involuntary celibacy and isolation

[Encephalon]

By the way, getting back to the original OP--I think, at least in in my own case, that sometimes long periods of social isolation and celibacy happen for a reason. For me it worked out to be a gift. Now it's over and I'm back into regular life.

 

On the other hand, I did have a regular life before my lull. So it's hard to say.

 

These periods of social isolation can certainly give you an opportunity to take stock of your inner resources. I didn't have sex for almost four years between my hard drinking and my hard-won sobriety. That was probably a good thing.

[Pietro]

Now if you too are only interested in 8+ women under 25 who hang out in bars, maybe his techniques would be useful.

 

I admit I feel ok in having sex with 8+ women who are under 25; call me weird.

 

But being the article anonymous, and being the article there from a long time, much before the actual craze about PU came out, I don't think the guy is trying to sell something. I think he is genuinely sharing something from his life.

[Pietro]

I believe that people should make a conscious effort not to engage in actions which cause more suffering (whether direct or indirect) than good. I'm not a "monogamy forever!" type person by any means, but I cannot stomach seeing people knowingly betray each other's trust. I once had sex with a woman who was married, but her husband ALREADY KNEW about it beforehand and said that he was ok with it. I would not have done so otherwise (and looking back on it now, I don't think I would do it again. Even if he said he was ok with it, he might not have felt that way on a subconscious level).

 

I don't believe that it would be right for me to just have sex "whenever I feel like it" because not only do I not see it as being fundamentally any different than punching every single person who rubs me the wrong way, but it could result in:

 

-STDs

-broken hearts, for adults and children alike

-another man being forced to raise a child that is not his own

 

That's good. I take another position.

I think his description is quite precise of the state of things. What is lacking is an explanation why things are so.

And things are so because this is the way with which nature have the highest probability of having a next generation with a good genetic mixture.

 

Nature doesn't give a fuck about broken hearts.

Nature doesn't give a fuck about child raised by someone who is not their biological father.

The aim of nature is not to have you happy. The aim of nature is to have your grandchildren (notice that I say grandchildren, and not children) alive.

 

If the aim was to be happy it would have been really easy. Make sure that men and women are similar, and you have it. Same way to take decisions, same way to process information, same desires. But this is not who we are.

 

I think that we are not so, because a population of happy hippy chimps do not produce enough viable offspring, with enough genetic variability, to survive a few generations (if we are all monogamous).

While a population of non monogamous runs the risk that no one takes care of the kids (my kids? I saw you fucking with that other chimp over there, ask him to protect you).

While it is exactly this mixture of monogamy and polygamy, faithfulness and un-faithfullness that makes rises the probability to have viable ofsprin so much.

 

And the Tao follows Nature.

[Pietro]

I just think its wrong because she is betraying the trust of the man she said she would be faithful to.

I agree (provided she swore it, not just said it). But who cares.

They both want to do it. I will not criticize him for having sex with someone who is happy to oblige.

And what he says might be upsetting because hes generalising women, and we all have women in our lives and don't believe they re all like this guy claims, and its disrespectful because he talks about the chicks he bangs like they re a piece of meat to be had and not a person.

Either way, I don't think its a gender thing, guys cheat women cheat whatever. Its just an ugly thing to betray someone who cares enough about you to take a vow of some sort not to have sex with another person. Its really quite simple :/

Jealousy is not wanting your woman to spend time with someone else and stuff like that, HAVING SOME OTHER GUY BANG HER is a different matter I think....

 

As a female friend once told me:

yes we both cheat, but men are potato, and they tell it.

That's the whole point. I am not saying it is good to tell it. I am saying we are wired differently.

 

And about the fact of saying "banging" instead of "fucking", instead of "having sex", instead of "making love". Oh my God!

As if I never heard women speaking between them. You have internalized your mother (or whoever female figure raised you, no offense meant) critic a bit too much.

Men say they banged a chick. So what? Never sign up for a course from Bruce. I don't think you would survive.

[That Guy]

That's good. I take another position.

I think his description is quite precise of the state of things. What is lacking is an explanation why things are so.

