Is Monogamy Good for Society? - Louise Perry
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- Full video here: • The Modern Dating Cata...
💥Join us on our Journey to 1 Million Subscribers💥
Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! triggernometry.locals.com/
OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here:
Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5
Music by: Music by: Xentric | info@xentricapc.com | www.xentricapc.com/ UA-cam: @xentricapc
Buy Merch Here:
www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/
Advertise on TRIGGERnometry:
marketing@triggerpod.co.uk
Join the Mailing List:
www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailing...
Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
About TRIGGERnometry:
Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians.
Subscribe for more!
Did last year
Francis is right. At least it’s not a kid
Feminism promised empowerment but delivered a 7th century harem culture.
Congrats, ladies!
It's not feminism, this isn't a black or white problem. The main issue is men continuing their path of willful ignorance about women's basic needs in relationships ,coupled with women's lower power in society and limited fertility window.
It is strange isn't it. All the women in my family who are liberal don't seem to see the end stage of this ideology. The top 10% of men essentially take all the women. Like in Medieval Europe or the Ottoman Empire. The tp 10% of men then (Kings, princes, lords, Sultans, Raj, Khans... Whatever society or nation. It was the top tier elite warlords and aristocracy that had access to literally 100s of women each. Most common serfs only had access to a few serf women in their village, nothing more.
I've written the same sentiment, but WOW, your phrasing is tops !
@@salkoharper2908 Yeah, but now the serf women can be part of the harem if they want to be.
Guess what option they choose?
Come one, that is like a fraction of the truth. I dont know why i need to type that. But please dont watch to much youtube and read a history book once in a while.
It's almost like societies evolved over thousands of years and developed ideas that worked.
Shocking.
Actually,life use to be about sustaining the tribe and securing the survival of the species. I love how men today think that 100 000 years ago people knew when a woman was pregnant who the father was. Such ideas were beyond their scope of interest. There was children being born and that was all that mattered. No one cared about anything. And if one individual showed emotional instability they were shunned out of the tribe much like animals are to this day,because they were not useful to the tribe. I don't expect you to understand.
@@ivanamicimiciWritten history only goes back 12,000 years or so, we don't know how societies looked 100,000 years ago. The advancement and wisdom of humanity has ebbed and flowed. It's true that in our distant past, there were periods of polygamy and uncertain paternity, but these where during our more primitive stages when quality of life and life expectancy where lowest. It's pretty absurd to think men have only cared about passing on our genes until relatively recently in our history. Monogamy and stable family structure are foundational to social trust, technological development, and general advancement in society.
@@ivanamicimicido shutup
Lmao and these fools finna undo it as if this is the first time people have suddenly become intelligent. We are a narcissistic society and we suck our own dicks as if we are geniuses compared to the people of the past. Totally false
Children benefit from monogamous, loving relationships. The family is the foundation of a stable, successful society.
THE most successful society. The one we currently live in and brought the golden age of humanity
the male have authority over that family is the only way to incentivize men to have families again. no amount of simp men wanting to have families will be enough because they can't get access to a family.
and you can already see the shit storm that is coming, off the back of the more modern ME ME ME attitudes. in 50 years this world will look VERY different and i dont think in a good way.
😂😂😂😂 right😂😂😂😂
@@itwoznotmeand the polyamorous families will bond together to create communities that focus on the progress of the whole,rather than fight about who gets to have a woman to abuse and control. You will be left in the dust while the rest of us emotionally stable,mature adults build a world without poisonous manipulation and abuse of partners. It's called real love. I don't expect you to understand.
Leaving monogamy behind is like burning your cities down and returning to warring tribal factions.
BS
I left monogamy behind decades ago and haven't had any fires or tribal wars.
@@kenofken9458 true. people fear monger too much. idiots are always complaining.
@@kenofken9458are you from a majority monogamous society? If yes, perhaps you're at risk of compositional fallacy.
Perhaps you haven't worked with or lived around many violent men. Otherwise you'd probably realise how much violence is the distal consequence of unstable families and proximal consequence of competition for/control of sexual access to women.
I think in every habit "compound pounding" effect is the best solution..
People probably know this effect but forgot about it because of being too distracted by media or thoughts etc.
in sport, in business, in relationships.
1. If you use compound pounding in sport, (exercissing for an hour) you will see no results in 5 days,but you will see big results in 100 days.
2. If you will say a good morning to people, you will see no effect in 5 days, but you will see a great difference in 100 days.
3. If you will practice the compassion for your partner and make some good deed,
you will see no or small difference in 5 days,
but you will see a great difference in 50 or 100 days,
you will see how much you mean to them.
People see this compound pounding effect in the nature,
the garden looks the same after few days, but after a 100 days it looks different.
Therefore you can not tell if your values are working after one week, because you see the effect after 100 or 140 days.
Maybe each couple should practice this technique,
If I will make something small to make my partner happy, for a little moment, they will remember these little moments,
and good calm or happy mood increases the immunity of the body by 50 percent in 4 days.
So their kids will learn the same technique.
They will learn that if they will read a book 10 minutes a day,
it has a great impact on brain.
Next time it may be 20 minutes a day.
But if you stop doing the healthy habit now... after a week it makes no difference
after 140 days the results change for worse, you lose muscles or you lose some skill or motivation etc.
Good deed may be also making a pizza or small things.
People actually enjoy small things much more than big gestures,
because it´s about living in the moment......
Big gestures (expensive car) mean that you actually burned out too much energy to make a small effect,
rather than small gestures that after time create a great effect of connection, and people like you for your authentic personality.
Feminism was bad for men short-term. Long-term it has been catastrophic for women.
Radical feminism has been bad for both genders. Don’t confuse the two terms.
Yeah thats all about racism, seggregation and all the other horrible shit we get rid of before.
@@Andy-di1zd They're the same thing. Pretending otherwise is a cope.
