4chan archive /r9k/ (index)
similar threads
2014-02-22 12:02 10728966 Anonymous Monogamy is a hoax (ted2013_0063011_d41_1824.jpg 900x599 122kB)
This video may be of interest for some of you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJh klPJz9U8 a TL:DW is basically this man explaining how prehistoric hunter gatherer humans living in secluded and small groups often lived in "communist" type societies, sharing resources and so on. He extends this to saying that sexual favors were also exchanged, and it was common for men and women to live promiscuously within these societies. One man didn't belong specifically to one woman and visversa. Humans are intrinsically "designed" (through evolution ofcourse) to be promiscuous. My point/his point are the social problems this causes in contemporary society. We have certain societal norms of monogamy and numerous sexual "taboos" which contradict natural human instinctual behavior. You guys here on /r9k/ are always complaining how "women" are whores and such but have you ever considered that there is nothing wrong with woman but the society that you live in? Why would you even waste time caring if a woman is a virgin? Why is the thought of a women having multiple sexual partners disgusting to you? Because society told you so. If you were born in a prehistoric human society, you wouldn't care the slightest that the woman you are currently fucking has had every other villagers dick in her pussy within the past week. Get over it. Monogamous norms are cancerous.

4 min later 10728992 Anonymous
How is it a "hoax" or "cancerous?" Do you think that because it was done in the days before we had a civilization that somehow makes it virtuous or desirable? If you ask me, monogamy is fucking genius. Without it there would be no nuclear family unit, and that has served as a cornerstone of all societies everywhere. Without the family, parents are far less inclined to take personal responsibility for their kids-- to labor for their benefit and raise them well.

10 min later 10729020 Anonymous
>>10728992 When you introduce monogamy, there will always be conflicting interests within families. Men want to fuck multiple women, Women are induced to fuck men who interest them as well. They "try" not to do it because society says not to, but this isn't enough. Your claim that parents will be less inclined to take personal responsibility for children is a baseless claim. Do you have any evidence that shows that polygamous families raise less socially efficient children?

13 min later 10729031 Anonymous
>>10729020 So find yourself a like minded woman and fuck off then.

13 min later 10729033 Anonymous
>TED my sides enjoy your shills and censorship

14 min later 10729036 Anonymous
Some fat jew puts some bullshit on you and you instantly believe it. nature tells us that we have to be nomadic because the lack of food, we answer with agriculture nature tells us a third of our children will die(most male infants), we answer with medicine and science nature isn't shit

15 min later 10729043 Anonymous
>>10728966 >trying this hard to justify infidelity >doesnt realize the only reason he's still alive is this civilized society i'm pretty sure you dont want a society with caveman values, i.e. survival of the fittest. until then, stop being a fucking animal and learn to control your urges.

17 min later 10729051 Anonymous
>>10729020 >When you introduce monogamy, there will always be conflicting interests within families. So what? Without monogamy, there isn't a family at all. >Do you have any evidence that shows that polygamous families raise less socially efficient children? Of course not, there isn't anywhere near a sufficient sample size to produce any evidence. However you're assuming that people would still actually form families, just larger ones. Why would these polygamous desires be so constrained? They were in prehistory, but then transportation didn't exist. Now we can fuck a new stranger every night of the week, and there are people who do exactly that. How do you see a family forming in these circumstances?

17 min later 10729054 Anonymous
>>10729031 Nah I won't fuck off. There are people on this board who ACTUALLY believe that a woman who is a virgin is of higher quality than a woman who has had multiple sexual partners. Then you will go on to claim "oh then she is more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases". I'm not advocating a societal norm of promiscuity based on careless copulatory activities, but based on educated citizens who engage in safe sex and are not stigmatized for having sex. Sex is not a big deal. Sorry if society based on religious norms told you so.

18 min later 10729056 Anonymous
OP, since we actually live in modern society, the norms of modern society are probably more relevant to us than the norms of prehistoric shitters. Yeah, whatever, instincts are there, but society isn't going to drop all of it's principles just because they're not natural.

20 min later 10729069 Anonymous
>>10729054 If you could astral project, you could study the mysteries of sexual energy directly out of your body. But you will settle for the approved experts and their omnipotent ignorance.

