Monogamy - the social construct of intimately pairing one woman with exactly one man is the far dominating moral compass for westernized sexuality.
But why does monogamy exist and why do the vast majority of men crave it?
If you ask the general public, Common answers include:
- The reduction of sexually transmitted diseases
- The importance of a persistent father figure in a child’s life
- Religious Obedience
Maybe some of these reasons are valid to a certain extent - (although I personally disagree )- none of them are truly the driving factor of monogamous cultures.
So what’s the real reason?
Most males of any species - including our own - are ‘betas’ or non-elite sexual competitors. This is not a diss or a sweeping generalization. Since the Alpha/Beta paradigm is based off of comparison, where we define Alpha’s as the top performers (estimated 10-20%) and betas as ‘everyone else’, it is by definition not possible to have a population where most members are alphas.
One of the most driving urges in any male - no matter how Alpha or Beta - is a desire to mate. There are many other things in life to enjoy as well, but it is most certainly impossible to have a completely satiated or ‘happy’ male who does not ever have access to a sexual partner.
However, in non societal nature like early humans or bonobos monkeys - only the alpha’s have the privilege of mating. Or in other words, 20% of the males get all the sex, and the other 80% get to watch from the sideline.
As you can imagine, this was probably pretty a huge fucking bummer and downright depressing for the betas (again, 80% majority of early men). Traditionally the response of a beta man was probably like that of a beta male any other species - risk it’s life at climbing the ranks or ‘wondering off’ to find a new population subset where he could be In the top 20%, and therefore had mating rights. (Fun fact, this is how most male mammals behave when reaching sexual maturity).
But then, sometime in history, something amazing happened for the beta man - the concept of societies - or a group of people living together with agreed upon rules.
In order for a society to be successful, it’s purposed rules needed to attract a large majority of the people that would provide food, shelter, and protection. Without these providers, a community would be susceptible to famine, natural disasters, and war. Not surprisingly, these provider roles were best filled by the bigger, stronger gender -men.
So if you’re following, in order to have a successful society, the rules of the society had to be designed in a way that would be attractive enough to encourage a lot of men to join. Remember that for any naturally dispersed group of people, 80% of the men that needed to be convinced to join were betas, unsatisfied with their inability to find a mate.
As a result, one of the most attractive recruitment tactics a potential society could make was any set of rules that promised beta men the Holy Grail that is mating rights.
A common manifestation of this was early, simple concepts of monogamy:
- Each caveman get one cavewoman.
- No sleep with other caveman’s woman
- Cavewoman not allowed to survive on own - must have caveman
Looking carefully at these basic monogamy rules, we can see that they are very heavily designed in favor of a beta male, and are actually quite a bit of a nuisance for the Alpha who now can only sleep with a fraction of the women he used to, and pretty terrible for women who would rather share an alpha than have a beta to herself or keep her legs closed until an alpha came along.
What’s fascinating is that even in 2017, the dynamic remains the same:
Monogamy is total bummer for women and Alphas - who are therefor prone to violating it or at the very least unphased by it’s destruction, and betas are doing everything they can to preserve it and are ‘disgusted’ or panicked as society continues to move away from it.
In conclusion, and more introspectively, I think a lot of us still transitioning need to realize that the rules we hate women and ‘Chads’ for breaking, are rules that are very unappealing to them to begin with. And of course most importantly, we should take this as yet another reminder that monogamy is an egalitarianism social construct that is very different than the natural way.
2comment 8y ago
More like can't, rather than not allowed. Some omnipresent Patriarchy didn't reign cavefrau in, reality did. She's weaker, less coordinated, and really has no point existing as an independent strong womyn other than dying alone at the end of her professional cave career.
Monogamy is quite simply the building block of tribes and we are first and foremost a tribal species, dunbar's number suggests we were in groups of 150 MAX or so for best cohesion.
The thing is, you can have a lion's pride of 1-3 males (usually brothers) dominating a larger flock of women. But what happens when fighting with another tribe breaks out? That human harem would get it's ass whooped and all the females go to the stronger tribe and the males killed. Nada.