@@painbow6528 hmm. Nope! They’re not, that’s just ill informed garbage 😂
Saying it has been bad for women long term sounds like something only a scorned man would say.
If we leave monogamy behind, there is no reason at all for marriage. This would destroy the family unit (even more) and leave most children without a father figure. Not the best idea, as we already know what problems are caused by that. Masculinity is not toxic, but needed more than ever.
As a mother who brought up a child alone (death of husband) and has seen them gain many qualifications and a work ethic second to none, I disagree with this social media contrived statistic. Broken homes are the problem and that is NOT the fault of only the mothers.
Bullshit, theres a lots of fathers that dont ditch there kids even if the marriage is over 😂
Those maggots who leave their kids for any reason are called cowards, not fathers .
@@villeveikko1 The Black community don't care and have the highest single mother households in USA.
@@Andy-di1zd You’re an exception. The statistics in general prove otherwise that the best upbringing a child can have is with a mother and father who are married.
@@villeveikko1 which appears to always be the mother’s fault.
That joke from Francis was actually spot on
Saw this before the joke, made it hit harder. >_
They all knew it too lol....
If you were said Podcaster you’d be doing the same thing. Come on guys.
The only reason why the norm is reverting is that productive monogamous men are subsidizing the non-productive polygamous ones. We transfer resources from responsible men to irresponsible men, and you're somehow surprised that irresponsibility spreads?
Yep. All Government intervention. The Government gets what ever is subsidises.
"productive monogamous men are subsidizing the non-productive polygamous ones"
Rather, non-reproductive worker drones subsidizing reproductive polygamous Chads. I would expect the worker drones to being to work less
@@GK-op4oc The drones will die off childless and stop producing more drones; nobody will stop trying to eat, but inability to breed and population collapse will give the khans the comeuppance that is needed to set things right.
We won't see it though, that's the sad truth. We die childless like canaries in the coal mine, so that the children of the chads can rebuild society after the shitshow unfolds.
Being a human is great!
What a pleasure to listen to a woman who doesn't have rainbow hair and isn't screaming ...and, by the way, is intelligent.
get out much?
@@rgn87654Yes, do you?
@@rgn87654got milk?
Hedonism isn't the species norm because fighting starvation constantly is the species norm. We don't live in a world with conditions we evolved for.
"don't tell me what to do"
25 years later: "where is everyone? why am I so alone? I need antidepressants. it's all patriarchy's fault"
UA-cam has just asked me to rate your comment and explain my rating!! (UA-cam and its censorship crusade!!)
Or how about we grow as the village our children need to be raised. Why are people so unstable to begin with that they have to control everything 😂😂😂😂
@@ivanamicimici because a village is societal unstable and full of b*stards. every single succesful civilization in history had control over what to leave to their children
@@ivanamicimici we live in a culture that has completely deconstructed most guardrails developed over millennia of social development. Of course we are falling apart….. nobody knows what it means to be a human anymore and polyamory ain’t the answer. It’s just another step downwards in a long staircase we have been “progressing” down….
@@liljinjar1268 Exactly. Shame is necessary to keep the guardrails of acceptable behavior. We killed it with the anti-bullying campaigns of the late 90s, then destigmatizing everything, to finally be replaced by "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". But that ignores long term consequences of actions and impacts to society. And it fosters selfishness, and that is a downward spiral.
I'm gonna say something wild here... sex ain't all that. It's not that difficult to keep it to one person.
Polyamorous relationships are not about sex. They are about being there for your partner in any way they need you to and growing as a whole village. Remember that saying it takes a village. Yeah.
@@ivanamicimicipolyamory is just a pop culture word for having lost the ability to pair bond due to too many prior partners
@@ivanamicimici if polyamorous relations are not about sex then why not just have one partner? Being there for someone is far easier if you don't need to worry about multiple others.
@@TuscanBrick You cant be Christian and have multiple partners. End. Of. Story.
@@ivanamicimiciThe village being women. Men don't raise other men's children if given the choice.
Two is company, three is a crowd.
A "progressive" society can simply be defined as one about to learn that the old self-evident wisdoms were correct and human nature is unchanged. A "progressive" society is a collective pathology.
As someone who witnessed an unfaithful parent and devorce at a young age..I can without a shadow of a doubt tell you it is horrible for your kids and society as a whole. I lost all respect for the parent that day.. And hated that person until a year ago I made amends with them. Believe someone would destroy an entire entire family over simple pleasure, and call it a mistake without taking ownership. Fuck me up To this day, I have trust issues when it comes to relationships.
This is 100%
Did your dad cheat? Because you sound like you were raised by a woman.
Monogamy builds families, families build civilization.
Hmm actually she said, that monogamy is not the norm historically. Empires were build on polygynous societies. There always were leader who had a lot of children. It is not a joke, that all eastern Asians are dependents of Chengis Khan. In Western Europe this is the same with Charlemagne. And look at Elon Musk, he has 10 (living) children. Because he can.
@@fernandocardenaspiepereit4097 *descendents
If you want a civilization with a space program, monogamous relationships need to be the norm.
Polyamory is good for health professionals income
Huh
@@NightinGal89 When people screw up their lives because they wouldn't listen to reason, psychiatrists will be very busy trying to fix the problems these people create for themselves.
@@NightinGal89 shared stds
💯
Yes. It is good for society.
Please explain?
@@villeveikko1 all you have to do is look at the number of children from broken homes… 🤷🏼♀
@@Andy-di1zd If you want the population to increase, it seems like broken homes is the best way. They are the ones that are having the kids right now.
@@villeveikko1Mary Harington is worth checking out; she does a brilliant job at explaining why.
