Is monogamy really the best way to raise kids?

[Matt D]

My only issues with polyamory, is that it takes a lot of time to build trust and rapport and keep it with another person you're having children with. There just aren't enough hours in the week to share and keep that connection going with more than one person. You end up sacrificing some of that connection I think.

 

Also I'll be honest, there is no way I could share my partner sexually with another man. It just feels primal and instinctive for me to feel that way.

 

Thanks for the input, Patrick. It is instinctual. And I've thought about your first point as well. Love, like ideas, isn't strictly divisible. But time certainly is.

[Archimedes]

I definitely can't claim to be an expert on bonobos, but everything I've read (although limited) has said they are alpha male troops. That doesn't mean that males are in charge in fact most of the alpha males'...alpha-ness(??) comes from it's mother backing it up, however they are still considered to be an "alpha-male" society. You say that sex carries the same emotional value for bonobos as it does for humans, but how could something that is equivalent to a hand shake or a dollar bill be as emotional as sex is for humans?

 

Bonobos do have predators. Although not many, assuming you aren't counting humans, saying there's no predator hunting them is false. http://a-z-animals.com/animals/bonobo/ http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/chimpanzee-enemies [/qoute]

You are right about humans being their natural predators. But I don't think there are alpha male among bonobos. Your link is wrong about one alpha male living with several females. That's not the case, all wild bonobos packs have several males. Male offsprings stay with their mothers for life. If there were alphas that wouldn't be the case, as a pack with a single alpha and several females implies, that the alpha has removed the sons from the pack. It would be interesting to get the sources for that article, as it's the first time that I read somebody refering to male bonobos as alphas. 

 

I never said that sex carried the same emotional values as it does for humans. I just said that bonobos are likely to experience emotions during sex as humans do. I've never talked about the intensity of those emotions.

 

 

 

Most if not all of the parental responsibility falls to the female bonobos since the males cannot tell who is the father. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo Also, it's not only polyamory, it's everyone having sex with everyone. The  only exception is, sometimes, mother bonobos with their adult sons. My point is how do we know that the reason for their relative "peacefulness" (note relative is compared to other apes this does not mean they are entirely peaceful and even this fact is highly debated) isn't the fact that their all having sex with their children?

 

If sex with children is the reason for their peacefulness, why are tribes not hostile to each other? When two tribes meat, they usually engage in bonding through sex. It's hard to say what causes the relative peacefulness of bonobos. 

 

 

 

Finally, I did not say that poly amorous relationships could not work. The original question was "is monogamy really the best way to raise kids." This would imply one would have to compare the best case scenario of monogamy to the alternative. Thus far this has not been done. Not to mention all of the benefits that have been mentioned for polyamory can be gained without everyone sleeping together. In order to say monogamy is not the best thing for children something must be better than the best of monogamy. All of the parenting issues brought up with monogamy could (and I'm sure do) show up in polyamory so how is this solving the issues?

 

Not all benefits listened in the first post can be substituted in monogamy. If you have more than two parents looking after the child, the child is less likely to be abused. Even in extended families the parents usually have the final say and many people prefer to look away. In a promiscuous family, everyone has a stake in the raising of the kids, which would propably increase the chance of somebody confronting the child abuser. There's also the lack of trauma in children, if their parents cheat, since survival doesn't depend as much on the bonding between the biological parents as it does in monogamy. 

[PatrickC]

Thanks for the input, Patrick. It is instinctual. And I've thought about your first point as well. Love, like ideas, isn't strictly divisible. But time certainly is.

 

Yes, it's interesting because when I imagine myself sharing two women sexually then it's not a problem. At least not in the primal way I discussed earlier. Quite the opposite as you can imagine. This doesn't surprise me of course, because as a man you are potentially sowing your seed (genes) further and wider. Whereas, you are in direct competition with a man that you are sharing a woman sexually with.

 

Scientifically it's been proven that sperm deposits will remain in the womans vagina actively waiting for other mens sperm, so as to attack and kill them off before they impregnate the woman.