Now you have a tribe that has 3 females getting gangbanged by a bunch of dudes. Tribe dies out as its numbers can't be replenished the next generation. The most aggressive, possessive males who pushed their way to the front of the line and took control of the women pass on their genes and their offspring will do likewise, swinging the pendulum back the other way.
Like it or not, society was also built up with the pairing off game. Men without women is a formula for rebellion and anarchy. Women without men are destitute.
An alpha in a tribal society might get several more women longterm, but his harem cannot be too topheavy in comparison with the surrounding population before he alienates the men he needs and digs his own downfall. In a tribe of 150, he cannot take 15 potential women out of the pool, essentially out of reach from 15 single men because those 15 disgruntled men will become way more motivated towards violence than the 134 people that mildly support the leader and might protect him in a half-hearted way.
Now, there will also always be a certain amount of fudging by individuals to get the best deal possible from the basic system but two things made humans, our increasing brains and our groups and the two elements evolved jointly (along with hands and speech). There is a reason major human societies always has this family structure and that's because society is a racial construct and takes the form in line with our basic biology.
The problem with the idea of the alpha male as the all-dominating force that can bend reality to his will is that it ignores the power dynamics of groups and that most individuals without prospects within a group will withdraw from it. I don't care what anybody says, there is no uberman alpha Rambo that exists that can take on the power of 100 betas if it came to life and death and the betas were incentivize to work together. An alpha without a group is called a sigma, and lonewolfing is cool and all, but highly at risk. An alpha within a group can take some largesse for himself but has to leave enough to make everyone else happy enough to want to keep working with him.
[deleted] 8y ago
Sounds pretty much like something Jordan Peterson would say. Also reminds me of a story (forgot where I heard it now) where soldiers shot their own own group leaders (not familiar with army ranks) that were being tyrannical during gunfire and blamed it on the enemy. Sure a tyrant can rule for a while but it's only a matter of time till someone or some group finds a means to bring him down. The desire for revenge and "getting even" is a very powerful human force. There's a huge correlation (0.7) between criminality and income inequality (my guess is any inequality in general but it's hard to quantify).
cuntrolbot 8y ago
Thanks for dropping some truth bombs here. Play out the warring tribes game for a million years or so and you get what you see: relatively monogamous mating. Extra pair paternity in modern hunter gatherers, and estimated in our ancestors, is around 10%. It isn't nothing, but far from only the top 20% mating. It hurts that I might be part of the losing end of the evolutionary equation (polygynist) but all things considered it is a good time to be an outlier.
Manreforged 8y ago
Your point about incels getting violent - I wonder if that's what causes so much of the conflict in the middle east.
Victorboris1 8y ago
Yep, and also why they fuck goats constantly as well as young boys. It's not a stereotype btw, ask any US mil veteran from the middle east and they'll confirm.
[deleted] 8y ago
[deleted]
Spibas 8y ago
That's hillarious how simple it is, yet they still fall for it.
Mr-Ed209 8y ago
I like what Jordan Peterson said on that Rogan podcast in regards to the death of 'religious values'.
Something along the lines of...
'there's a reason all societies and religions worship the 'virgin bride', because societies that did not died'
Monogomy didn't come to exist because it's kind to 'beta males'. It's because it was the most successful way for society to breed on mass with the most children reaching adulthood. Without it, women would give birth to 'alpha' children with no man to provide resources through the kids upbringing. Even in today's world of 'strong independent women' the strain of giving birth and looking after a kid is not possible while working a full time job. Or, more it is.. but it's a terrible existence.
We're seeing the decline occuring rapidly before our eyes. Although the superstition of faith has been on the out for sometime. The neglect of it's traditions (marriage) has been slower because fundamentally people understand it's importance.
The west will be overtaken by societies which value 'traditional' family life such as China - it's already happening. In 20 years this mid 20s western generation may very well be largely childless. It's men are already depressed, it's women will be more so when they pass 'the wall'.
And in 10 - 20 years we will likely see a counter movement back to traditional standards as kids see the misfortune of forgoing the 'family route'.
wasabichilifireworks 8y ago
I prefer monogamy to "spinning plates" for a few reasons.