@@villeveikko1Polygynous human societies are only preferentially so: many men still acquire only one wife, such pairings were probably the most common throughout human history. And there have been a significant shift from polygyny toward monogamy beginning about five thousand to ten thousand years ago, judging by genetic evidence. Our polygynous past is very much with us, though, and not just in the contemporary societies that still allow men to have multiple wives: It seems to be built into our very bodies. In nature, species with the strongest polygynous inclinations-those whose males build the biggest harems-also tend to have the most exaggerated sexual dimorphism. There is a violent, high-stakes competition for females within these species, so males evolve to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. Indeed, human males are moderately taller, heavier, and more muscular than females, and it’s males who commit the overwhelming majority of human violence. Polygyny plus (a form of) polyandry: That adds up to polyamory, right? Well, no. Humans probably didn’t evolve in the sort of peaceful, bonobo-style sexual free-for-all. Promiscuous species like bonobos (and the much more violent chimps) engage in a lot of “sperm competition,” because multiple males frequently mate with the same fertile female. Thus they evolve toward that end, with large testicles, anatomical equipment designed to remove rival males’ semen, and sperm cells designed to do battle with competitors inside the female body. What’s more, sexual jealousy appears to be a human universal, seen nearly everywhere to some extent. It’s not an arbitrary cultural construct. The fact of human paternal investment also argues against polyamory. In promiscuous species, fathers rarely invest in their children, instead focusing on impregnating more females, which is a more certain bet because they don’t know which children are theirs anyway. It’s odd that so much of the world has adopted this custom if it’s in tension with human nature. Here I provide numerous reasons that cultures could have “evolved” to support monogamy, and they double as reasons to preserve it. One is just math: Males and females are roughly equal in number, so if one male monopolizes multiple females, society will have to deal with the “excess” males somehow. Otherwise, the result is violent competition over harems. Monogamy, by contrast, ensures that mates are available for nearly all men. Joint parenting is another reason monogamy may have developed, especially given that human children are so helpless in their early years. Father involvement helps kids survive and succeed, and monogamy aids this investment by ensuring that men know which children are theirs and that each mother has full access to the resources and attention of her children’s father.
Of course marriage is good for society! The 1960s 'sexual revolution' has damaged people view of relationships and has been catastrophic for men, women and children. The 'norm' for happy functional society is Biblical marriage. The state has promoted a new normal that will make society significantly less happy!
If society was so happy and functional under the biblical model, why did people violently reject it?
@johnatchason6506 Because they prefer their own sinful lifestyles not caring about the repercussions for their children or society. Selfishness and "Just do you!" is par for the course and society is disintegrating because of it!
@@johnatchason6506 They would have been a happy, functioning society, but that requires work and an upholding of values, made difficult by the temptations of lust, exacerbated by the advent of contraception and the pill (the first sexual revolution before the 60s). Once those inventions came along it would have incentivized promiscuity, and then it was downhill from there.
@@johnatchason6506 I bet they rejected it for the same reason you reject it, selfishness.
@@fatmonkey4716 It sounds like the world makes no sense to you without the Bible. Hope you find what you're searching for brother.
Monogamy is about discipline and about overcoming primeval urges. Once you get past them, you can understand that its benefits outweigh whatever it is that you're leaving behind.
Louise Perry notes that bonded monogamy is only a thing for about 20% of the world. And that's the 20% of the world that brought humans out of a primitive condition: Europe, the Roman Empire, Christian based nations. Helmuth Nyborg is a racist, but he has a point: 98% of invention came from Europe....which has about 10% of the world's population. And Milo Yinnopoulos had a point in his Breitbart article "Sorry girls, all the smartest people in the world are men." Men invented everything, white men in particular. Same thing in the book by Aaron Clarey, "The Book of Numbers" which ties the fact that males invented practically everything, not females...he ties that to how the sexual deal between the genders worked in the past....men competing for the affection of women drove progress, incentivized men with biological success....which is what we are doing away with now, there is almost nothing in it now biologically, for a man to even marry.
My guess is, most invention and progress came from males because they were freed of child rearing duties by women sticking to their roles, allowing some men to make progress, make life better slowly over time, for everyone. This only happens in monogamous societies....of which there have been few. Most societies are poly. My overall point is polygamy is the natural human default position, that's why it's in the Bible, right back to Abraham. That's why the myth of Solomon and his 1,000 wives. It's a story about the male side of reproductive success...how it's linked to status because that's how females sort out males, for breeding. This shows up in scientific data: Females leave offspring 80% of the time, but curiously males leave offspring only 40% of the time...that's what DNA tell us. But why the patterns listed?
Monogamy gives men a reason to work for social good, since there is something in it biologically for most men. Social order comes from sexual and reproductive success in men, which makes for more social stability, which especially favors women's health and safety. In the past, women concentrated on child rearing, which was essential in a technologically primitive culture with an historic infant mortality rate of 50%...just like in all mammals, same number. The question is: once we have technology and you remove monogamy and religion as the social norm, there is very much less reason for most men to act like gentlemen to women, since there is zero in it for men, biologically.
It takes many generations to make a gentleman or lady, but far fewer generations to destroy that. Which is what we are doing, in getting rid of monogamy. That's why poly societies for all races and all religions tend to unstable, as the males fight over resources and access to females. Where is this going? Poly accepted as a social norm will likely lead again, to more violence, which is almost entirely a male thing, sometimes disguised as sports, sometimes not disguised, in war. That would not be a fun time for women now busily deconstructing the most peaceful safe society ever, for women.
Camille Paglia the feminist once said, "If it were up to women, we'd all be still living in grass huts." I think that's true, but why? Same answer. Men get incentivized by sexual success in mating. But Paglia is also pointing out the obvious flip side to that equation: Women in human populations control sex, so women don't really need to compete with one another on status, in order to attract a sexual partner. Men are not impressed by a woman's status. It's a good thing, but doesn't matter to us. To a typical male it comes down to a few basics: Is she cute?