 

I have no particular interest in sharing two women either, because of the connection issues I mentioned earlier. But I think it's useful to acknowledge our base instincts and biology when it comes to the discussion of polyamory.

[PatrickC]

Alternatively female reproductive strategies have often been attracted to mixing within a larger and more diverse male gene pool, in order that they procur the strongest and healthiest of offspring. This is why you see women being attracted to men of different ethnicities or nationalities (tribes).

 

Polyamory probably appeals to a subset of women, because it provides many of the usual safety and resource gathering mechanisms of monogamy that women require. Whilst they can freely enjoy the fruits of a wider and more diverse male gene pool. However, it still comes with a risk attached for her, because she probably has to assuage the jealous feelings of the men in her life. She could potentially still be left entirely alone, if all her male partners decided to leave her.

 

I would say it might be cautious R strategy women that are drawn to polyamory, having seen failure in the K strategy of their parents. Likewise it could be ambivalent/insecure K strategy beta males, that are willing to risk raising chilldren that aren't their own for those risks to be offset by the increased access to potentially fertilising more females or regular shared sex with just one high qualIty (gene wise) female that they may only fertilise once. All within the confines of an assumed relationship secure zone (polyamory). This last paragraph is just my opinion of course, for what it's worth.

 

However, if my last statement is true, then this would be why I instinctively feel a distinct primal aversion to polyamory as a man. At least a polyamorous family unit that involved other men.

[J. D. Stembal]

My only issues with polyamory, is that it takes a lot of time to build trust and rapport and keep it with another person you're having children with. There just aren't enough hours in the week to share and keep that connection going with more than one person. You end up sacrificing some of that connection I think.

 

Also I'll be honest, there is no way I could share my partner sexually with another man. It just feels primal and instinctive for me to feel that way.

 

That's a valid concern, Patrick.

 

Polyamorous families often share a household together, or so I am led to believe from reading The Ethical Slut, but in practice, there is a bit of churn as junior family members arrive, stay a while, and then leave. Yes, people also advocate raising children in this often less-than-stable environment.

 

My ex-girlfriend had a fantasy where she ran a hippy commune in the mountains. This desire was expressed before we ever spoke about polyamory, so I wonder if she had designs on setting up a free love community, and I was the first step in getting it all started.

 

It was likely just a fantasy, but one that has profound implications about her feminine value system. She is the person who finally convinced me to go to Burning Man (many had tried before her) although she suggested that she may sleep around while there if I didn't escort her, which is emotionally manipulative, I realize. Plenty of polyamory and kink camps exist for a week in the Nevada desert. It's like watching Rome burn every year!

 

The moral of the story is that if a woman is purposefully engaging your natural male sexual protectiveness (jealousy, for short) you can know with certainty that you are being shit tested, and you should call the bluff.

[PatrickC]

It was likely just a fantasy, but one that has profound implications about her feminine value system. She is the person who finally convinced me to go to Burning Man (many had tried before her) although she suggested that she may sleep around while there if I escort didn't her, which is emotionally manipulative, I realize.

 

High quality genes (eggs if you prefer) from a beautiful skinny hippie chick comes as no surprise. There were probably times when I could have been tempted into a polyamorous relationship with one, pre philosophy days. Albeit would have been a temporary but terrribly sweaty affair. (with a desire and approach that avoided actual baby making)

 

Interesting that she expected you to escort her in case she strayed sexually. A way of garnering your protection and resources with the threat of being usurped by another male. Manipulative indeed.

[PatrickC]

When Stefan last mentioned the idea, he said something like "I guess women always know the children are theirs," as if it's not important to a woman whether her man sleeps with other women. I'm sure it is probably obvious, but hasn't been said explicitly: Women must worry a great deal about whether her man/men is/are having sex with other women, because to do so would produce offspring with those other women, and would mean fewer resources available and committed for her own offspring.