1) More sex. I can have sex 3 times a day, every day while in a monogamous relationship. No way I can get that spinning plates. And dealing with the drama of multiple women. Hell no.
2) Meaningful emotional connection. Which consequently makes the sex even better.
3) Kinkier sex. It usually takes a while to become open enough to share your weird sexual fantasies with a partner. Less likely with a plate.
So yeah. Basically more, better sex and less drama.
Of course I'm not sure I could say the same about marriage. Sex will get boring eventually no matter what, and living together can really dampen the mood.
I personally think serial monogamy is the best answer for both men and women.
[deleted] 8y ago
Agreed, tho, I am biased because I am married lol
Alpha_Jedi 8y ago
Always ask the question who wrote the rules?
max_peenor 8y ago
Ding ding ding.
Monogamy was designed to help the ruling class. It promoted tranquility among men, since most had access to sex.
scissor_me_timbers00 8y ago
It enhances group fitness above other civs. So the ruling classes could effectively harness the underclasses to create a functional society capable of out competing others
PLUTOKRAT 8y ago
Boom. Indeed. Polygamy results in the same scenario we see in economics, we get all what we deserve, but we are invidious of those that have more than us... To put it in other words, monogamy is communism in male female relationships.
mwobuddy 8y ago
Jordan peterson says Polyamorous cultures are more violent on average to monogamous cultures.
Of course the powers that be would ensure every guy has a wet hole, if without it they start killing right and left.
It also explains the higher suicide rate of men, presuming that suicide is simply violent outbursts directed against the self.
Suicide is actually a highly moral violent outburst at lack of sex or anything else in your life compared to the alternative of blaming others and murdering them.
PLUTOKRAT 8y ago
I don' know who J peterson is and I dont care. But I'm pretty sure he has read that fact on some evolutionary biology and/pr psych article or book. And thats true... The analogy is that polygyny is like wealth accumulation by the top 1-10%. Not all males would have multiple females in a polygamous society, and some males (with no resources) risk not having a female at all. That is thought to have generated envy among some males and could have generated conflict. But on the othwr hand dara shows that we are just mildly polygamous (the Gorillas being polygamous more than we biologically are)...
Some argue that polygamous societies favour females because all of them would have a male. But some males risk not having females at all.
[deleted]
au80022 8y ago
I think prostitution should be legal.
binarynightmare 8y ago
it's already soooo fucking close to being legal/non consequential with the sugar community and high end evening companionship.
Of course, like marijuanna, until it's fully legal you're always going to face some stigma for enjoying it and overpay for it.
MattyAnon Admin 8y ago
Right.... agree with your post.
Yes, but it's in a mythologised form.
Monogamy means "single partner". But women do not use monogamy to mean "single partner". For women, it means "one partner at a time until I branch-swing to the next one".
In other words, serial monogamy at her discretion.
Marriage is has now been diluted to mean the same thing: exclusive monogamy until she decides otherwise for whatever reason.
Now you could argue that men do the same thing, and you would be completely wrong if you did. Men actually commit. Men invest in relationships. Men put in more than women, and women take more out. In short men BENEFIT women in relationships. Men get nothing out other than perhaps sex, and female company (you may count this as a benefit ... or not).
This is born out by the statistics - women usually end marriages (70% on the papers, almost certainly the remaining 30% that is submitted by men is at the encouragement of the woman).
Women usually end non-marital long term relationships too.
In short... as a man... serial monogamy means you're a stepping stone until she finds an upgrade.
The most extreme version (and reason it's a terrible idea) is the AF/BB of her fucking Chad until she's 30 and then roping in Billy Beta after that. Telling him "I'm not that girl any more" and "of course I love you, we're monogamous!".
It's a very strange use of the word monogamy where a woman can fuck 50 guys and then imply she is virtuous because she only did one at a time. Apart from the threesomes. Yet this is what the Blue Pill world would have us believe... that serial monogamy is the same thing as true monogamy, and that this somehow has some sort of meaning.