Feminists seem hell bent on disincentivizing good behavior in men.
Perfectly put and all accurate. Paste this in most subreddits on any of these topics and its an auto ban for misogyny. As someone who embraced radical honesty years ago, I'm not sure how to keep living in a world so repulsed by the truth. I want a wife and children but so few seem like good choices. And of those few, who of them would be comfortable with any of the truths you espouse.
@@healthymindhappierlife5089 When I was young in the mid-1960s I became interested in cars, we only had American cars, GM, Ford, Chrysler basically. Then I noticed a tiny trickle of imports from Japan. They really were crap the first ones, but very cheap, so people bought them. Made in Japan means high quality now, but back then it meant crap. Over time this competition increased quality of American cars dramatically....so did Japanese cars.
Be a passport bro. World's a big place. I know 3 guys that did that, seem perfectly happy. Better deals in other places. Their cultures are not as corrupt yet, as far as gender roles, in some places anyways. It will take a long time to fix our cultural problems. Don't bother sticking around, if you know this much already. Not worth your time, your life. My favorite 1960s song is "Shop Around" by Smokie Robinson and the Miracles. Cheers, good luck.
🍺🍻
@@TimBitts649 I'm with you. I'm aware of the concept. I make around 140k a year and still feel pretty tied down. I dont have much PTO a year as is. Aside from picking up and leaving everything, I'm not sure how to go about that transition. Any advice?
@@healthymindhappierlife5089 General advice: Spend a lot of time immersed in the topic before you decide what to do. I like to watch The Nomad Capitalist. Also like Amelia & JP Living Abroad Channel, as I too am thinking of relocating my life. When I was a kid, of course there was no internet, we had black and white TV, very big limits to our information access compared to today. I met a girl from Florida when I was 12 and still remember her. Other than the TV show Flipper, that was my only contact or awareness of living in Florida.
Today we have way more information and choice. Today as long as you are curious and self-motivated and keep looking, your algorhthyrms will drive the answers for you, based on your past searches. There is a huge amount of information out there, some great, some awful. Keep looking but be very, very picky about what you watch.
Life a few decades was much easier, to get married, live the American Dream. Things have changed. That's gone. Find a new American Dream. They are out there. Might not be in America, though.
Actually things are better now for many things than the past, but it takes a motivated curious self-starter....willing to do research, to take advantage of that. Sounds like you are one of those people that can thrive in this new world that is emerging. No one is really going to hand you the answers you will need or want, because we all have very unique personal histories and tastes. That's where personal motivation comes in.
Another bit of advice is a true story of Joe, a retired friend of mine and his sister Cindy. When Joe was young, he did an awful lot of travel, saw the world. His sister Cindy did not. She was a buckle down accountant who didn't like adventure and risks. She never travelled when young. Then they both got old. Joe did not make nearly as much money as his sister, but in his old age Joe was very keen on travel, still did it. Cindy made tons of money, was wealthy when retired, but she refused to travel, was not interested.
Why this pattern? When you are young is the time for adventure, taking risks, trying new things. If you fail you have plenty of time to start again. I don't have that time. I did, I used it, but it's no longer available to me, I don't have the time and energy to recover from mistakes.
When I take trips now I look forward to it, partly because in my life, I've done a lot of it, had many adventures. That created a very positive mindset when it comes to this sort of thing, living somewhere else and travelling.
But if you wait till you are Cindy's age? It will never happen. It's like learning another language or learning to play the piano. Much easier when you are young. Sure, I can take up the piano or learn Japanese. Will I? Probably not. Too old and I'd rather do something else. Do things when they are easy for you, where you look forward to the adventure.
Go ahead and try a few things. Golf game now. Bye. Best of luck, hope for the best, cheers.
Trying to explain this to a die hard feminist is like trying to create cold fusion with a plastic straw and a carrot. You're absolutely right though.
If that the species norm. Maybe she should look at what else is the norm in human history.
Death and poverty are two other key ones.
She's not in favour of it.
But both men and women prefer monogamy.
I've never heard a woman saying she is willing to share any man
@chadcadsonvii5258 ok I'll be more nuanced then. I've never seen a woman share a man, regardless of what they say. Based simply on actions - and not what anyone says - the majority of women are unwilling to share a man, unless anyone here can provide evidence to the contrary
@@chadcadsonvii5258 Your generalising mindset will only bring you suffering.
Yes, I think women who find their husband is a secret bigamist are not thrilled.
Look at the media coverage of the recent "Are we dating the same guy" law suit..
Lots of women subscribe to these groups, for varying reasons.
But there are women sharing whether they know it or not!
Same with Sugar Daddies etc - if he can pay the price, he can have as many women as he wants!
@@jonahtwhale1779 People say this is just female nature, but this sort of thing is also from culture. If we valued marriage correctly women wouldn't be thinking of these schemes, or dating for pleasure or whatever it is they want from Chad Polygynous. Society is too scared to call out bad behaviour in women, but we can't progress until this sort of thing is reduced.
Life has never been fair for us or for our ancestors.
Some of us are made by the process, while others are broken by it.
Best of luck, gents, and may God bless you and your loved ones.
Well I'm definitely sure polygamy is terrible for everyone!
Says who? Just because it's not for you dosen't mean it's wrong for everyone
@@Starsteam1 Says many, many people - including many who have tried it and found polygamy to be a morally and psycholgically untenable position.
The evidence is also clear from societies and religious systems that have allowed polygamous unions. Not one has ever been helped by it and one could argue it has brought about the moral collapse of the Muslim world.
For children 🤡@@Starsteam1
Short answer: yes
Long answer: YEEEEEEEESSSSS
The idea that a woman would rather be a single mother or harlett than a wife to someone like me makes me feel like life is sooooo worth living
Working class can barely afford roof over their heads now. Who can afford children. People have sex now mostly for pleasure. And they have 30% less sex than 20 years ago. Societies will shrink.