 

Yes this is true mellomama, but the highlighted point bilogically speaking will always compel men to be suspicious about their paternity, and especially within a polyamrous relationship, where it's openly questionable. Short of having paternity tests he will never be sure that his children are his. And if he were, what then? Women are far easier placated biologically speaking, if they know those resources are still available to them. Which presumably they are within a polyamrous relationship.

 

One of the things I believe women particularly like about polyamory is the honesty and openess about what each partner is doing with whom. This provides them the security they need, which allows them to better ignore the sex their partners are having with other women. Jealousy would only flare, if she saw a threat to her relationship with the men in her polyamrous family unit and the subsequent loss of access to their resources. Men whether they tell themselves too or not, simply cannot ignore the sex his partners are having with other men.

 

Of course this all begs the question as to whether polyamory can really work as a long term child raising strategy. I'm not sure it can, particularly if the men and women in that polyamrous group are deliberately ignoring the primal biological motivations and risks for the men in that group. Women would need to be scarse for those considerations to be reasonably ignored.

[MMX2010]

So this will appear to be completely speculative and random, but it's actually a highly educated guess. 

 

Matt D., if the woman you're dating has regular ovulatory cycles, I'm betting that she becomes increasingly withdrawn and significantly less willing to have sex with you in the two days prior and two days after the day she ovulates.  Am I right? 

[J. D. Stembal]

So this will appear to be completely speculative and random, but it's actually a highly educated guess. 

 

Matt D., if the woman you're dating has regular ovulatory cycles, I'm betting that she becomes increasingly withdrawn and significantly less willing to have sex with you in the two days prior and two days after the day she ovulates.  Am I right? 

 

Even if you live with a woman, it's not always easy to tell when she is ovulating. There are hormonal queues you can pick up on. If you want to get scientific about it, you have to physically examine her uterine secretions.

Of course this all begs the question as to whether polyamory can really work as a long term child raising strategy. I'm not sure it can, particularly if the men and women in that polyamrous group are deliberately ignoring the primal biological motivations and risks for the men in that group. Women would need to be scarse for those considerations to be reasonably ignored.

 

This explains why most polyamorous communities and clubs are matriarchal (and feminist) in nature. The men who don't play along don't get to participate.

 

Men can have a mistress on the side and keep it a secret. My brother, who is now ten, comes from just such a union. He was 18 months old when I first learned of his existence, and three when I first met him.

[Archimedes]

I don't really have much of a point on either side, except to say that I would agree it is a primal instinct to be concerned about your mate being monogamous, for both sexes. 

 

I don't think it's primal and just became important for both sexes during the last 10 000 years. There are still hunter gatherer tribes today, who don't really care about paternal identification or men having kids with other women. In those societies it's even encouraged to sleep outside your marriage and things like mate guarding are frowned upon. If it is really primal to want monogamy from your partner, than why are there tribes like that? My guess is that it depends on the economy of a society. Those tribes are very egalitarian. Everything is shared and private property doesn't exist. This results in less incentives for parents to raise parents as monogamous couple, as their are no advantages over a collective care of all children. Once you have private property, it makes sense to put all your energy in raising just your own children, to give them an advantage over others.

[PatrickC]

Those tribes are very egalitarian. Everything is shared and private property doesn't exist. This results in less incentives for parents to raise parents as monogamous couple, as their are no advantages over a collective care of all children.

 

Leftist beta males, I knew it!

[Archimedes]

This alpha/beta thing doesn't apply to humans, given that we evolved from a promiscuous species. Fun fact: Gorillas are a polygynous species and the alpha males have tiny balls and dicks smaller than my pinky. I guess you can't have everything as an alpha 

[PatrickC]

This alpha/beta thing doesn't apply to humans, given that we evolved from a promiscuous species. Fun fact: Gorillas are a polygynous species and the alpha males have tiny balls and dicks smaller than my pinky. I guess you can't have everything as an alpha 

 

Yeah that might be true. But I think it takes a beta mindset (for want of a better word) for men to be attracted to polyamory. Sharing my wife with another guy just gives me the shudders.