And things are so because this is the way with which nature have the highest probability of having a next generation with a good genetic mixture.

 

Nature doesn't give a fuck about broken hearts.

Nature doesn't give a fuck about child raised by someone who is not their biological father.

The aim of nature is not to have you happy. The aim of nature is to have your grandchildren (notice that I say grandchildren, and not children) alive.

 

If the aim was to be happy it would have been really easy. Make sure that men and women are similar, and you have it. Same way to take decisions, same way to process information, same desires. But this is not who we are.

 

I think that we are not so, because a population of happy hippy chimps do not produce enough viable offspring, with enough genetic variability, to survive a few generations (if we are all monogamous).

While a population of non monogamous runs the risk that no one takes care of the kids (my kids? I saw you fucking with that other chimp over there, ask him to protect you).

While it is exactly this mixture of monogamy and polygamy, faithfulness and un-faithfullness that makes rises the probability to have viable ofsprin so much.

 

And the Tao follows Nature.

Well some animals will have only 1 partner, what about that?

 

And if you follow the tao as you suggest you should be trying to get all these women pregnant seems like you select what you like and run with it, which is fine but don't try and sell it off as the way nature intended

 

Though you do have a point, if men who have inferior genes get the women with top genes because they have money then its not always right. The men could be smart, so it s not necessarily bad, but it's not ideal. Then again neither is having a hot wife with no brains Hope our future generations turn out ok....

[That Guy]

And about the fact of saying "banging" instead of "fucking", instead of "having sex", instead of "making love". Oh my God!

As if I never heard women speaking between them. You have internalized your mother (or whoever female figure raised you, no offense meant) critic a bit too much.

Men say they banged a chick. So what? Never sign up for a course from Bruce. I don't think you would survive.

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

Its just the way I speak, chill out dude

[Creation]

No amount of mental will-power is going to instantly or nearly instantly let him cross a barrier which may feel insurmountable when gazed through the filter of his current mental state. His whole life has led him to feel this way, so quite frankly.

I think this is the key to the mystery that is this thread. It was very perceptive of you to point this out.

[RyanO]

That's good. I take another position.

I think his description is quite precise of the state of things. What is lacking is an explanation why things are so.

And things are so because this is the way with which nature have the highest probability of having a next generation with a good genetic mixture.

 

Nature doesn't give a fuck about broken hearts.

Nature doesn't give a fuck about child raised by someone who is not their biological father.

The aim of nature is not to have you happy. The aim of nature is to have your grandchildren (notice that I say grandchildren, and not children) alive.

 

If the aim was to be happy it would have been really easy. Make sure that men and women are similar, and you have it. Same way to take decisions, same way to process information, same desires. But this is not who we are.

 

I think that we are not so, because a population of happy hippy chimps do not produce enough viable offspring, with enough genetic variability, to survive a few generations (if we are all monogamous).

While a population of non monogamous runs the risk that no one takes care of the kids (my kids? I saw you fucking with that other chimp over there, ask him to protect you).

While it is exactly this mixture of monogamy and polygamy, faithfulness and un-faithfullness that makes rises the probability to have viable ofsprin so much.

 

And the Tao follows Nature.

 

 

The whole point of this site: reuniting.info

 

is to overcome our biological programming to have many mates in order to experience more lasting and satisfying forms of happiness. While some animals are monogamous (not many), the author makes a pretty convincing case that humans are not hardwired to do so, as Pietro suggests.

 

The difference is in what to do with this information: become a PUA, or find another person willing to do the work to overcome our biological tendencies.

 

It brings up an interesting philosophical point about the nature of Nature, so to speak, and the wisdom of dealing with it.

[Non]

Non, can you give me a review of this article?

I ask you this because the way in which it starts is so similar to the way you seem to be reasoning.

But the author describes a process he went through, and I would like to know your position on such a process.

 

Here is how it starts:

 

 

Thanks,

Pietro

 

 

Yea it's pretty messed up. I woke up to the truth of womankind when I got into sosuave.com material back in high school.