Yeah. But I read that working class was having babies in the corner of the room full of other working class people with their families. If we are talking about more recent past they had one room, not apartment, were they had families. It was never fairy tale in my country. But we never were rich country
Housing prices in the USA didn't go up until after covid and the economic outlook for everyone in 2019 was great. The strain on relationships and families has been going on far longer.
“As goes the family, so goes the nation, and the whole world”
-John Paul II
Pedo enablers don't get to give advice on morals.
No it's not. Some girls I tried to get together with, practice open relationships and they always fall apart because the THIRD gets jealous.
Probably because that’s human nature. And, imagine the fallout of one wife, three husbands…
That suggests that monogamy is the right thing to aim for.
Na that’s ego, women will drop their ego if needs must and their survival or means to climb the social ladder, they will have no problem being the third or forth. It’s just an inflated sense of sense worth that allows them to feel jealous.
@@fingolfin6603 you left love out of the equation entirely. That's a sad life for anyone male or female to endure.
@@C12341 true, but you don’t need to love someone to be in a relationship with them.
I wonder - and have no idea what the answer, supported by data, is - but i wonder where the horrendous rates of child abuse are to do with family breakdown, or whether it’s just reported more now.
There are less children per pedophile. It's just statistics. Throughout history and in different cultures pedophiles were norm in some places. I saw child porn as a joke about one Muslim culture. Surveys in my small region shows that pedophiles are sadly norm, most women encountered them in childhood than women that don't. But we are descendants of Chinggis Khan. We had several wives before Russians came. Till today men are not monogamous.
They have been extending the definition of abuse for awhile now.
Most polygamous scocitys are waring... For obvious reasons.
The Fact that this is a debate is madness 🤣 of course it is
It really depends on what you understand under "good for society". From a purely economic point of view, people having less children but needing more space to live apart from each other, is not necessarily good. If you put an emphasis on personal freedom, your results could be quite different though.
Explain?
The fact that you think it's madness that this is a debate, leads me to believe you are in no position to have an opnion on what's best for society.
@@villeveikko1Polygynous human societies are only preferentially so: many men still acquire only one wife, such pairings were probably the most common throughout human history. And there have been a significant shift from polygyny toward monogamy beginning about five thousand to ten thousand years ago, judging by genetic evidence. Our polygynous past is very much with us, though, and not just in the contemporary societies that still allow men to have multiple wives: It seems to be built into our very bodies. In nature, species with the strongest polygynous inclinations-those whose males build the biggest harems-also tend to have the most exaggerated sexual dimorphism. There is a violent, high-stakes competition for females within these species, so males evolve to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. Indeed, human males are moderately taller, heavier, and more muscular than females, and it’s males who commit the overwhelming majority of human violence. Polygyny plus (a form of) polyandry: That adds up to polyamory, right? Well, no. Humans probably didn’t evolve in the sort of peaceful, bonobo-style sexual free-for-all. Promiscuous species like bonobos (and the much more violent chimps) engage in a lot of “sperm competition,” because multiple males frequently mate with the same fertile female. Thus they evolve toward that end, with large testicles, anatomical equipment designed to remove rival males’ semen, and sperm cells designed to do battle with competitors inside the female body. What’s more, sexual jealousy appears to be a human universal, seen nearly everywhere to some extent. It’s not an arbitrary cultural construct. The fact of human paternal investment also argues against polyamory. In promiscuous species, fathers rarely invest in their children, instead focusing on impregnating more females, which is a more certain bet because they don’t know which children are theirs anyway. It’s odd that so much of the world has adopted this custom if it’s in tension with human nature. Here I provide numerous reasons that cultures could have “evolved” to support monogamy, and they double as reasons to preserve it. One is just math: Males and females are roughly equal in number, so if one male monopolizes multiple females, society will have to deal with the “excess” males somehow. Otherwise, the result is violent competition over harems. Monogamy, by contrast, ensures that mates are available for nearly all men. Joint parenting is another reason monogamy may have developed, especially given that human children are so helpless in their early years. Father involvement helps kids survive and succeed, and monogamy aids this investment by ensuring that men know which children are theirs and that each mother has full access to the resources and attention of her children’s father.
@@watdeneukPolygynous human societies are only preferentially so: many men still acquire only one wife, such pairings were probably the most common throughout human history. And there have been a significant shift from polygyny toward monogamy beginning about five thousand to ten thousand years ago, judging by genetic evidence. Our polygynous past is very much with us, though, and not just in the contemporary societies that still allow men to have multiple wives: It seems to be built into our very bodies. In nature, species with the strongest polygynous inclinations-those whose males build the biggest harems-also tend to have the most exaggerated sexual dimorphism. There is a violent, high-stakes competition for females within these species, so males evolve to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. Indeed, human males are moderately taller, heavier, and more muscular than females, and it’s males who commit the overwhelming majority of human violence. Polygyny plus (a form of) polyandry: That adds up to polyamory, right? Well, no. Humans probably didn’t evolve in the sort of peaceful, bonobo-style sexual free-for-all. Promiscuous species like bonobos (and the much more violent chimps) engage in a lot of “sperm competition,” because multiple males frequently mate with the same fertile female. Thus they evolve toward that end, with large testicles, anatomical equipment designed to remove rival males’ semen, and sperm cells designed to do battle with competitors inside the female body. What’s more, sexual jealousy appears to be a human universal, seen nearly everywhere to some extent. It’s not an arbitrary cultural construct. The fact of human paternal investment also argues against polyamory. In promiscuous species, fathers rarely invest in their children, instead focusing on impregnating more females, which is a more certain bet because they don’t know which children are theirs anyway. It’s odd that so much of the world has adopted this custom if it’s in tension with human nature. Here I provide numerous reasons that cultures could have “evolved” to support monogamy, and they double as reasons to preserve it. One is just math: Males and females are roughly equal in number, so if one male monopolizes multiple females, society will have to deal with the “excess” males somehow. Otherwise, the result is violent competition over harems. Monogamy, by contrast, ensures that mates are available for nearly all men. Joint parenting is another reason monogamy may have developed, especially given that human children are so helpless in their early years. Father involvement helps kids survive and succeed, and monogamy aids this investment by ensuring that men know which children are theirs and that each mother has full access to the resources and attention of her children’s father.