[Koroviev]

You are right about humans being their natural predators. But I don't think there are alpha male among bonobos. Your link is wrong about one alpha male living with several females. That's not the case, all wild bonobos packs have several males. Male offsprings stay with their mothers for life. If there were alphas that wouldn't be the case, as a pack with a single alpha and several females implies, that the alpha has removed the sons from the pack. It would be interesting to get the sources for that article, as it's the first time that I read somebody refering to male bonobos as alphas. 

Do you have sources for this info? All of these say there are alpha males.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/125-bonobos/quammen-text

http://primate.uchicago.edu/Stanford.pdf

 

I never said that sex carried the same emotional values as it does for humans. I just said that bonobos are likely to experience emotions during sex as humans do. I've never talked about the intensity of those emotions.

The amount of emotional value sex has for humans was exactly my point. If you weren't arguing against that then what was your argument?

 

It's hard to say what causes the relative peacefulness of bonobos.

This was exactly my point. Also, the "relative" peacefulness of bonobos is debatable as you can read in the articles linked above. We can discuss the social structures of bonobos all day, but this has nothing to do with raising children the main point is below.

 

Not all benefits listened in the first post can be substituted in monogamy. If you have more than two parents looking after the child, the child is less likely to be abused. Even in extended families the parents usually have the final say and many people prefer to look away. In a promiscuous family, everyone has a stake in the raising of the kids, which would propably increase the chance of somebody confronting the child abuser. There's also the lack of trauma in children, if their parents cheat, since survival doesn't depend as much on the bonding between the biological parents as it does in monogamy.

I' not sure which items you mentioned cannot be met in monogamous relationships. Aside from the ability for parents to bang more than one person, theoretically, without repercussions they all seem just as likely, arguably more likely, in monogamous relationships and you wouldn't have to worry about the intricacies that would inevitably follow everyone banging each other.

 

If I understand correctly, what you are saying here is that:

1. It is less likely or impossible for monogamous couples to live in peaceful communities or have peaceful supportive families.

2. In polyamorous relationships men have at much at stake in raising the children as they do in monogamous relationships.

3. Poly-amorous parents are less likely to abuse their children than peaceful parents.

4. Survival of children doesn't depend on biological (do you mean emotional?) bonding between their "parents" in polyamorous relationships as it does in monogamous relationships.

 

I am not against polyamorous relationships people are free to make their own choices. If people want to bang a bunch of different people that is great, but let's be honest about it and don't use the guise of "it's what is best for children."

[PatrickC]

You are making the assumption that women a) have nothing to worry about regarding resource distribution in polyamorous relationships, and b) if that is true, then any jealousy that would remain would be attributed to...what?

 

I did explain the differences between male and female jealousy in regards to polyamory specifically, if you carefully read my post again.

 

All said and done, I personally think you're probably right to assume that females will be as jealous of their male partners female partners too. Polyamory just seems like a disaster in waiting. At least in the long term.

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't think it's primal and just became important for both sexes during the last 10 000 years. There are still hunter gatherer tribes today, who don't really care about paternal identification or men having kids with other women. In those societies it's even encouraged to sleep outside your marriage and things like mate guarding are frowned upon. If it is really primal to want monogamy from your partner, than why are there tribes like that? My guess is that it depends on the economy of a society. Those tribes are very egalitarian. Everything is shared and private property doesn't exist. This results in less incentives for parents to raise parents as monogamous couple, as their are no advantages over a collective care of all children. Once you have private property, it makes sense to put all your energy in raising just your own children, to give them an advantage over others.

 

This is a great observation and probably one of the most important in the book, but the property rights angle doesn't follow. Property rights are naturally derived from the concept of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle. The fact that hunter gathers don't possess many things is because that way of life doesn't require a lot of capital to sustain, so the correlation is largely coincidence.

 

This also goes a long way in explaining why modern women say they want much different qualities in a man than their eggs want. Their eggs want tall, cute, aggressive, but not too aggressive and funny. Their bank accounts want additional zeros, but that has more to do with fiat currency and the death and debt of the modern state than anything else.

