http://chrisryanphd.com/

Before you comment, I’d suggest taking the material. 🙂

Basically, the idea that ‘biology’ dictates the various things we are talking about vis a vis ‘relationships’ and so on (because I keep hearing over and over things about pair bonding and evolution) I’d like to point out that it has long been dispensed in the Anthropology community that Humans evolved in anything like a monogamous pair bonding situation. We didn’t. For 95% of our existence we lived in small clans, and there was no marriage. Sex was not particularly connected to children, and women had about 1 child per 2 to 3 years. This has a lot to do with the low body fat of the women, while breast feeding they would not tend to get pregnant, and breast feeding went on for a couple of years back then.

In fact, women tended to have their periods very rarely.. they were either pregnant, or breastfeeding for most of their lives, until later (if they lived that long). And women and men had a whole lotta sex.

So there is huge evidence that before agriculture and property were created, we simply didn’t pair bond for life, at all. We group bonded.

Dr. Ryan takes this farther in his book, which is a distillation of his PhD dissertation (which means it passed very rigorous peer review.. more so than normal), so I took it seriously when I read it.

Essentially, I think we need to stop using ‘biological necessity’ in our evaluations of behaviors outside of what we really do know.. the idea of monogamy as ‘biological’ simply does not hold up, not even in our anatomy. What does hold up is clan groups, essentially a group marriage of about 100 adults or so, all having sex with each other.. sometimes forming bonds, sometimes not. A fluid relationship where ‘sex shaming’ means being shamed for being stingy with your sexual favors (for both men and women). Where sex is more for social bonding than procreation (I mean think about it.. why else would females not have visible signs of estrus? Almost no other species have sex outside of their fertile periods at all.. except us, chimpanzees and especially bonobos) and people are very promiscuous, as a matter of routine (this is well reported in the people of polynesia, when they were first discovered, for example.. boy, were the sailors happy! Mind you, the women made them bathe.).

So, I would suggest you take a read and think about this one (was going to say ‘we’ but I already read it 😉 ).. I think our ideas and feelings of monogamy are as rooted in culture as our feminine worship is.. and I for one want to be free of ALL the bulls~~~.

Peace, and please comment below!

There are scholars out there, with really faulty logic, claiming that harvesters and gatherers communities were better than settlements. The only problem would be, you know, the HIGHER RATES at INFANT DEATHS on these communities, but hey, who cares about the life of children, right? All you need is to have sex with the nearest female on the clan and pop more kids.

Also, this sounds pretty much the wet dream of every women out there. F~~~ing every male of the clan, with no strings attached, while still receiving the protection and provision of such males. This is what is happening NOW, so there is no need to read this book, what you are suggesting it is already happening. Besides, the fact that pretty much civilization happened AFTER humans starting bonding to each other (you know, before agriculture and property were created?) indicates that, from a evolutionary point of view, pair bonding was more efficient than GROUP BONDING. Or are you suggesting, like the scholars I mentioned before, that humans were better harvesting and gathering RATHER than agriculture? Really?

No, I am not saying hunter/gathering is better, and neither is Dr. Ryan. No one is suggesting we go back to that. What he is talking about is that this is how we evolved. End of story. That our notions of biological imperatives as they relate to monogamy are incorrect. We never were monogamous, until recently, and we have over 100,000 years of evolution backing up our original imperatives, which were simple: Our women were programmed to be promiscuous, and we were programmed to handle that through larger penis size, larger sperm volume, various enzymes in our sperm that attack other sperm once in contact, and the ‘scoop penis’ shape that suctions out sperm left from other men. That’s it. I’m not putting any social context on that.. its just a consequence of looking at the biology. Gorilla’s, for example, who are strictly polygamous, have really tiny penises, because they don’t have to have large ones. They monopolize females through physical violence primarily,

In other words, there are a lot of factors here that lie outside of our presumptions of monogamy.