When RP was not filled with grifters, all of this was well-known, but the "mainstream" always denied it all and mocked them.
Western society was created by who and when. Not perfect, but better. So, monogamy, marriage again, not perfect, is better. The lie of the perfect white picket fence, the perfect partner, freedom, the results in loneliness, replaced by what is better, monogamy. Biblically, marriage is a spiritual connection through consemation. So, multiple partners, multiple spiritual connections, that messes people up.
Freedom is knowing how you ought to live and having the strength to do so. ~ Josh McDowell
Brilliant
I would say, some people in comments here seem to suggest a fear/insecurity that this line of thinking might make all women go Poly and chase the most attractive 1% of males, of which they are not a part of, and therefor there's a bit of a keyboard warrior response to it. But more realistically I think the majority of women and men want to be in life long, healthy, monogamous relationships. So I wouldn't stress it. Poly is in vogue, for sure, but I work in a creative industry where I see tons of these relationships and many of my friends are trying it out, and as a piece of purely anecdotal data, I believe I've seen enough to believe that poly relationships never work. Yeah, I knew a guy once who seemed happy with his poly relationships, but he was still the broken silent sad type and the relationships did not seem to have any depth. Love and live however you want, but poly is not what it's all cracked up to be, if it works for you, great, but for the rest of us it seems that one person in the poly relationship is always secretly hoping it could be monogamous. My 50 cent
Once you've 'tried' it, you can't ever go back. That's the problem. The oxytocin is gone, and there's too much emotional baggage to make any kind of real relationship work.
I don't see Hollywood make films about love anymore. It's sad. I stop watching it. I am not in relationships, but I love love stories
That's why I don't like western drama movies, they portray love and romantic relationships as hook up culture sex, even relationships as friends or with strangers, western movies portray as sex, I'm more interested in love stories from Korea and from Turkish drama movies there are various kind of not just about sex
Even in the countries/societies where polygamy is acceptable it is not actually widespread. For very simple reason: permission to have multiple wives always comes with obligation to support them all and those rich guys are not the majority of the population. Quite the opposite. Even having one wife can be prohibitively expensive for poor guys.
"Who could have predicted...?" Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae
Yep. Christians and other sensible people who are able to understand simple cause and effect.
J D Unwin surveyed the rise and fall of civilizations throughout history and came to this conclusion:
The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a society which has advanced to the rationalistic condition unless its females have been born into an absolutely monogamous tradition; nor is there any example of a group which has retained its high position in the cultural scale after less rigorous customs have become part of the inherited tradition of all its members. When marriage is a compulsory lifelong association of two equal partners, and a woman knows no man except her husband, and a man knows no woman except his wife, sexual opportunity is reduced to a minimum. (Compulsory celibacy does not limit sexual opportunity. It attempts to deny sexual activity. Its effect upon cultural condition is devastating.) A study of historical peoples reveals the fact that those societies which have adopted such customs as most nearly approach this compulsory lifelong association (which has never yet been achieved), and who have retained their rigid laws as to sexual conduct for the longest period, have advanced in the cultural scale to the highest position which any human society has yet reached.
J D Unwin, "Sex and Culture", page 84
So what is the difference between "Humans" and Animals
If you need to ask that question then your brain is no more evolved than that of a say, baboon? 😊
Humans think they’re important and other animals don’t
Animals are free to go where they wish, in nature.
@@WhereTheyLay You have not seen the streets of San Francisco littered with feces.
@@WhereTheyLay And get eaten in the pyramid of life.
If you look closely all the menage a trois relationships are composed by one woman and two (weak) men.
One strong man - two women. It is traditional.
You just announced that you are poor and ugly. 3-way relationships take 2 forms. Rich attractive people match up with 2 women and one guy and usually a boat. The other end has one woman, 2 men she outweighs combined, and 3 lifetime memberships at the Renfair.
Well, I've seen a relationship with one strong man, one weak man, and a woman. 12 years later they're still together with kids.........Obviously it only worked because the second man was basically a man-wife to the first one and stayed at home doing housework and taking care of the kids, while the other two were busy wotking. He was more a big brother to them if anything, given he was over a decade younger than the other two. The first man is a doctor, the woman is also a doctor, the second man......just graduated college when he got with them back then, don't know what he studied. Think it worked out for them cause the second guy was basically a house keeper and nanny to 2 busy people with a lot of money, and they're all probably bisexual, given the first guy called both the others his "wives".🤣
Whichever gender it is, it always follows the same pattern. 2 Subs and 1 Dom. You can change the male and female around. Still the same equation. Their is always 1 dominating partner and 2 submissive ones.
@salkoharper2908 Wholly agreed, and my comment got removed somehow, but that's how it works, I told a story of a relationship I witnessed, 2 men, one dom, one sub, and a woman.
Not for me, thanks, not interested in sharing
This society is done!
Such an attractive woman; smart, sensible and pretty.
Just look at society, and you have your answer.
Probably, yes. But judging from the rate of infidelity, divorce, children from multiple partners.... it doesn't really seem to align too well with our biology.
Even ducks have partners
The worst fights both physical and emotional that I have ever seen were from people cheating. The pair bond is far too strong to f with.
Comparing Christian and Muslim societies side by side and deciding the differences based on polygamy and monogamy does not control for the difference the religious beliefs make, which could arguably be the bigger impact.