 

The argument that eggs need resources, therefore monogamy is grossly overstated from the perspective of the hunter-gather. If the child lives to the age of five, they start learning self-autonomy skills from the tribe. A woman only needs a dedicated mate or support group for that length of time. After that, it's on to the next child, probably with another mate as genetic variety in a tribe is difficult to maintain otherwise. Perhaps she will mate with male from a neighboring tribe to mix it up.

 

I would bet that in most primitive hunting societies, there is still a prohibition against rape under penalty of death, dismemberment, or worse, exile. Female sexual autonomy, or Briffault's Law, as it is often called, is at the very core of human property rights. To oppose property rights is a futile attempt at trying to make a point through self-contradiction. The only reason humans exist is because of property rights, and the will of the mind over the body.

 

The reason monogamy does not apply in primitive societies is because it is restrictive to the biological imperatives of the female. In modern society, marriage (read: serial monogamy) is a win-win for the eggs and the woman, through no-fault divorces, child support, and gaming the family court system. We may live in a more technologically-advanced society, but hypergamy will always reign as the supreme law of the land.

[PatrickC]

What I'm saying is that any potential for her man to have sex with another woman is necessary and sufficient to threaten her access to his resources. Resources are finite, and therefore any potential for her men to have children with another woman is a direct threat to the amount of resources available to her children. Kind of seems like we're saying the same thing here. Except I'm categorizing both the male and female perspective as biological, whereas you seem to think there's no female biological corollary?

 

Kind of annoying I have to repeat myself, but just letting you know, because you have mischaracterised my position twice now.

 

I'm assuming (as opposed to agreeing) of course that polyamrous relationships are just fine with multiple partners. At least supposedly so. Therefore any fear from the females in this agreement that resources would be lost due to males having other female partners would seem to be, at least on the surface, to be thourougly misplaced. Unless there was a direct risk of her being usurped from that relationship.

 

However, the reality of the situation is that women who put themselves in this position of polyamory (like your old self perhaps) are in all likelihood probably unable to distinguish between a man that says I'm yours, but I'm sharing you with this other lady will still fear the risk of losing his resources allowing jealousy to surface. This I do concede is entirely plausible and in most cases I think is probably true.

 

So I don't disagree with you. I'm just working out the kinks of those that would suggest polyamory to be a viable alternative to monogamy. Which frankly I consider as bonkers myself.

[Archimedes]

In other words, social pressure is needed to suppress the urges individuals have to guard their mates from sleeping around. I don't doubt this. Social pressure would indeed be necessary to counteract the natural instinct to protect your children from the resource-suck that results from their father having children with another woman. (And vice versa, to protect yourself as a man from the possibility of raising another man's children.)

 

 

You answered your own question. Those tribes have a socialist, r-type strategy that makes K-type mating/bonding behaviors undesirable. So they ostracize individuals following the K strategy of only having children when (the female individual) can be sure she has a monopoly on the male's resources and (the male individual) is sure he has a monopoly on the female's eggs.

 

But in those socieites women initiate the sleeping around. Take the Mosuo for example. When women become fertile, they invite a man into their house for sex. When she gets pregnant, the kid remains with her family. The father may provide some ressources for the woman's family, but he usually doesn't live with her. It's the woman's family who takes care of her and the child. So in this scenario, a woman doesn't really care if the father sleeps with another woman, as she is able to raise her kid without him. There is no jealousy which is also reflected in their language, which has no word for jealousy. 

 

However, Mosuo became serial monogamous recently, because of political pressures and incentives. But before that, they definitly engaged in promiscuity. Even after child birth women used to have multiple partners.

 

As with most organisms, you can't pin the Mosuo down to one type of r/K-mating behavior. On the one hand, they engage in promiscuity (r-selected), on the other hand, they invest many ressources in their children (K-selected). It's a false dichotomy to try to put them into one category 

 

The same thing applies to socialist hunter gatherer tribes. Just because they were egalitarian, doesn't mean they didn't invest time and energy into their kids. They had to, or otherwise their tribe would have died out. 