TL;DR: Humans are not monogamous, serial monogamy is temporary, most people cheat, be extremely careful of the costs, the opportunity costs, the backsliding and the level of your investment that is involved in any form of 'monogamy'.
binarynightmare 8y ago
Yes, the modern implementation monogamy is really kind of a joke, because there are no consequences for violating it. And like any rule without consequence for breaking, those who are negatively impacted by it will break it as soon as they get the chance (women, alphas).
Yes, leaving your husband for chad is 'wrong', but you can do so without any consequence - legally, ethically, etc.
Yes, sleeping with 20 dudes before you get married is "wrong", but you won't be shunned from society or barred from later hopping on the monogamy track.. and there will be plenty of people celebrating as you wear white on your wedding.
Yes, fucking all of your friends girlfriends makes you a jackass, but the neighborhood doesn't hold him down as you bash his head in, and within a week everyone could give less of a shit.
[deleted] 8y ago
There was a wicked commercial on the radio on my way home from the dojo. It was basically "marriage is a scared contract.....that 1 party can break any time. We defend men when she does."
So far, so good......
The very next commercial was some dude bitching about his clothing selection, and his wife talks him into some damned scheme where your clothes are chosen for you and shipped to your house, "so you can have time to do the things you love"....at the same time, she said "antiquing!" and he says "golfing!" before sheepishly correcting himself to "antiquing."
Houston, we have a problem. At least I enjoy sports from the point of view of an active athlete, however recreational. Far better than from the point of view of avoiding hen pecking and imagining that you're part of some team. You're not.
And as is well accepted around here, plate spinning is a reasonable response to branch swinging.
MattyAnon Admin 8y ago
Yeah, women have convinced men that "men and women are the same and equal therefore men are wrong and should do as they are told".
It's weird, fucked up, and universal.
Exactly.
drty_pr 8y ago
Where your theory falls short, is how monogamy has helped our species advance to a point where you can sit on a mobile phone and debate such a topic.
Monogamy is the sole reason humanity has advanced to where it is today.
Let's look a little deeper:
You say how the "top 20%" did the breeding, while the other 80% sat around jerking off. Do you think that children were dubbed alpha/beta through circle wrestling matches and forever held that title? Alpha was a badge that was earned through hardship and kept through hardship. The bottom 80 were constantly vying to enter the top 20. This put our alphas at great risk of being mortally wounded.
A lot of the alphas were amazing leaders. Even after they weren't as alpha as they were. Having to not worry about a mid level young rogue male sneaking into his tent at night, sticking a sharpened stick into his neck and raping his bitches; this allowed him to focus on the general advancement of his tribe.
Likewise, a lot of the betas were very innovative. They were figuring out ways to survive all the time without having the physical strength to complete with top level males. Yet they were restricted in there level of productivity, due to their instinctual need to reproduce. When he had a female of his own, he was able to focus on more efficient ways to farm and fish. Thus, helping the general advancement of his tribe.
Obviously, the females weren't as attracted to the beta as the alpha, but she was smart enough to know that a strong tribe, helped ensure the survival of her offspring more than strong genetics of a high level alpha. So by breeding with a sub-level male, she too helped the general advancement of her tribe.
Edit: The female didn't always see the importance fo this system. So rules had to be put in place to ensure her hypergamy stay kept in check.
The desire to fuck the high end alphas dates back to pre monogamy (Read most of human existence and the primates we came from. Even further back actually). You can't eliminate hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary instinct, by 10,000 years (give or take) of theistic monogamy. That's not hownit works.
With that said, without monogamy, we never would have escaped barbarainism. We would have been left in the state of disorganized anarchy that always existed.
What we are seeing now, is that our species has advanced to a point where monogamy isn't as necessary. It's very easy for a female to have 3 babies by 3 daddies and have both the dads and uncle Sam (read you and me) pay for her bastard children. It's also easy for an RP aware man to fully take advantage of this failure in society.
Sometimes I feel like we are all just sitting around waiting for the collapse of our species due to feminism, but I guess I digress...
BlackJ1 8y ago
This is an interesting concept when it comes to the Alpha/Beta paradigm. No matter how civilized we "act" it all comes down to our biological instinct and nature.