21 min later 10729072 Anonymous
>Mankind has its huge advantage on earth because of cultural evolution instead of relying on on natural evolution >People still argue that we are "designed" to do something so it is better We are designed to chase large animals to death in savannas

21 min later 10729076 Anonymous
and then civilization happened, and we found that having relationships like animals severely weakens the nation

28 min later 10729105 Anonymous
>>10729076 >>10729072 >>10729036 >>10729043 >>10729051 I'm not arguing that we should mimic our nomadic lifestyles. I'm simply arguing for a remodeling of the current society in which monogamous norms are challenged for their precariousness. Of course we are inclined to aggressive behavior in environments of society. When humans have basic necessities of life they tend not to act violently. So right there is a "fixed" problem to the well being of humans in society. Next, society says that we should pick one woman and only sleep with them for the rest of our lives. We have another problem here, yet society doesn't fix it. Would an extension of our understandings of sexual relationships impede societal developments? Imagine a society where you can have a family but it isn't a big deal if you fuck other people when you feel like it and it isn't viewed as a big deal between you and your partner. Is that not feasible? The claim that it isn't is baseless.

29 min later 10729112 Anonymous
>>10729054 >he doesnt realize that these religios norms were the founding stone of civilization without religion you would still live in a mud hut and get slaughtered by someone who's stronger than you

29 min later 10729113 Anonymous
>>10729105 in environments of scarcity*

34 min later 10729131 Anonymous
>>10729105 fuck off chad, why the fuck would we resign our women to you? Why the fuck would you come here, to a place full of betas, and try to convince us we should go back to a society where alphas have vastly disproportional amounts of sex with all women, leaving hardly anything for us? You realize you're literally advocating degeneracy with no benefit other than a few chads getting to fuck everyone they want If you're encouraging it because you want to exploit it, at least dont pretend like what you're doing is right

34 min later 10729135 Anonymous
>>10729105 Monogamy in modern society isn't motivated by procreational needs but by emotional and economical reasons. Monogamy stabilizes emotional wellbeing and prevents shenanigans of children who are feeling unloved and jeolous partners. Also more simple succession.

34 min later 10729140 Anonymous
>>10729105 1) You should've clearly stated that because your original post states "HURR MONOGAMY IS UNNATURAL THEREFORE WRONG" 2) Even if you criticise our current system, it's pointless unless you suggest a better system. We're all aware of the pros and cons of our current system. Nobody ever argues that it's perfect but you're not even suggesting something better? Why the fuck should anyone care about your opinion? Damn man. You're new to this whole "arguing" thing, aren't you?

35 min later 10729145 Anonymous
>>10729105 not everyone is a cuck like you. so no, i dont want my wife to fuck around whenever she pleases.

37 min later 10729151 Anonymous
>>10728966 communal societies, not communist. these societies often stay limited in numbers. think a town being a city, a village a town. the taboo against the instinct to kill rival males and their offspring is also there for a reason. Something being naturaldoes not make it better.

37 min later 10729153 Anonymous
I really don't care what some narcissist says is and isn't natural. All I know is when I care for someone I only want to be with them and if she were to cheat on me there's a good chance I'd snap and kill her. I call that love.

40 min later 10729159 Anonymous
>>10729153 >she were to cheat on me there's a good chance I'd snap and kill her. I call that love. Fuck off redneck

40 min later 10729165 Anonymous
Can we bring rape back as well since we're going to be cavemen?

41 min later 10729169 Anonymous
>>10729159 That last bit was half joking. Dumbass.

43 min later 10729170 Anonymous
>>10729105 >Is that not feasible? The claim that it isn't is baseless. That's all well and good, but it's the positive existential premise that bears the burden of proof. Meaning that you have to offer up some evidence that such a radical restructuring of society itself is tenable, not that anyone has to prove it isn't. I couldn't be arsed to watch the video, but from the summary in the OP it seems like the whole argument is looking to the past, not proposing a viable future. "Man it sure was great when we could fuck a lot of people." Thanks, Captain Obvious, but unless you have something constructive to add to that dialogue on how better to organize our society then all you're really doing is running your mouth.

43 min later 10729171 Anonymous
>>10729131 >>10729140 >>10729145 I still hold my very initial claim and inquiry in that humans are not monogamous creatures so why do you blame women for having multiple sexual partners? You guys are living a fantasy. Like expecting a dog not to bite you if you stick your hand in his food bowl. You have a distorted view of reality and an erroneous ontological understanding of a human being. The questions and topics of this board "why did she cheat on me?" "why can't i just find a girl who...?" just show the enduring flawed logic of you NEETs who are asking the wrong questions.

43 min later 10729172 Anonymous (1336033261641.jpg 320x320 50kB)
We have to have monogamy because of one simple fact: No man wants to take care of another man's kid. It's one thing to play basketball with a kid that's not yours; it's another thing to spend your paycheck on some Chad's child. The whole, communist thing where "it takes a village to raise a child" type shit will never be the norm in America because too many people will abuse the system and have 10 kids, and force the rest of the village to pick up the slack. If people were responsible and only had a few children, then yes, I'd be all for a polygamous society. But that's impossible because everyone guy wants to cum in dat dere pussy.