People in the Bible were polygamy
@@emeraldspark8794 So? That actually only makes my argument stronger (that the difference is actually due to other differences of belief, not the presence or lack of polygamy). Besides, the people in the Bible you were referring to were Jewish, not Christian. And God specifically said to the Jews that their kings should not "multiply wives to themselves" (Deuteronomy 17:17), so He obviously wasn't a fan of the custom even if He didn't forbid it. (Arguably polygamy may be somewhat necessary in a society that loses a high percentage of its men to war deaths). And of course, none of this has anything to do with the modern reality that most Christian societies are not polygamous and most Muslim societies are (which I was arguing may not be the most significant difference in terms of the problems they are talking about).
Funny seeing Konstantine buying into the idea
Her description is that of very immoral people, I don’t like this used as the norm but whatever
In my opinion, rich men can do anything so why would they feel the need for being monogamous or have intimacy. they can just get whatever they want. Woman who are part of those want the money, the comfort that they never need to worry about financial issues and that they are being taken care of without having to worry. but there more reward mentally/emotionally when there is monogomy, especially when there are children involved. however all these standards and dynamics now have been exploded!! I guess it depends how these people were raised and thought. how and what kind of person your "parents" were. Theres nothing more powerful or stronger than a monogamist family! it creates love and strength, a bond, whereas other types can lead to all kinds of toxic traits such a sconstant jealousy or who gets more attention than whom. i mean there are polygamists cults and the women were miserable because of these kinds of things.
5:20. we dont exaggerate that. When bosses come to workplaces, women and men flock to them and the behaviour changes greatly. its so pathetic to see. The same happens when beautiful women of buff guys are around. People change.
4:22 Bahahah. Spitting tea 😅
Feminism is burning down your house for a night’s party.
Yes ofcorse its good. Monogamy is the reason we have a stable society!
"It's gotten to the point now where like, Ah, at least it's not a kid..." - Francis 2024
As funny as this is this is how low our standards have come, when the men RULING our country and are supposed to be leading by example are now given leniency for infidelity and it is accepted as normal.
How much is the length of modern lives and improvements in health care impacting all of these figure. Men probably had more wives in the past due to death in child birth, women mothers children not always their own. Is this a factor as well?
Women are gonna have to be forced back into monogamy. Handmaid’s tale, ladies, you wanted this
Would love to hear a conversation with her and Orion Taraban from Psychacks
Yes !
Monogamy is the normal state of being for normally functioning human beings. It's the default setting absent influences like manipulation and psychopathy. It functions without psychiatric care, narcotics, alcohol, drugs, or other mind-altering substances. How anyone can come to a different conclusion-given access to thousands of years of human development-can only be explained because of ignorance, malevolence, or dishonesty.
Or the king David, king Saul, king Solomon model…
Why are you surprised when we are taking all the consequences for bad behavior away?
Whenever I speak to a woman they've always slept with 50+ guys these days and yet every guy I know has slept with only a handful of women..... I find it so strange they women see to all be sleeping with the same few guys.
As a woman I believe most women have been tricked by modern feminism and the s*xual liberation movement into thinking that being promiscuous is somehow beneficial to them and that they "take matters into their own hands" and that by sleeping around they become equal to men which is very sad because they don’t realize how negatively it's going to impact them in the future.
I'm one of those few guys. If they're willing to share us, and they are, you should ask yourselves why.
@@kenofken9458 For me I do not understand, having sex isn't a drive and I've never had a one night stand. I do not understand the people that enjoy it because there is no drive in me to want that. Like just there was no drive in me to go out clubbing and get wasted, none of it appeals. For some people I guess having sex is their drive, but honestly for fun I'd rather rebuild the top end of my motorbike engine or making a map for Counter Strike. Sex for me is just a byproduct of being in a relationship, I look for the relationship and not sex. If I see a half naked drunk woman, I think "skank" and not "sexy".... But maybe it's just me.
the average lifetime body count is between 7-12 for females and +1 for males (who are most likely driven up by the small number of homosexuals who have a lot more sex with eachother than heterosexuals and who obviously dont drive up the male to female ratio and only the male ratio)
Women and men with +20 body count are extremely abnormal (under 5%) and those on the tails with 50+ or in the 3 digits are most likely under the 1% level.
Most of the time its not even driven by attractiveness, for either males or females. But is driven by something calles sociosexuality, which is basically someone's desire to have lots of sex with different partners.
High sociosexuality is often, though not always, driven by maladaptive behaviours (such as tackling low self image) and instances of childhood sexual abuse. Or sometimes drug abuse, though this normally results in sex work.
If you don't understand why folks are behaving like this then thats a cue to be thankful for your upbringing and mental health.
@@SilverWolvesScarletForestSnow Everyone is different and that's how it should be.
Interesting overall but the comments at the end were wrong, both Christian and Muslim Africans practice polygamy although Muslims at a higher rate, you can look at the Pew Research paper published on polygamy around the world to look at the stats. Muslims societies on average also have a lower crime rate than Christian societies both before and after controlling for factors such as socio-economics (Source for that is "Are Muslims Distinctive?: A Look at the Evidence" By Steven Fisher). So a more robust example should have been provided.
It can only get worse
I have thought that a Certified Permit to Poly would be a good certification. Perhaps an international standard.
The answer is yes!
Yes. Period.
4:11 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Sex drive and reproductive drive jost do not match. Face it. I often joke about how many people would exist if sex didn't create pleasure.
The way I see it, absolute rigid norms may be great to the masses. Well, what good does it do for misfits? All I ever saw was the middle finger. One harsh truth about life is that there is no one size fits all solution.
Inceldom is unavoidable. Let men buy services from the professional ladies. That won't happen.
Is not even a question is it?
In 2015 internet dating was good fun. Its not now!
