig. It's not especially controversial.

That doesnt validates your conclusion that cold adaptation required an innate physical brain adaptation, because several hominids managed to populate regions all over Eurasia before the coming of the modern man, and none showed levels of intelligence (as measured by the complexity of tools or the presence of arts) as the modern man, they simply adapted physically to the regions.

 

[panamaican]

Does the WR have entrapment rules?

If I told you, it would ruin the fun.

 

[Greoric]

Indeed, so the point remains the same, humans are natural hunters who followed large migratory species until they developed agriculture.

Humans are quite ill-equipped to consume the vegetal biomass of a particular enviroment, but specially the perennial forests.

Again, which climate has an "abundance" of biomass that humans are adapted to consume? we are obviously quite ill equipped for a jungle enviroment. For once we cant climb for shit, we cant eat grass or anything of the like either, if we had evolved in perennial forests we wouldnt had evolved like we did, we would had stayed as chimp-like or gorillas-like hominids..

Hominids made several attempts to colonize winter climates, these hominids died out during major glaciations or driven out by us.

Humans also didnt colonized the northern climates until the neolithic age so we didnt "evolved" in the cold climates. Paleolithic europeans lived in the warmer parts of Europe hunting the abundant game (just like paleolithic humans everywhere) and werent really "physically" adapted to the cold, unlike the European Neandertal who did evolved physically to survive in the cold.

That doesnt validates your conclusion that cold adaptation required an innate physical brain adaptation, because several hominids managed to populate regions all over Eurasia before the coming of the modern man, and none showed levels of intelligence (as measured by the complexity of tools or the presence of arts) as the modern man, they simply adapted physically to the regions.

Respectfully, you're all over the place here on a number of these objections, and you're just objecting, rather oddly, to some otherwise provisional truths about our evolutionary history.

First of all, it seems like you imagine, we speciated and then just started domesticated agriculture from day one of your speciation. That's again rather odd. We're primarily nomadic persistence hunters that evolved in a near equatorial environment, the plains of Ethiopia, Africa. Our invention of domesticating mass amounts of edible plants came much later.... as in hundreds of thousands of years later. If we weren't "equipped" for hunting and gathering, we would not be having this conversation now, friend. In fact, we've been hunter gatherer tribesmen far longer than we've been farmers.

That's one. Two, Jungle environments are in simplified terms just flatly closer to our evolutionary common ancestors' environments than the environments and challenges seen in northern climates. And yet again even just ignoring the biomass availability in jungle or similar tropic and near-tropic environments as compared to winter in northern climates, its simply more congruent of an environment with how we, the great apes, and our common ancestors evolved.

Three may be your most ignorant point, but likely just your most dishonest given the level of stupidity it would require for you to make it. That is, populations driven or pulled from Africa did NOT evolve in northern climates. (Apologies if I'm misreading that). That's so absurd you could falsify that claim by looking at the epidermis level phenotypic differences between people of European and African descent. I'm sorry, but if that's the "controversy" then you're being a rather dishonest piece of shit.

As for the cognitive differences, yes, the challenges that winters offer in northern climates are responsible for the stratified differences we see in different human populations. Without winters, and the perineal growth seasons of wild and domesticated biomass that other climates offer, the same level of deferred gratification is NOT required. To flesh that out for the honestly curious, if you have to plan in advance a portion of your surplus that's going to get you through ten months where nothing is growing and everything else you're hunting is going into starvation mode itself, then that takes some significant cognitive foresight. An amount of foresight and an evolutionary pressure, other populations of humans did not have.

That explanation is buttressed by any number of different cognitive metrics from IQ to deferred gratification that show differences between human populations. People of African descent or descendance from near tropical climates reliably demonstrate lower deferred gratification than people of European or East Asian descent in studies like the "marshmallow test". And, perhaps the most recorded differences are the mean IQ differences between and among populations that also improve that explanation.