44 min later 10729174 Anonymous
>>10729140 >it's pointless unless you suggest a better system The system of Huxley's "Brave New World" was pretty nice. Superior to what we have now at the very least.

44 min later 10729178 Anonymous
>>10729171 >america before 1967 did not exist

45 min later 10729181 Anonymous
>tfw polygamous lel Though I think in most situations it's bound to cause tension, and monogamy is better.

45 min later 10729182 Anonymous
>>10729151 Simply a semantics issue. Karl Marx referred to these prehistoric communities as communist in that they were classless/moneyless which was why I did so. >inb4 accusations of being a communist

46 min later 10729185 Anonymous
>>10729174 the one where people had to be consistently doped out of their mind to feel content? a dystopian novel is your blueprint for a better society? lol

46 min later 10729187 Anonymous
>>10729171 >humans are not monogamous creatures so why do you blame women for having multiple sexual partners? You are a idiot and need to learn some reading comprehension, we are not fucking animals that have no way resist our urges and instincts for a higher good, so the only thing we want from women is that they behave like humans and not like elks in the mating season

47 min later 10729193 Anonymous
How the fuck can anyone use evolutionary psychology as a basis for anything when the entire concept is completely theoretical and based on nothing but assumptions?

49 min later 10729195 Anonymous
>>10729187 Unless we develop some pharmaceutical which inhibits intrinsic sexual desires, people will continue to "commit adultery" as they always have throughout human history.

49 min later 10729198 Anonymous
>>10729171 Your essential question is "Why do we despise humans for following their natural urges?" My answer is that in order for a civilised society to function, in order for order to exist, we cannot fall to the levels of the animal. We must, through the execution of Will, assure control of ourselves and do what is proper not just for ourselves, but for the whole of humanity. Your actual question though? It's because by sleeping with multiple partners, you implicitly assert the belief that this person is replaceable and disposable. That their life and feelings do not matter. To be, even implicitly told this by someone you consider to be dear and special is a painful blow. That's why it's hated. Not just living animalistically, but cheating.

49 min later 10729200 Anonymous
>>10729182 or anarchic like bakunin would argue. Noble savages like Locke and Mills would want you to believe. Regardless, there arenormative behaviours which pop up. Even in groups as small as 3 people, they set up norms of how to behave over time.

50 min later 10729202 Anonymous
>>10729182 He called it Primitive communism, the "primitive" is important, it hasn't basic properties of communism

51 min later 10729206 Anonymous
>>10729185 Although the society of Brave New World is commonly refered to being a dystopia, one has full justification to consider it as a Utopian society as well. Dystopia implies an "undesirable society" whilst I do not see what is so undesirable in a society where everyone was happy (including the proletariat).

51 min later 10729207 Anonymous
>>10729195 People can control their desires, being a chad or a slut fucking everything is living on the level of a monkey

51 min later 10729209 Anonymous
face it faggots, things are about to get more slutty and you losers aren't going to be in on the action. >b-but muh monogamy Into the trash it goes.

52 min later 10729211 Anonymous
>>10729195 pretty sure a few people committing adultry is better than a weak society full of complete whores, 5/10 go back to sociology class

53 min later 10729215 Anonymous
good goy, we should live like primitive people because some old jew told you in some TED talk, and he is right because it's TED

55 min later 10729221 Anonymous
>>10729206 Its not a true utopia if people are only happy because their perceptions are altered by drugs, that is a delusion

56 min later 10729226 Anonymous
>>10729221 It is a true utopia from their perspective, it just isn't one from the outside

59 min later 10729237 Anonymous
>>10729221 That relies solely on your definition of utopia, which was one of the major themes of that book and a topic of great discussion. Transhumanists argue for a maximizing of human happiness. The savage was the one who was against the society simply because he was raised outside of it and found the idea obscene (just as do you) although the people in the society would argue that the way we are living now is uncivilized and undesirable. One can put forth the argument saying that the people of society, despite being delusional experienced much higher levels of happiness throughout their lives, whilst the savages lived lives of suffering and scarcity despite being lucid. You cannot say one particular view is superior to the other, it is solely up to each individual.

1 hours later 10729265 Anonymous
>>10729226 their perspective isnt objective

1 hours later 10729297 Anonymous
>>10729215 You missed the part of OPs post where he said "My point/his point are.." and then continued to explain his point, which was nothing like what you just said in your post? How do people like you not just forget to eat or something?

1 hours later 10729302 Anonymous
>>10729221 not even trying to be edgy, but.. all happiness is a form of delusion. You are aware that the stuff that makes us happy are basically just drugs that our body makes, right?

1 hours later 10729308 Anonymous (1390566254196.png 602x736 459kB)
>>10728966 It varies from race to race, picture partially related.