[MMX2010]

As with most organisms, you can't pin the Mosuo down to one type of r/K-mating behavior. On the one hand, they engage in promiscuity (r-selected), on the other hand, they invest many ressources in their children (K-selected). It's a false dichotomy to try to put them into one category 

 

The same thing applies to socialist hunter gatherer tribes. Just because they were egalitarian, doesn't mean they didn't invest time and energy into their kids. They had to, or otherwise their tribe would have died out. 

 

K-selection isn't about investing resources into your children; it's whether you "indoctrinate" them to be competitive (K) or cooperative ®. 

 

The argument that eggs need resources, therefore monogamy is grossly overstated from the perspective of the hunter-gather. If the child lives to the age of five, they start learning self-autonomy skills from the tribe. A woman only needs a dedicated mate or support group for that length of time. After that, it's on to the next child, probably with another mate as genetic variety in a tribe is difficult to maintain otherwise. Perhaps she will mate with male from a neighboring tribe to mix it up.

 

The more nuanced (and accurate) argument that Stefan (I think) is leading to in his r/K arguments is, "Civilization needs competitive-based behaviors, and civilization is better than any primitive egalitarian society (the bonobos), therefore monogamy." 

[Archimedes]

K-selection isn't about investing resources into your children; it's whether you "indoctrinate" them to be competitive (K) or cooperative ®. 

 

 

Most species need to be both competitive and cooperative to succeed in their society. That's why most species don't fit the binary r/K-narrative. 

 

http://www.britannica.com/science/K-selected-species

"K-selected species possess relatively stable populations and tend to produce relatively low numbers of offspring; however, individual offspring tend to be quite large in comparison with r-selected species. K-selected species are characterized by long gestation periods lasting several months, slow maturation (and thus extended parental care), and long life spans. In addition, they tend to inhabit relatively stablebiological communities, such as late-successional or climax forests "

 

This applies to hunter gatherer societies.

 

The more nuanced (and accurate) argument that Stefan (I think) is leading to in his r/K arguments is, "Civilization needs competitive-based behaviors, and civilization is better than any primitive egalitarian society (the bonobos), therefore monogamy." 

 

Elephants engage in polygyny and yet they are still labeled as K-selected. Monogamy is not a requirement for K-selection. People also have different opinions about civilization being better than primitive egalitarian socities, especially those who currently live in those socities. There exist cases where researchers went off and lived among hunter gatherers for the rest of their lives. Stef may prefer civilization, but so what, he's just a guy on the internet. 

[J. D. Stembal]

The more nuanced (and accurate) argument that Stefan (I think) is leading to in his r/K arguments is, "Civilization needs competitive-based behaviors, and civilization is better than any primitive egalitarian society (the bonobos), therefore monogamy." 

 

If you could show me where that argument was made, I would appreciate it.

 

The argument doesn't make sense to me because if civilization was deemed as better by the tribe, they would get on a train and go find it. There is a reason hunter-gathers still exist. It is because they value the lifestyle.

[MMX2010]

Most species need to be both competitive and cooperative to succeed in their society. That's why most species don't fit the binary r/K-narrative. 

 

Elephants engage in polygyny and yet they are still labeled as K-selected. Monogamy is not a requirement for K-selection. People also have different opinions about civilization being better than primitive egalitarian socities, especially those who currently live in those socities. There exist cases where researchers went off and lived among hunter gatherers for the rest of their lives. Stef may prefer civilization, but so what, he's just a guy on the internet. 

 

Stef isn't the only one who prefers civilization.  You prefer it, too.  If you didn't you'd live among a hunter gatherer tribe and/or have sex according to bonobo rules. 

 

As for the researchers who aren't quite sure whether they prefer civilization, they're free to live among hunter-gatherers and/or to have sex according to bonobo rules, but they'll be competed against by those who prefer civilization. 