Men need sex, and I believe that if the bottom 80% of men were denied sex they wouldn't do anything to improve or make society better. They would just be hedonists. It's in society's best interest to make the bottom 80% of men believe they at least have a "chance" at getting sex.
binarynightmare 8y ago
oh for sure... i have no statistics to back it up but I would imagine that many incidents of both depression and sexual crimes are correlated to level of sexual desperation in men.
segagaga 8y ago
Not to mention the overwhelming numbers of men who commit suicide, particularly in the 35-45 range.
theubes 8y ago
If it helps, depression is very low in traditional hunter-gatherer societies compared with modern ones (source). They are also pretty promiscuous.
BlackJ1 8y ago
This is the truth that society doesn't want to hear or talk about. If you look at any man who has chronic depression, committed suicide, or kills others has either had sexual or social failure. Even though Elliot Rodgers has become somewhat a meme, I do think it's relevant to point out that if he was sexually successful I highly doubt he would have done what he did.
This isn't rocket science. Sex is need for men. It's at the bottom(Physiological needs) of Maslow's hierarchy of needs where food, water, sleep, and etc. are.
mwobuddy 8y ago
That's true. That doesn't excuse reprehensible behavior in the moral/social model of not harming others, but people will see any suggestion that 'if he'd just gotten laid he wouldn't have murdered' means that women should put out for men in order not to die, aka 'entitlement'.
The problem I have with NiceGuy and PUA claims by women is that women feel entitled to sex (ever say no to one? JFC), and can't handle rejection, especially sexual rejection.
They IMMEDIATELY spiral into depression if a guy doesn't want to fuck her. And then they demand men not feel the same.
BlackJ1 8y ago
I'm not excusing his behavior nor do I believe men are entitled to sex no more than they are to food, water, or sleep. I'm just pointing out how the lack of sex has adverse effects on men which society tries so hard to deny or cover up.
[deleted] 8y ago
fact. a little of it is slightly incomplete though.
betas who have a family to provide for will go out and produce abundance into society. this is why married men on average make more than unmarried men. they have to in order to support their harpy and demonspawn. from a government's perspective, this is beneficial because more people producing = more tax base, more GDP.
women go after the top 10-20% of available men. when you have monogamy, women still chase after the top available men, but those men are removed from the market to get sex. guys who were lower in the original rankings now become the top 10-20% of available men. they pair off, and this repeats many times over a decade, and 80%+ of a generation gets married.
at some point, women wanted sexual liberation, and the government figured out that if women are working, they can be taxed too. what the government jackshits didn't expect was that 84% of women would still overwhelmingly want to get the fuck out of the workplace, and so instead of working, they'd just divorce rape the baby daddies. the government has to keep the system going, so the gov ran with a series of decisions that effectively force betas into subservience. that's why the sexes break up non-marital relationships 50/50, but add in marriage and suddenly 70% of divorces are filed by women, 80% as no fault (meaning he did nothing wrong), and over 93% of divorces (depends on the state) result in the man paying the woman. virtually all net-positive taxpayers in every western country are males. most women never go net positive in their lives, and the ones who do usually only do for a short period before falling back deep negative.
so now without monogamy, women still pursue the same top men which allows top men to have harems. this continues for top men indefinitely, and for women, until they crash into the wall and get baby rabies, hunting down betas to divorce rape. many of these women failed, and the failure rate is only going up as betas realize this is a shitty deal. case in point: marriage rate is in freefall, birth replacement rate is in freefall. and because they can't lock down the top men, they instead whine about "where have all the good men gone" and pursue sologamy, where middle aged single women are "marrying" themselves now. with monogamy off the table, men have 3 options... become alpha chad, go mgtow, or get divorce raped and pick again.
ehcolston2 8y ago
You should read Blackdragon's blog, he has a lot of good information on how to be in non-monogamous relationships with women.
Teenrug 8y ago
Disagreed. Monogamy exists to make societies productive. Organizers of Christianity realized this and thus encouraged it. Also you mean Chimps not Bonobos. Everyone has sex with everyone in Bonobos groups and therefore the males are sedated and it's matriarchal. Societies where harems are encouraged stay primitive and uncivilized, look at Natives and Arabs.