 

I also think that society feeds into this reality. And this the whole good guy vs badboy crap is used as a marketing ploy to make people buy into it by making them fearful of what they are. Now it's mainstream and even women believe they are as stupid as they make it seem to be in this material. I mean, that is not to say they weren't already, but not as much as when it wasn't as much encouraged.

[Non]

Like I've said before.. there are animals that are monogamous. There are also animals where 'male-female' gender roles are reversed compared to the human gender roles. There's also a REAL capacity to be monogamous. oxytocin, vasopressin, etc. The vagus nerve too. We aren't necessarily by 'nature', supposed to be violent and stuff. at least not after evolution.

[Non]

That's good. I take another position.

I think his description is quite precise of the state of things. What is lacking is an explanation why things are so.

And things are so because this is the way with which nature have the highest probability of having a next generation with a good genetic mixture.

 

That really is a load of bull. It only works that way because people believe in that way. It is primitive, and just because an idea is primitive and "ancient" doesn't always justify it. We only evolved that way because that was the only way we knew and we were Primitive, and obviously not as evolved as we are today. Or are supposed to be anyways. and we are supposed to be above unuseful primitive ideas and mindstates and behaviours, not stick to it simply because it is 'primitive' and 'ancient', that goes against the logic of evolution. insterad you just choose to be victim of false autonomy and NOT evolve, and then call that "going with the flow", like it is the superior thinug. You work with it if you need to, but don't let it run your life.

 

I mean, come on. You think Nature really believes that violence, cruelty, inconsistency, backstabbing, etc makes for a better society, in which people can share and evolve and live to make life better to actually increase survivability? As opposed to violence and torture and cruelty. That's backwards logic.

 

Just because you see, animals behaving a certain way you think That is nature? What if there's a difference between true nature, and what you've been lead to believe as nature as some kind of false autonomy of the ego.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Non

[Non]

Now I'm not also saying that the article states truth. In fact it very much does. It is a cruel truth, but that doens't change the fact that it's Cruel and Unecessary. And to cling to a cruel reality simply because it's primitive goes against the logic of evolution. So much for your evolutionary psychology.

If we could evolve beyond these primitive ideas simply because they are 'ancient' and primitive, we could atually have a society and live in such a way as to maximize survivability much better than these primitive ways.

 

 

I'm also not saying to throw away all primitive and ancient ways. But Im not saying to accept every primtive way, and to cling to them absolutely especially when they are unuseful, all the damn time just because they are primitve.

 

Enough said right? Well some people still don't get it and believe in false autonomy.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Non

[Enishi]

I'm no expert on this by any means but here and there I've been reading up on hunter-gather/horticultural societies which were the norm for hundreds of thousands of years. Even in the more matrilineal, egalitarian groups where premarital sex and divorce weren't automatically frowned upon, there doesn't appear to be anything which even remotely compares to the dog-eat-dog sexual jungle of modern day bars, clubs and family courts in western societies. Usually the only people who had multiple wives would be the chieftains and it was to ensure he had heirs. You didn't need to be 'top alpha dog' just to have a wife/girlfriend.

 

If you look at societies where polygamy is more widespread, like various arabic countries, there are a large number of men who can't find wives or girlfriends, and perhaps as a result, the culture is much more misogynistic.

 

The sexual battlefield we have today appears to be a situation which only occurs when a corrupt patriarchial country where macho men are the 'ideal' makes an incomplete attempt at liberalizing itself, and then collapses within several generations. The same thing happened before in Rome, Athens, etc. See J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Enishi

[Non]

I'm no expert on this by any means but here and there I've been reading up on hunter-gather/horticultural societies which were the norm for hundreds of thousands of years. Even in the more matrilineal, egalitarian groups where premarital sex and divorce weren't automatically frowned upon, there doesn't appear to be anything which even remotely compares to the dog-eat-dog sexual jungle of modern day bars, clubs and family courts in western societies. Usually the only people who had multiple wives would be the chieftains and it was to ensure he had heirs. You didn't need to be 'top alpha dog' just to have a wife/girlfriend.