If you could show me where that argument was made, I would appreciate it.

 

The argument doesn't make sense to me because if civilization was deemed as better by the tribe, they would get on a train and go find it. There is a reason hunter-gathers still exist. It is because they value the lifestyle.

 

I didn't say that Stefan has made that argument, I'm predicting that he'll eventually make it in parts two or three, probably part three. 

[Mister Mister]

Scientifically it's been proven that sperm deposits will remain in the womans vagina actively waiting for other mens sperm, so as to attack and kill them off before they impregnate the woman.

 Fascinating!!! You have links?

[MMX2010]

 Fascinating!!! You have links?

 

Google "sperm wars". 

[Archimedes]

Stef isn't the only one who prefers civilization.  You prefer it, too.  If you didn't you'd live among a hunter gatherer tribe and/or have sex according to bonobo rules. 

 

How about you stop speaking for me? You don't know what social sexual behavior I prefer, so don't act like you do. 

[MMX2010]

How about you stop speaking for me? You don't know what social sexual behavior I prefer, so don't act like you do. 

 

I can guess.    And if I'm wrong. you can tell me that I'm wrong. 

 

In my experience, only MGTOWs are uncertain whether they prefer civilization or natural, primitive, paleolithic living. 

[Archimedes]

You didn't guess. You said that I prefer civilization. That's a very immature discussion style. As is trying to shift the topic towards the private life of your discussion partner. 

[AncapFTW]

Isn't it a false dichotomy to say "either you want modern society or you want to be a prehistoric hunter-gatherer"?

 

What if I prefer the bronze age, or the Renascence?  What if someone wants an altered version of the modern society?

 

You're also assuming that "civilization" means the modern form, as if you couldn't have modern tech and standard of living without monogamy.  I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion logically.

[PatrickC]

 Fascinating!!! You have links?

 

Sperm Wars as already mentioned. But I got most of my learning around this topic from Richard Dawkins books, 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Extended Phenotype'. Although some of his ideas have been rebutted quite well so I hear, but I've yet to read them. But these books are still a good starter into gene theory.

[J. D. Stembal]

I can guess.    And if I'm wrong. you can tell me that I'm wrong. 

 

In my experience, only MGTOWs are uncertain whether they prefer civilization or natural, primitive, paleolithic living. 

 

If one is posting on here, the preference is likely for a free and voluntary society. Which society is closer to that goal?

[Matt D]

I think an important question to ask in all of this is whether polyamory is necessarily synonymous with R reproductive strategy. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that r/k strategy is mainly to do with the amount of time and resources parents invest in their children, not strictly with the number of partners they have. I understand that most people consider polyamory to be the same as sexual promiscuity, but if you decided to commit to several partners rather than one would that not be even more of a K reproductive strategy than monogamy because suddenly your children have even more parents and even more resources at their disposal?

 

I just want to make sure that we aren't conflating two different things when using r/k strategies and poly/monogamy interchangeably.

[Archimedes]

I think you are right Matt. That's why Elephants are still labeled as K-selected, even though they have polygyny. 

[J. D. Stembal]

I think an important question to ask in all of this is whether polyamory is necessarily synonymous with R reproductive strategy. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that r/k strategy is mainly to do with the amount of time and resources parents invest in their children, not strictly with the number of partners they have. I understand that most people consider polyamory to be the same as sexual promiscuity, but if you decided to commit to several partners rather than one would that not be even more of a K reproductive strategy than monogamy because suddenly your children have even more parents and even more resources at their disposal?

 

I just want to make sure that we aren't conflating two different things when using r/k strategies and poly/monogamy interchangeably.

 

The confusion is being caused by assuming that humans are r-strategists and not K. We are one of the most K species on the planet. It has to do with our cranial capacity, which allows us to have these wonderful conversations. Whether we practice polyamory, or have gigantic harems of males or females, we are still K.

 

We cannot breed at a geometric rate, we live so long that multiple generations can live together, we have no natural predators, and we have the ability to influence our habitats (build shelters) to make them far more forgiving than they normally would be, thus decreasing the mortality rate significantly.