Being with one woman while you have options is hard. But doing so gives you control over your sexuality and the ability to focus on bigger things and ideas. Sexual transmutation is what Monogamy is also after. Otherwise we will just fuck like animals and lose our drive to create. This would revert us back in time. Monogamy may achieve the things you are saying but they are not the main focus. Being a beta doesn't matter if the women you're with is submissive due to societal pressures. She will put out because it's her duty.
Don't try to justify a meaningless existence with flawed models. If contraception didn't exist, indulging in this kind of lifestyle would be much riskier since you are at a higher risk of having offspring. Alphas could fuck as many women as they wanted because the group could take care of the offspring. Now it's just irresponsible.
scissor_me_timbers00 8y ago
It didn't start w Christianity tho dude
[deleted] 8y ago
[deleted]
binarynightmare 8y ago
exactly! i prefer the term egalitarianism, but same thing. Everyone gets 'one'.
[deleted] 8y ago
YOure right OP
It was for the better. Society was more stable.
[deleted] 8y ago
[deleted]
ehcolston2 8y ago
You don't actually need to be hitting on women all the time if you ask your other women to help you get other women.
[deleted] 8y ago
So, sleeping with other guy's girls then. You agree it's the same principle I assume. Because in my experience I've been the other guy on more than one occasion, and these girls would all be like "I feel bad because he's so good to me" before I go for insertion, and the moment after, they're fucking my brains out. It speaks volumes to back up your Rules vs. Nature argument.
My goal is to be high enough SMV that I can continue fucking girls left and right, and then if a great one comes along that likes what I'm all about, then maybe we both realize we're closely matched in SMV and that would be a healthy dynamic for an LTR. That's why I lift, and I'm about to go to medical school, and I've been with more women than 94% of guys my age. If you want to be at the top, it takes fucking work if you're not a social natural at it all.
[deleted] 8y ago
Monogamy was designed to help society, it was a way to give betas a stake (wife/kids) into society and harness their productivity.
See Japans "herbivore men".
[deleted] 8y ago
....the whole time not realizing that the reason their wife is fucking better is because she is getting properly railed out by someone else.
[deleted] 8y ago
monogamy was a thin veil to ensure you did not pay for another mans kid, as much as possible.
everything else is masturbation
scissor_me_timbers00 8y ago
Nah there's more to it than just that. Both male and female sexuality are resources, but in different ways. Monogamy harnesses both.
[deleted] 8y ago
Yes but it was not designed
binarynightmare 8y ago
I think monogamy helps prevent this, but i don't think this is the primary reason. In the natural order of things the top 20% produce all the offspring, unlikely that there were a large majority of men with that as a primary concern since they probably didn't have the opportunity to produce offspring outside of monogamy.
[deleted] 8y ago
so you think the other 20% of men who are stronger just let them have women? nah dude. not how it works.
binarynightmare 8y ago
yes of course. As I mentioned it wasn't a matter of giving them the women or the the beta's taking the women... It was a group of people wanting to join together for collaboration against natural disasters, war with other groups, famine, etc. In order to keep the beta men stationary in the communities' geo location and actively contributing to the cause, it was important to provide satiation for his desire to mate.
[deleted] 8y ago
you are thinking too much.
desire can not be negotiated with land or titles or safety. Fucking can. Desire? its not for the betas.
humanity always had the 1%'ers who could manipulate people, work them over, for their own good.
The average person was too busy staying alive to care about setting up a system for getting pussy.
blackedoutfast 8y ago
the world was a much more rapey and murdery place back then. i know they's that statistic about how most men didn't produce any offspring, but that's not because they were awkward incels sitting in their caves playing videya games all day hoping for the invention of marriage. they didn't have women throwing themselves at them like the ur-Chads, but the real problem for the reproductive losers ended up getting murdered before they had a chance to produce kids.
society traded away natural male and female sexual freedom for marriage. in return, men didn't have to worry as much about being cucks and spending their wealth for the benefit of another man's DNA. and women were able to lock down a long-term provider for herself and her children even after looks faded.