 

If you look at societies where polygamy is more widespread, like various arabic countries, there are a large number of men who can't find wives or girlfriends, and perhaps as a result, the culture is much more misogynistic.

 

The sexual battlefield we have today appears to be a situation which only occurs when a corrupt patriarchial country where macho men are the 'ideal' makes an incomplete attempt at liberalizing itself, and then collapses within several generations. The same thing happened before in Rome, Athens, etc. See J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture.

 

yea..I always thought today's sexual practices were not always natural either and resulting of this industrial society.

[Non]

I personally tend not to have sex with women when they are cheating with their husbands. If I know about it before. But there have been exceptions. And in a couple of cases I still stand that I did the right thing accepting. But what I do not understand is, the women knows she is cheating, and it is ok for her. He (the author) will have sex regardless if she is married or not. He does not have a problem with the fact that she is married. So they both want to do it. What I do not understand is, why are you so bothered by it?

You know in some countries women who are being unfaithful are being stoned to death. In the same countries the man is usually let go. You seem to have an opposite, but similar, reaction: he should have his balls fried (for as much as 12V can fry, but doesn't matter), while she innocent.

 

Why?

Why can't two people who want to have sex, just have sex?

Who are you to enter in their bedroom?

 

You know, jealousy is considered one of the things that should be dissolved in Daoism. A sort of common sin in relationships. But you are not being jealous. It's like you want the whole world to behave in a particular way. Why? I don't get it.

 

they are both at fault, and not at fault.

[Non]

I personally tend not to have sex with women when they are cheating with their husbands. If I know about it before. But there have been exceptions. And in a couple of cases I still stand that I did the right thing accepting. But what I do not understand is, the women knows she is cheating, and it is ok for her. He (the author) will have sex regardless if she is married or not. He does not have a problem with the fact that she is married. So they both want to do it. What I do not understand is, why are you so bothered by it?

You know in some countries women who are being unfaithful are being stoned to death. In the same countries the man is usually let go. You seem to have an opposite, but similar, reaction: he should have his balls fried (for as much as 12V can fry, but doesn't matter), while she innocent.

 

Why?

Why can't two people who want to have sex, just have sex?

Who are you to enter in their bedroom?

 

You know, jealousy is considered one of the things that should be dissolved in Daoism. A sort of common sin in relationships. But you are not being jealous. It's like you want the whole world to behave in a particular way. Why? I don't get it.

 

they are both at fault, and not at fault.

[Non]

I mean personally, the biggest factor that nobody seems to care about as regards to polygamy, or cheating, etc.

 

Is that I think it's just disgusting that women share with more than 1 guy at a time, and for a period of time. This means that she has the detritus of more than one guy and is mixing it together. At the same time her body is also worn out from this, and her mind is becoming more fleeting, and unstable. Therefore you won't be able to trust her again, because she has developed the personality to have fulfill fleeting desires, and her mind also ambivalent, or jumping from one to the next, and it doesn't stop. She won't be able to stay still. Only until she gets exhausted, and she will get exhausted, she is reaching for exhaustion. She won't be able to give undivided attention until then. She won't be able to "settle down". Which isn't even that hard in the first place.

 

In my opinion this is not natural. Chances are if you were to see a woman before this industrial society, or even before much of what this society calls a "civilization", it would be the first and last time you saw her. Because afterwards you'd have to take responsibility for the children that would result. Or you wouldn't have women trying out every man she can find before 'settling down', etc. And so, you wouldn't really find a woman who's had sex with 30 other cavemen. To each their own right?

 

Well, unless you live in a tribal society where women and men are left to have sex freely amongst each other, and have non-ejaculatory sex. The children that would be born... uhm. Wait children? Who would raise them? Other men? Would they know their fathers? How could the women take care of them without the Father to provide protection, since women can't do it on their own. Hell not even a man. So that's why we have society. Which means you need to stick together. Which means there must be mutual trust, and pair bonds organization, Family (familiarity?), a coherent, consensus of society etc. to ensure that we survive, and make the best of life. Social structures are built on this trust. Well maybe not this society though...