1 hours later 10729425 Anonymous
>>10729193 Most of the TED talk wasn't any evo phyce, it was just talking about anthropologists looking at differences between hunter/gatherer societies and societies that sprung from Victorian morals. It's one thing to argue with a say so story, it's quite another to argue with hundreds of independent tribes.

1 hours later 10729507 Anonymous
>>10729308 >males will tend to exhibit smaller, more feminine, less robust physical qualities >females by contrast grow big, assertive and ill-tempered Sounds like feminism to me

1 hours later 10729527 Anonymous
>>10728966 So the entire argument is >X is natural >Therefore X is good Ever considered that "good" and "natural" are unrelated even though they may sometimes (but not always) correlate? This argument only works under the assumption that women are mindless beasts with no understanding of morality nor any responsibility for their actions. If that is true, then they are not moral actors and there's nothing wrong with men owning them in the same way a man is allowed to own a dog.

2 hours later 10729610 Anonymous
>>10728966 Only problem is there are multiple hypothesis/theroys to early mans sexuality. For what what it matters I believe him when hes referring to VERY early humanity, however as religious texts and history have shown is that man hates it when "their" women sleeps around, mainly because then they could not tell who their offspring were. Horses, for example the mares sleep around with ALL the males, this was an interesting evolution because the alpha horses tended to kill the younger males, unless it was related. And due to scents and shit intermingling it became harder for them to distinguish so they stopped killing all the baby horses. Since humanity is more intelligent, there is doctrine in place to limit this type of behavior from women, as they still have that instinct to sleep around with as many males, if for bit different reasons today, but the results are all the same. IE a guy taking care of another mans child because his wife/gf slept around behind his back

2 hours later 10729626 Anonymous (GaloSengen1.png 808x596 406kB)
>>10728966 Throughout the entire event this fuckwit never once provided any actual evidence for proving that Monogamy wasn't used in tribal society and when it was pointed out by members of the audience he brushed it off with no explanation >tl:dr man rewrites history in attempt to rewrite society so he doesn't feel bad about his urges.

3 hours later 10729841 Desolation (1392591783742.jpg 640x432 30kB)
>>10729626 He probably settled with used goods and now wants to make himself feel better by saying it's as it suppose to be... your parter should ride cock carousel and it's ok as long as she sticks with you in the end... but in the end, it doesn't even matter

3 hours later 10729888 Anonymous
>>10729036 >Some fat jew puts some bullshit on you and you instantly believe it. This is some appeal to authority shit. Just because some asshole says monogamy is bad, doesn't mean it is. Granted, there are viable alternatives for those that would seek them, but monogamy is sound for those who want it and can maintain it.

3 hours later 10729929 Anonymous
>Monogamy is a hoax no you're just a whore trying to justify being a whore, whore.

3 hours later 10729967 Anonymous (1392940112283.jpg 500x375 147kB)
>ancient man did it so we can too! I guess we can go back to living in mud huts and shitting in pits too since we already got so many things right. Human society has changed, if you want to use "muh historical precedent" as justification to sleep around you can try, but that doesn't make it the "right" choice. Not that this applies to any of you, you're all bitter neckbeards nobody likes, and let's not even entertain the idea that one person let alone several would even consider having sex with any of you.

3 hours later 10729975 newt pure slut-apologism. what is pair bonding?
You're cancerous OP. what does one gain from a woman being a whore? nothing but a cheap orgasm. we want a nice, dedicated wife who will ant to look after our kids with us and stay with us in old age. not some haggard slut who isn't even capable of pair bonding or a committed relationship anymore because she's desensitised herself to it. You validly could say that the best of all as a man would be to have a virgin wife and then several concubines , mistresses, a harem, or afiars that you didn't care about except ofr primal lust. But given the likelihood of being discovered in this day and age and the fact that overall a tru, loving relationship is more desirable than the kind of perpetually seedy life-style enjoyed by martin sheen or hugh Heffner, it's probably overall in our interests to prioritise our pure waifu.

3 hours later 10730007 Anonymous
I remember hearing about how different tribes would do tests on their women to deem whether they were suitable for marriage (before christianity btw). I noticed he didn't mention them in the video. It's easy to point to amazonians or southern chinese and say look how promiscuous they are, it just proves how we are all innately promiscuous. How can you be convinced by one video unless you were looking for evidence to confirm whatever you want to believe?

3 hours later 10730008 newt
>What I'm argueing against is the shame that's associated. That if you're in a relationship and you love your husband or wife but you're attracted to other people that there's something wrong with you. Uhh, literally nobody says that. That isn't a mainstream opinion at all. Every couple is obviously still attracted to film stars for example. what a back tracking worm. >hurr we should live like primitive mud people in the amazon and believe that the more semen a woman gets in her cunt, the better the baby will be >Oh no I wasn't saying that.

2.067 0.209