eventually (in the early- to mid-20th century) women were able to manipulate men into giving them the power become providers themselves. once they had this power and were no longer completely reliant on the marriage system, women sexually liberated themselves and have slowly returned to more natural mating patterns (AF/BB).
men also have the choice to sexually liberate themselves, and some do so. but many men are afraid of having to compete in the natural sexual marketplace, so they double down on the marriage paradigm and focus on the alleged benefits like steady sex for the bottom 80%.
the problem is that it's too late. they're worried about the decline, but the old system is already gone. you can talk about those of us who are "enjoying the decline" but the fact is it's already happened. we are really just men who have accepted the new reality and chosen to.sexually liberate ourselves to compete unhindered. like it or not we are ALL competitors in the same sexual marketplace. if you want to succeed, accept that things like AF/BB and hypergamy are the driving forces and learn how to become the best competitor in the real world. it doesn't matter how much you wish we were all living under marriage 1.0 or the traditional patriarchy or whatever. trying to play by the old rules is an inefficient strategy.
NeoreactionSafe 8y ago
How many children do you want?
Ten?
You can achieve that with one woman. (monogamy)
If you were Alpha you would have multiple wives and over 100 children.
That's a lot of mouths to feed, but if you are an Alpha socially (the King) you could afford it.
Or to be Mormon in the old days. (not today)
binarynightmare 8y ago
right, especially considering the fact that in early humans affording it meant food, shelter, protection -- not disney cruises, wifi, student loans and all the other 'basic necessities' that were created through marketing under the pretense of monogamy.
NeoreactionSafe 8y ago
And $50,000 weddings.
In the old days you just went to your church and got married in front of your friends and neighbors. It was just a celebration like any other festival and everyone brought their own food. No big costs were involved.
The modern wedding is priced like you were throwing a royal wedding.
NietzscheExplosion 8y ago
Most Primitive groups (modern and all the way back 200000++ years ago), are Matriarchal.
Huh? WTF? Seriously? Yes. Women ran shit for 1000s of years. Top man was the top woman's brother. He was really just head bitch.
Why? Because primary concern was to create good, healthy, long distance running offspring that could run down anything and eat it. The leaders in these times, these real amazons: discarded beta-males, with the callousness that would make the most hardened incel gasp in shock.
Then something happened. The earth was full of humans. You see when a beta was discarded... he was not killed. He just had to move further. A few women got redcarded out too, broke some rule. Lather rinse, repeat over the next river/mountain/ocean. Someone fucked a neanderthal chic, who traded up or was raped. Another actually got desperate enough, to fuck a homo-erectus female.
So we grew upward. Matriarchy breaks around 300 people (hard no), and so began a long climb to get population up and somehow still get along. You can't vote people off the tribe anymore, harsher penalties, even some primitive warfare starts. Usually one tribe kills a guy from another tribe in the fight and it's over and decided or by toughest goon.
Eventually a ruling caste does develop. They eat a lot. They are healthier, bigger and might even intermarry/mate with other ruling castes in neighboring cultures with similar base religions at least (earth mother, etc). At this time you may have female leads, male leads and mostly a combination of both.
Someone discovers "agriculture", well it doesn't matter who or how, probably a combination of manipulated grains over the centuries.... but the ruling caste took possession. The permanent settlements that followed threw the normal 80/20 rule to more like 95/5 or worse.
Then it got to like 1000:1 ratio elite vs farming plebes. Even if you and your family is 6'6" and they are 5', well that's a lot of plebes. Inevitably, to get past this crisis, the god-king must emerge and deliver the beta males, his wife, his rules, his calendar for getting work done and even a day off.
[deleted] 8y ago
[deleted]
NietzscheExplosion 8y ago
"Early" How Early. Early "cultures"(Societies?) from 10000ya-18000 to nearly present day Hopi... Yup, you are correct.
Before that, Primitive "Society"(not a society really) were family units, with that Matriarch at the head. Later on in the period, she was slowly usurped for all decisions except spiritual/superstition type things. Tribes/groups who did not make the switch were quickly absorbed by male dominated cultures such as the Kurgan(or their ancestors, indo-european primordial). In Mesopotamia it happened earlier.