Cavewoman not allowed to survive on own - must have caveman

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.

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'.

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.

Always ask the question who wrote the rules?

I think prostitution should be legal.

Right.... agree with your post.

Monogamy - the social construct of intimately pairing one woman with exactly one man is the far dominating moral compass for westernized sexuality

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'.

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...

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.

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.

You should read Blackdragon's blog, he has a lot of good information on how to be in non-monogamous relationships with women.

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.

[deleted]

YOure right OP

It was for the better. Society was more stable.

[deleted]

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.

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".

betas are doing everything they can to preserve it and are ‘disgusted’ or panicked

....the whole time not realizing that the reason their wife is fucking better is because she is getting properly railed out by someone else.

monogamy was a thin veil to ensure you did not pay for another mans kid, as much as possible.

everything else is masturbation

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.

 

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.

 

• It's good to be King.

 

Or to be Mormon in the old days. (not today)