This is only an issue now women are suffering.
The patriarchy is alive and well!
The fact we are capable as a species of performing monogamy, polygamy and everything is bananas 🍌
I don’t need this to say no.
"It's kind of like LDC has a fleet of Ferraris he's never driven."
Yesssss, and rather than tar him as a ladies man, if we THINK about it, perhaps the truth lies in open sight right there.
Yes
Yes. Yes it is. Monogamy is good for society. This ain’t rocket science, people.
Yes.
Next question.
I hate some of these weird labels floating around but after listening to Louise I think I’m a damn sapiosexual
I enjoyed hearing Laura Branigans ' perspective.
As someone who has been successfully navigating polyamory for a while now, its absolutely not something I'd prescribe to society or most people. I have to navigate cautiously bc most people who try to be polyamorous have no business doing so, and shouldnt be pursuing relationships with anyone but working on themselves. It works for me, and i have beautiful, loving long term relationships and I have the capacity to navigate that space, but im very much an acception. Society needs monogamy. Not everyone needs to participate in life the same way, but be honest and true with yourself and dont let undue influence direct your life choices.
"Who could have predicted [pill + abortion] would have produced more illegitimacy?" Literally every ancient teaching on the subject tells us. The "mean" rules evolved for a reason.
Female instinct doesn't change when presented with more choice/options, it amplifies.
dont think I would date a woman who has been in a poly relationship. I also would not date a a women who does not know who the father of her children are.
I agree that this 20% of men sleep with 80% of women thing is, well, a thing. But I don't think it's 100% natural/human nature. I do think women are of course attracted to successful attractive men, but we do live in a world with successful women now. The dynamics have changed a bit, we have run into what some are calling modern feminism, when it's really just unrealistic standards based on women's success, or at least the ability to be successful. There are plenty of men that would normally qualify, yet that pool of men has gotten even small due to the opportunity to be a successful woman.
Women always look up, never down or at an equal level, it's time they understand there are good men at all levels.
At least it's not a kid.
BAHAHA
Short answer: YES.
Christian philosophy is about mercy for the sinner, the outcast, the broken and the lost. Jesus goes to the one who society rejects. God comes down and numbers himself amongst the damned. While much of human societies is the opposite: reward the powerful, the rich, the righteous and condemn those who fail to meet the standards of the society. In many ways it's about reaching up to become a God. So on one hand you have God coming down into humanity and the other you have humanity reaching up to become like God. If women are to be like Christ, they would not seek power and status they would seek the broken and the lost. Femininity shines when it is the embodiment of mercy. It feels corrupted when it worships power. I think one of the reasons our dating culture is so broken is because of this idea. As the west became less interested in grace and more interested in power and success, women followed suit and chased all the narcissistic men and abandoned the lost and broken men. Thus you have powerful egotists that turn women into harlots, and lost and broken men that simply remain lost and broken and are never healed by feminine love and mercy.
Would it not only be the case that more women are attracted to the high status limelight as it were...
The actual behavior is a much larger number of females sharing a smaller group of males, those that are much, much better than the females.
Monogamy is good for society. Harems, voluntary (Tinder et al) or other, are bad for the economy
I don't care what absurd things other people believe. I'm monogamous because that's how i feel happiest.
The polygamy argument is basically: animals do it, so why not humans? why not devolve back to apes.
At least it's not a kid 😂😂
Born out of wedlock. That also includes people in a stable relationship, who arent married, having a kid.
We should not forget that human beings are part of cultural evolution as well....Not only that we have mental capacities to determine what is better and what works, which means we are not driven by instincts only...When an evolutionary drive is pronaunced at the expense of our mental capacities, then the conclussions made are often inncorect.....To deny or negate some of the benefits of monogamy on the account of evolutionary drives, is somewhat short sighted, and factually incorrect.....
No one seems to mention make up. I don't think the divide would be so apparent if women didn't wear make up
Seems pretty simplified. I get the theory, but I doubt it stands up to scrutiny. Seems more complex. And the alpha / beta thing is silly. It depends on the game you're playing.
Polygamy leaving a lot of men without mates, well that can be solved a few ways, just hypothetically. How about having some women with multiple men. Or even the rich ones who can have multiple wives also integrate other males into the relationship. Also a sizable portion are homosexuals anyway, so the proportion of single and unoccupied males shpuld be minimal. Also with that in mind now I know why eunuchs were a thing in the past.......too many single males, and that was done to "safely" integrate them into households, these days we dont need to do that, however, given we have DNA test, comtraceptives, and vasectomy.
Anyway, bottom line is Im still torn about polygamy, given monogamy is more reliably stable, and overall more stable, doesnt mean polygamy cannot be stable if done in a right model, just works on lower proportion of people. However there is a cost to humanity as a species practicing monogamy, given most males will reproduce, especially with the advent of modern medicine, natural selection is artificially suppressed, via lack of genetic bittle-necks, given most humans will eventually reproduce under monogamy, in contrast to having only a smaller percentage of the most successful reproduce. This surely affects our long-term genetic fitness. Also not all females should reproduce, males should also be picky. But in the grand scheme of things, I see it as a pendulum. Polygamy leads to increased genetic fitness, and idealism, which leads to reform and hence monogamy, which leads to a decline in genetic fitness, which leads to social instability and leads straight back to polygamy. Rinse and repeat. At least that occurs in urban societies in which intellect and emotional stability are rewarded. It will be the opposite in more primitive societies where aggression and physical strength are selected for.
I ain't sharing.
@@ntolman Well the whole thing was hypothetically speaking, however evolution-wise a human's pen1s is shaped so that it scoops out other male's sperm from the female, so you know what that implies.....we are not a monogamous species. And unwillingness to share......oh well.....jealousy and possessiveness are pathological traits.
I suppose you’d expect that if you’d never heard of humans.