 

Humans are the epiphany of K-strategy!

[Matt D]

The confusion is being caused by assuming that humans are r-strategists and not K. We are one of the most K species on the planet. It has to do with our cranial capacity, which allows us to have these wonderful conversations. Whether we practice polyamory, or have gigantic harems of males or females, we are still K.

 

We cannot breed at a geometric rate, we live so long that multiple generations can live together, we have no natural predators, and we have the ability to influence our habitats (build shelters) to make them far more forgiving than they normally would be, thus decreasing the mortality rate significantly.

 

Humans are the epiphany of K-strategy!

 

I agree with you if you're comparing human beings to other animals. I'm more interested in using the terms to compare individual human beings to each other.

[MMX2010]

You didn't guess. You said that I prefer civilization. That's a very immature discussion style. As is trying to shift the topic towards the private life of your discussion partner. 

 

I've read more about r/K than you.  The blogger who introduced me to it is The Anonymous Conservative, who has a much better grasp of r/K than does Stefan.  AC uses r/K selection to generalize about people with heavily r-selected personalities versus people with heavily K-selected personalities. 

 

I just picked up on your form-of-argumentation and find you to be a very r-selected individual. 

 

Based on that, I made a prediction.  If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong - but calling it "immature" to make those predictions is a very r-selected personality trait. 

If one is posting on here, the preference is likely for a free and voluntary society. Which society is closer to that goal?

 

This current one, wherein women have maximum sexual, economic, and personal freedom to maximally satisfy their own hypergamy.  MGTOWs are against such a society, because they're on the short end of satisfying a woman's hypergamy - so they're actually against a free and voluntary society in practice, even though they claim to be for a free and voluntary society in principle. 

 

Too many MGTOWs have a secret (or not-so-secret) desire to see the entire world economy collapse so that women will behave better.  But if the entire world economy were to collapse, only around 30% of men would be able to procreate; the rest would die in war or live a long, genetic death as slaves because they're not muscular / aggressive enough to defeat the warlord men who would arise during a massive economic collapse. 

 

To summarize, the best possible society is one that is r-selected in sexuality but K-selected in reproduction.  Naturally, in such a society, the women behave like hypocrites - but they behave like hypocrites in a very predictable manner, so the wise man just comports himself along women's hypocritical expectations. 

I think an important question to ask in all of this is whether polyamory is necessarily synonymous with R reproductive strategy. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that r/k strategy is mainly to do with the amount of time and resources parents invest in their children, not strictly with the number of partners they have. I understand that most people consider polyamory to be the same as sexual promiscuity, but if you decided to commit to several partners rather than one would that not be even more of a K reproductive strategy than monogamy because suddenly your children have even more parents and even more resources at their disposal?

 

No! 

 

In polyamorous societies, the majority of people are lazy, because r-selected societies eschew competition. 

 

Which of these would a child rather have: (1) five "father figures" and five "mother figures" all of whom are slothful, or (2) Stefan as a father and Christina as a mother? 

 

Stefan is Stefan chiefly because of his K-selected competitiveness and welfare queens are welfare queens because of their relative lack of K-selected competitiveness. 

 

The desire to defeat other people in competition is what makes a person r-selected or K-selected.  And most people in modern society are r-selected due to their unwillingness to directly face competitors in win/lose interactions, preferring instead to "out-compete" other individuals through indirect gossip and outright slander.  Twitter wars and outrage culture are for fat, lazy, non-competitive people - and their ubiquity tells you all you need to know about modern America's character and toughness. 

 

An r-selected society is one comprised of r-selected individuals: (whiny, self-centered, arrogant, entitled, lazy, constantly over-rating both their personal skills and ability to control others, status seeking rather than accomplishment driven), while a K-selected society is comprised of K-selected individuals: (ruthlessly competitive but honest, physically fit, willing to fight, hard-working, resourceful, intelligent, and accomplishment-seeking over status-seeking).