Let me put it another way.. what if you had no particular familial responsibilities to any particular children, but you did have some responsibilities to a large number of children, and you shared that responsibility with every other man and woman in your group? Say you have 20 adults, all having sex with each other, and providing for each other. The women handling most of the domestic things, the men most of the provider things. The economy of scale that would provide would be immense. Even in modern society, you could pool resources for larger purchases and make the entire group incredibly self sufficient. Now imagine there were no taxes being siphoned off for ‘social benefit’ and you can start to see the advantage of this approach.

Or, you could go off on your own and build your own life. That’s fine too.

Or whatever you like.

I would ask that you read the material before you you go any farther.. its pretty damn conclusive on the biology. So much so, its causing a s~~~ storm.

–MS

what if you had no particular familial responsibilities to any particular children, but you did have some responsibilities to a large number of children, and you shared that responsibility with every other man and woman in your group? Say you have 20 adults, all having sex with each other, and providing for each other. The women handling most of the domestic things, the men most of the provider things.

And, in a way, isn’t that what we have today? Women are the ones calling all the needs and wants, while the men are the one providing. Women have no strings attached with any man whatsoever, f~~~ing all the bad boys that also have no strings attached to any of those women, while blue pill men sustain all this orgy with his sweat and blood, and providing to the children that are not even his. This notion that people would share responsibilities automatically doesn’t take in consideration individual strengths, weaknesses and desires. Women, if they can get away from any kind of work by only providing sex and “caring” for the children (a.k.a giving birth), WILL DO SO. Is sex really an equivalent work to the amount of labor that a blue pill men can pull off? Like I said, this scenario you say is wonderful for WOMEN and HEDIONISTS “ALPHAS”, and is exactly what we are living today. Just look at the percentage of children that were conceived OUT of the WEDLOCK. While the official partner have to support the children as mandate BY LAW, the women and scumbags keep “having sex with each other”. Oh, the UTOPIA.

Thanks, but no thanks. I am not the one supporting this s~~~. I might even bang the chicks, but I am not having any child of mine brought up to this mess neither I am taking care of the children that aren’t mine while others are supported trough the fruits of my work while they are free to f~~~ around (taxes and social programs for women anybody). Are you serious? You saying that would be “no taxes” doesn’t make the need of someone to have to “pay the bill disappear”, and how you think that support would be brought about?

Anyway, I might be wrong, but this sounds more like BLUE PILL HELL to me, and it looks exactly what WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

For me, all you did is reinforce the idea that bonds, especially with women, are useless. There is no need or want for these, since, for the male, we have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. ESPECIALLY on this “utopian” society you described.

Well, that was a tough pill to swallow. For a moment there I was still holding some respect for at least the hypothetical bond a man could have to a woman, I guess this thread is actually killing this idea for me, even on an hypothetical setting.

Thanks, I guess.

The women handling most of the domestic things, the men most of the provider things.

What domestic things? Are you really comparing housework women “do” to work hours men face? F~~~ that! Women can join the workforce if they want to eat. Sex for resources is NOT AN EQUIVALENT EXCHANGE.

MadScientist wrote:

Even in modern society, you could pool resources for larger purchases

What does this have anything to do with monogamy and polygamy!?! Oh, right, because in this little scenario of yours the man is not chained to one women, but to ALL women. Women, according to you are tied to the domestic roles, remember? So who is pulling the resources? MEN. And since in such society “everybody provides for everybody” (which all it means is that MEN, more precisely BLUE PILL MEN provides for everybody else) then who is the one gathering resources and who exactly spending? Men gathering, Women spending. I am failing to see how this is any different from what we have today!

MadScientist wrote:

and make the entire group incredibly self sufficient.

No, it would make the USELESS of the group more independent by chaining those that CAN produce something of value responsible for providing, while the rest of the group do what? Have sex?!? Oh yeah, sign me freaking up. Cuckolding sounds so much FUN…

MadScientist wrote:

Now imagine there were no taxes being siphoned off for ‘social benefit’ and you can start to see the advantage of this approach.

The whole scenario you describe, in order to exist, would have to be LOADED of taxes and social benefits. You are assuming that SEX and DOMESTIC CHORES are equivalent to actual LABOR and RESOURCE GATHERING. You are assuming that WOMEN would desire and compromise with ALL MEN the same way that ALL MEN would desire and compromise with WOMEN, when it is already proven that 80% of women go for the 20% of men. What the 80% of men that are undesired would do in such situation? Suck their thumbs? Oh, yeah, SOMEONE HAS TO WORK.