Edited January 24, 2010 by Non

[Non]

I mean personally, the biggest factor that nobody seems to care about as regards to polygamy, or cheating, etc.

 

Is that I think it's just disgusting that women share with more than 1 guy at a time, and for a period of time. This means that she has the detritus of more than one guy and is mixing it together. At the same time her body is also worn out from this, and her mind is becoming more fleeting, and unstable. Therefore you won't be able to trust her again, because she has developed the personality to have fulfill fleeting desires, and her mind also ambivalent, or jumping from one to the next, and it doesn't stop. She won't be able to stay still. Only until she gets exhausted, and she will get exhausted, she is reaching for exhaustion. She won't be able to give undivided attention until then. She won't be able to "settle down". Which isn't even that hard in the first place.

 

In my opinion this is not natural. Chances are if you were to see a woman before this industrial society, or even before much of what this society calls a "civilization", it would be the first and last time you saw her. Because afterwards you'd have to take responsibility for the children that would result. And so, you wouldn't really find a woman who's had sex with 30 other cavemen. To each their own right?

 

Well, unless you live in a tribal society where women and men are left to have sex freely amongst each other, and have non-ejaculatory sex. The children that would be born... uhm. Wait children? Who would raise them? Other men? Would they know their fathers? How could the women take care of them without the Father to provide protection, since women can't do it on their own. Hell not even a man. So that's why we have society. Which means you need to stick together. Which means there must be mutual trust, and pair bonds, etc. to ensure that we survive, and make the best of life. Social structures are built on this trust. Well maybe not this society though...

 

So, all this talk of "jealousy". It's not always unfounded.

 

We do need genetic integrity. Integrity in every aspect, mental, physical, cultural, etc. We dont want INBREDS resulting from promiscuity and people not knowing who's related to who.

 

We also want genetic purity. There is bioethics involved. As well as cultural.

 

I also heard of a story that a guy who had raped many many women, or had sex, whatever. But down the line this resulted in inbred offspring.

 

It is also not smart to reject every person just because they are a bit "imperfect". This also goes against evolution, but darwinists would have you believe that Nature is wholly cruel, and that nothing can be fixed, only "die off". If that's the case then everyone needs to die right now. As far as I know it the only evolution I know of is macro evolution, education and harmonic resonance.

 

What about harmonic resonance theory? ie, a monkey learns how to eat potatoes by washing them and on th other side of the island they too learn how to do it because as a species they are connected to each other, yet they never once communicated with each other, or seen how to wash potatoes, they just know it.

 

And there are aboriginees in australia that also can sense whenever a member in their tribe has gathered food or made a kill. Yet they are far away from each other.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Non

[Non]

Anyways. The faultyness of such thoughts is most probably due to the fact that truth (about their nature, their history, where they're at, etc.) is hidden from the masses and they are lost, and can't find their way out. This can be tough for the person who knows what's going on but always gets silenced because some "authority figure" with big guns doesn't want the truth to be known.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Non

[Non]

Anyways. The faultyness of such thoughts is most probably due to the fact that truth is hidden from the masses and they are lost, and can't find their way out. This can be tough for the person who knows what's going on but always gets silenced because some "authority figure" with big guns doesn't want the truth to be known.

 

BUt whatever.. keep thinking that everything is either all in the mind and has no connection to physicality because you seperate the two, yet think they are the same because you deny true physical reality. Or think it's just physicality and still seperate the two because you don't see a balanced connection between the two even though u think there is.

 

Of course the same can be said for me in many instances but Im working on it.

 

People deny that we don't live in the world by ourselves, and the collective can have an effect on individuals. Of course this is not from a codependency, but interdependence. One becomes co-dependent when interdependence is no more.....Otherwise we would be living all by ourselves. No, together we stand, divided we fall.BBut there's so much division and disorganization in this world, and conspiracy and hidden truth that it's not always easyy.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Non

[Non]

Oh dear Lord, I read that "article." You do realize, Pietro, that that is simply a guy trying to sell you something? He's using PUA techniques on men in that article, to get you to believe his bullshit.

 

The reason that 22-year-old women have more sex than 22-year-old men is that every man alive wants to have sex with 22-year-old women. The odds are quite different when people reach, say, 45.

 

Also his pronouncements about women are not platitudes about women. They are platitudes about exceptionally attractive women who hang out in bars--his natural hunting ground. He said himself he doesn't date less than an 8+.

 

Having been a youthful, well, 7 I would say, it takes a lot of work and money to be an 8+, according to our culture's standard of beauty. Dieting, waxing, mani/pedi, wardrobe, shoes, exercise, hair cut and styling, shopping. He is restricting himself to girls who spend hours a day and lots of money doing that sort of thing. It takes a certain type of woman to do that and then go spend lots of time hanging out in sleazy bars filled with rapacious PUAs. That certain type of woman is a woman who desperately needs validation from a man that she is desirable. His technique is to fill the woman with uncertainty and then reward her with certainty in the form of meaningless sex. So yes, I don't doubt that that particular subset of women is easy to get into bed if you flatter their vanity.

 

Now if you too are only interested in 8+ women under 25 who hang out in bars, maybe his techniques would be useful. But it's slandering my sex to then extrapolate their behavior (which he is exaggerating to make himself seem more PUAy) to all women. Women's rate of infidelity is lower than men's.

 

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/infidelitystats.html

 

A better comparison would be to say 8+ women under 25 are the sexual equivalent of male rock stars, movie stars and CEO's. How do those men rate on the monogamy scale?

 

Hah, so every beautiful woman is corrupted then, at least in this society, is what you're saying?

 

So do you justify it simply because they're beautiful or what? Or because it just "is"?

 

I dont know about that infidelity statistic. At least not nowadays. Do you think women will tell the truth? I think nowadays cheat much more than they used to, and what they say. And u dont know if all these statistics are fair and balanced.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Non

[Non]

and so.. in today's society we also deal with diferent kinds of stresses than we did in the ancient times. Yea u know, we had to use our fight or flight, freeze responses, etc. This kind of stress response is inadequate for the more sophisticated type of stresses we might deal with today which usually last a longer time, or stay with us, and need a different response. Back then, it was life or death, now or never, etc. Not to say we can't use this, but not all the time. But sophistication is many times viewed as weak.

 

That's why you have some of the greatest scientists and smart people who have to end up lonely, and celibate. Because they were ahead of the crowd. They had to be celibate, it was the only way. If only they could have carried on those genes.

 

Maybe one day we won't need to, and we will find another, better way to procreate. A more cool-headed way, instead of being slaves, or imprisoned by what we think of as "nature".

Edited January 24, 2010 by Non

[Pietro]

That really is a load of bull. It only works that way because people believe in that way. It is primitive, and just because an idea is primitive and "ancient" doesn't always justify it. We only evolved that way because that was the only way we knew and we were Primitive, and obviously not as evolved as we are today. Or are supposed to be anyways. and we are supposed to be above unuseful primitive ideas and mindstates and behaviours, not stick to it simply because it is 'primitive' and 'ancient', that goes against the logic of evolution. insterad you just choose to be victim of false autonomy and NOT evolve, and then call that "going with the flow", like it is the superior thinug. You work with it if you need to, but don't let it run your life.

 

I mean, come on. You think Nature really believes that violence, cruelty, inconsistency, backstabbing, etc makes for a better society, in which people can share and evolve and live to make life better to actually increase survivability? As opposed to violence and torture and cruelty. That's backwards logic.

 

Just because you see, animals behaving a certain way you think That is nature? What if there's a difference between true nature, and what you've been lead to believe as nature as some kind of false autonomy of the ego.

 

There is a big myth in our society. The myth that nature and morality form a dichotomy. And that we must chose in this dichotomy. And in some special cases it might even have been true. But it is not the general situation. This "dichotomy" took many names in the centuries, nature vs nurture; Love vs Duty; Roma vs Amor; etc...