Dude, the more I think about this post, the more angry I get. How the F~~~ did you got to the conclusion that this way of thinking benefits man?!?!?!

“Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy. Got that, fellas? If you’re unhappy at the amount of sexual opportunity in your life, don’t blame the women. Instead, make sure they have equal access to power, wealth and status. Then watch what happens.”

Cacilda Jetha, Sex at Dawn

This is a quote from the book you are suggesting and the WIFE of the author you are PROMOTING! Sure LET’S GIVE WOMEN MORE POWER SO WE CAN HAVE SEX!

F~~~ you man! F~~~ YOU!

Also let me clarify up front: This is just a thought experiment, and an exposition of the facts surounding our ancient, and not so ancient, heritage and biology. I’m not saying we should to this now.. I just want to talk about it, and how it might apply… and hopefully it will give us more insight into the baselines we seem to be encountering.

1) Are you suggesting we actually do this? This isn’t possible with current (taxes/social norms/etc)

Yes.. however this scenario did exist, for well over 100,000 years. I am not suggesting this would be easy, or even possible, with our current social fabric as it is… what I was saying about the ‘no taxes’ thing was talking about the historical situation, and the advantages it had over other arrangements. So, not suggesting this is a way forward these days. What I am trying to do is open up a thought experiment, given the known anthropology and biology, to imagine a new way forward based on our actual past, rather than a manufactured ideal given to us by the Persian (yep.. look up Cyrus) state so that men would be reigned in and become good providers for THE STATE. Thats what I and others are suggesting guys… monogamy (light polygamy really) was invented by the state to rein in men and incentivize them to be more productive for the State, not for themselves.

2) The women would run rampant and leave 80% of the dudes out in the cold

I have no idea what would happen here.. I don’t think basing our assumptions of behavior on current observations within our cultural container would reflect what would happen in this situation. In fact, I think a hell of a lot of things would happen that we can’t easily anticipate, given our current set of biases and conditions.

Let’s look at the Mosuo (an agricultural society of over 100k people in rural china). No monogamy, the women have sex with whomever they like, as do the men. There is zero obligation on the men’s part to take care of his biological children.. but they are a very solid society. Why? Because the men take care of themselves, their sisters and mothers, and their children. There is also a strict division of labor, and the men live separately from the women. So, the men don’t feed or live with the children or women directly.. they take care of building, hunting, animal husbandry and so on.. and the women take care of domestic jobs, so they make clothing, cook and clean, and process grain etc. The bonds they make are by blood only, so although they will get lovey dovey with a women from another household, their responsibilities are for their nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers and sisters only. The kids then have multiple male figures in their lives, and multiple female figures. It turns out to be a rock solid arrangement, and they still live this way, even with multiple threats from the chinese government to stop. And by the way, they are very happy, even though they are technically very poor people. In fact, Marco Polo wrote about them. They’ve been in this same state for a long time, and its darn stable.

That’s just one example from many. There are a large number of aboriginal cultures that worked in various ways, none of which were monogamous whatsoever, but were setup to be mutually dependent in other ways. What 100% of the successful cultures like this have in common is that they all spread risk and responsibility over a much larger group, thus decreased the total amount of work for any individual in that group, and also guaranteed safety and security for the whole clan/group.

Sounds like freedom to me.. I would much rather work 20 hours a week rather than 60 hours a week for the same reward. Its economy of scale in action, and its why I am even looking at all of this.

3) The slackers would run rampant!

I have experienced this first hand in groups, and these kinds of people are toxic at the very least. But the evidence shows that this sort of behavior was not tolerated by groups such as this, and people who did not contribute the minimum amount could face shunning, or worse.  <span style=”line-height: 1.5;”>So, the slacker problem might not be a problem long term, since the group would tend to punish slackers with up to and including being ejected from the group entirely. Incentive enough to contribute, if you asked me. I have no other experience with slacker motivation beyond 3 strikes and GTFO, so Im open to ideas.</span>

4) I don’t see how the women are even working in this scenario! How is this advantageous for men?

Really good point! If it is a family arrangement, there could be a division of labor between women and men.. women taking care of primary child care, food preparation, clothing, etc while the men gather resources and perform animal husbandry. So in other words, the women do all the processing and child care, and the men do the gathering and resource providence. Division of labor would need to be strictly enforced on a case by case basis, and there are plenty of examples of this being done in older societies. Men also could live separately from the women, by and large, and so would be left the hell alone to do their man stuff. 🙂 This is not a rule though, in these societies.. there are some tribes where the man is ‘married’ (the actual word means more like ‘a lover of’) to the woman if she hangs her hammock next to his, and divorced if either one of them moves their hammock away.. zero social consequences for either… it’s considered a personal choice and left alone.

Remember please.. all I am trying to do here is expose our actual past, and look at it as a ‘what if’ for the future. My own experiment in polyamory has been only partly successful, so I’m trying to understand all of this better myself.

And by the way, when I am saying the women need to do domestic work.. I am talking about ALL OF IT. Cooking, cleaning, preparation, growing the kitchen garden for herbs and such, making their own utensils, grinding the grain to make flour, weaving cloth to make clothes.. all of it. That’s the kind of work I am talking about, real hard work, and which was pretty common until the industrial revolution for all women. Today? I don’t know what form that would take at all. Certainly not with modern grocery stores would this even approach the amount of work men have to do.. I totally agree. In fact, this is part of the myth of ‘women work hard keeping a house’.. they actually used to really work hard.. but not anymore. Im open to ideas here, for sure. 🙂

Ok I have responded to a few concerns and I have to punch out of work..

Hey guys, I wanted this to be an intellectual argument, not an emotional one .. next time I post something like this I will make sure to make that VERY clear from the beginning. Not trying to burn any threads or ideals.. just trying to open up a dialogue on the topic, and to do that I need to be as forward as I can be, and as unafraid as I can be to break some eggs.. I have done my reading, and I have my lived experience, but I don’t know anything for sure here.. thats why I came to YOU! The MANTRONIUM RESERVE!  So please help me get some clarity on this one?

Peace guys,

–MS

Have to go now, but I will read your “response” when I get home.

I knew something smelled fishy I here!

“Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy. Got that, fellas? If you’re unhappy at the amount of sexual opportunity in your life, don’t blame the women. Instead, make sure they have equal access to power, wealth and status. Then watch what happens.”

Cacilda Jetha, Sex at Dawn

This is a quote from the book you are suggesting and the WIFE of the author you are PROMOTING! Sure LET’S GIVE WOMEN MORE POWER SO WE CAN HAVE SEX!

F~~~ you man! F~~~ YOU!

WHoa… I am most decidedly NOT advocating any of that.. no way. I am only talking about biology and anthropology here. Her conclusions have nothing to do with the data they gathered. I disagree with that conclusion most vehemently.

Jesus.. why so p~~~ed? Im not trying to push anything on anyone.. Im trying to reason this out, in light of our actual past. That book is a chunk of data, then there is other anthro data that shows similar things to be true.. I don’t agree with all of them, and the fact that I am HERE means I don’t want to get taken advantage of by women anymore. I definitely don’t agree with that quote. I don’t agree with 100% of that book, and I am interested in it as a source of data. Ok?

Also, my lived experience tells me I would have had a much worse marriage if it had not been Open. Once we opened up, everything got much better. She never actually held up her end in terms of working and earning, but her attitude got better, and things were smooth until the last year or so. So I know that it can work, but only if you have a solid to begin with.

Why I have to say this s~~~ is beyond me.. guys, its just a thought experiment. I am trying to talk about possibilities. My current actual status is a solid MGHOW, will date but not get in relationships with women and have been deactivated. Period. End of story.

My intention here is to open a discussion, not start a flame war! Please.. just look at the data. It tells volumes. F~~~ their conclusions if they go against what we already know to be bulls~~~.

Peace.

–MS