And of course you are right that nature also include such behaviours as rape and killing, and all sort of abuses, on the other hand the most recent acceptance speech from the latest peace Nobel Prize winner shows that what exactly forms an ethical (or moral) behaviour, and what doesn't is not always that clear. If it becomes ethic to have war to stop evil, then it makes us wander if it is moral to have sex to make sure your genes are not wiped out of existence. I am not saying this is the case, I am saying the jury is still out.

 

 

We are not moral because it is cute, or because God wanted us so. We are moral because it makes sense evolutionarily. And for the same reason animals are also moral. There is a growing amount of literature on how we are discovering apes, primates, and animals in general to be able to have moral and altruistic behaviour (for a popularized article see this).

 

Personally I reject the dichotomy between being moral and being natural as a false dichotomy. Morality evolved inside a natural environment, as the winning strategy in particular situations.

 

The illusion of a dichotomy comes from having a false understanding of what is real. Essentially living inside an illusion. But don't feel too bad about living inside an illusion, because we all do live inside an illusion. This society is based on us telling ourselves lies on what is real and what is not real. And science is just a tentative way, with all its limits, in which we are trying to shed this illusion.

 

 

So in the next posts I will try to confront what is real, in this regard.

 

 

 

 

 

[Pietro]

Well some animals will have only 1 partner, what about that?

 

 

This is very interesting. First of all many animals that we believed being monogamous seem to chat themselves too. Do you know about birds who sing to attract a mate, right. Well, in many cases they keep on singing even after having found the mate. Why do it? Since it puts them at risk of being eaten by predators? Because in this way they are raising the chances that they will reproduce also with someone else. This is some of the results that are coming out of genetic studies on animals. We did not know about it before.

 

To me it blew my mind when I read it the first time. AT the time I believed that we should have gone back to a natural harmony state. The discovery that animals chat too was a big blow to the philosophical framework that led me to reconsider the whole structure.

 

 

[Pietro]

I mean personally, the biggest factor that nobody seems to care about as regards to polygamy, or cheating, etc.

 

Is that I think it's just disgusting that women share with more than 1 guy at a time, and for a period of time. This means that she has the detritus of more than one guy and is mixing it together. At the same time her body is also worn out from this, and her mind is becoming more fleeting, and unstable. Therefore you won't be able to trust her again, because she has developed the personality to have fulfill fleeting desires, and her mind also ambivalent, or jumping from one to the next, and it doesn't stop. She won't be able to stay still. Only until she gets exhausted, and she will get exhausted, she is reaching for exhaustion. She won't be able to give undivided attention until then. She won't be able to "settle down". Which isn't even that hard in the first place.

 

In my opinion this is not natural. Chances are if you were to see a woman before this industrial society, or even before much of what this society calls a "civilization", it would be the first and last time you saw her. Because afterwards you'd have to take responsibility for the children that would result. Or you wouldn't have women trying out every man she can find before 'settling down', etc. And so, you wouldn't really find a woman who's had sex with 30 other cavemen. To each their own right?

 

Well, unless you live in a tribal society where women and men are left to have sex freely amongst each other, and have non-ejaculatory sex. The children that would be born... uhm. Wait children? Who would raise them? Other men? Would they know their fathers? How could the women take care of them without the Father to provide protection, since women can't do it on their own. Hell not even a man. So that's why we have society. Which means you need to stick together. Which means there must be mutual trust, and pair bonds organization, Family (familiarity?), a coherent, consensus of society etc. to ensure that we survive, and make the best of life. Social structures are built on this trust. Well maybe not this society though...

 

 

Non, the fact that you consider something disgusting or attractive is irrelevant. And the fact that you consider something unnatural is even less important. Especially since there are studies on it.

There are countless of studies made on sperm, and how the sperm of multiple males in the same vagina sort themselves out. Look out for books on sperm wars. There should also be a book available from gigapedia. In fact the amount of Sperm that is produced is proportional to the size of the society. Poligamous species have bigger balls. But also in human society, husbands that leave their wife for longer periods tend to shoot more sperm (just in case it might have to compete, you never know...).

 

In poligamous society kids are either grown up together or by the mother. Many people think that growing up a kid in a commune is actually much better for the kid.