Post: #51

(03-16-2015 01:57 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:53 PM)Pride male Wrote:  ^^My point exactly. The nuclear family is healthy, depending on the wife/husband. Moreso, than being a deadbeat dad or being an old childless man. Although, I will admit I dont know what it being red or blue pill means.

It's all so subjective depending on who you ask that it's basically meaningless. The concept is lifted from a overrated sci-fi movie, for Chrissake.

Red pill = good and whatever I agree with

Blue pill = bad and whatever I don't agree with

Red-pill is accepting reality.

It is red-pill to look at marriage honestly and give it as unbiased an evaluation as possible.

Marriage cannot be red-pill or blue-pill.

Red-pill is deciding whether marriage is good for men, good for women, good for children and good for society.

How good it is may vary by decade and region.

In a society where marriage represents a heightened chance of survival, it's not red-pill or blue-pill to evaluate it. You simply do it because it's what it takes to survive.

In our day and age, where survival is not generally the issue in the Western or wealthy world, it's blue pill to blindly accept anything.

200 years ago, not so much.

Post: #52

To the people saying marriage is unnatural:

What are you talking about?

Marriage predates all recorded history. Marriage for all we know has occurred for millions of years.

Aristotle wrote in "Politics" right on the fourth paragraph of the first book:

"In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved."

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html

Notice that he says this union is not formed deliberately, but instinctively. Hence marriage is natural like governments are natural.

And we see this naturalness play out everywhere:

ALL human societies, across the globe, have always had governments and marriage. To say marriage is unnatural is just ignoring reality. I challenge anywhere here to find a true society that existed without marriage or governments. You may find one... but as usual it will be the exception that proves the rule.

Post: #53

Without getting super hella deep into the subject you could even make an argument that marriage predates social contract itself.

Post: #54

It is my view that our intelligence and free will gives us access to higher forms of being. This is evidenced by our architecture and art, our mathematical discoveries, our music. It takes vigorous energy to create these things, and yet at the same time we don't fully get to choose what we create. Harmonics is a factor of the universe, for instance; high art is as much a discovery as it is a creation. It's both at once.

Talking about 'natural' ways of being just doesn't apply to us in the way it does to other animals. We interact with the cosmos in a far more profound manner than any other animal does. Mating in other species merely follows the laws of economics and evolution; they are dictated to by reality. We merge with reality, and take part in creation. The golden ratio exists in nature, but only we can apply to nature and build cathedrals.

Following from this, it strikes me that marriage is an attainment of a higher form of being human. Done properly it balances the masculine and the feminine into a union that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Everybody here has experienced at least a fragment of that during the act of coitus. The intimacy and ecstasy of sex are greater than just an orgasm - it's more than just a chemical reaction, there's more meaning behind it. Porn and masturbation are far more efficient than sex; you can customize the stimulation, and your hand will be more responsive than a pussy - but there's an element missing there. There's nothing but hormones. When making love to a woman, you are called upon to penetrate, and she is called upon to submit. There's a higher order there, we're entering the ethereal realms of strategy.

Marriage extends this onto the whole relationship. Life-long pledges, because only something like a free willed human could declare upon reality by making such a pledge. The recognition of permanence, no matter what, through the man's sacrifice, and the woman's surrender.

The Red Pill shows us what a sham the modern aping of marriage is, and that false idol needs to be destroyed before you can look at the true ideal - but the ideal of marriage, of the union of opposites, remains.

Post: #55

When talking about marriage on "PUA" forums the most vocal guys are usually the ones with the least experience with women,guys that never got their dicks anywhere near true 8+,funny,intelligent girl - let alone were able to keep her for 6+ months.

Marriage might not be all that much fun when you get there but PLEASE, I bet that 90% of you that are so vocal against it would sign the papers the second you got your hands on a high quality woman.

My father was slaying till mid 30s, then got married to 15 years younger girl(mom) ... Had 3 kids, is still happy/in love after 25 years. She supported him in business, always stood by him etc...

I would say his life was incredibly fulfilling and would probably be entirely different if he didn't get married. He might had been creeping on this forums instead and asking which city in Philippines is the easiest for 60 years old dude

Obviously most marriages won't end up like this, but if you are alpha guy with a lot of experience it just might be worth the risk somewhere down the road.

Post: #56

(03-17-2015 04:52 PM)ballybally Wrote:  When talking about marriage on "PUA" forums the most vocal guys are usually the ones with the least experience with women,guys that never got their dicks anywhere near true 8+,funny,intelligent girl - let alone were able to keep her for 6+ months.

Marriage might not be all that much fun when you get there but PLEASE, I bet that 90% of you that are so vocal against it would sign the papers the second you got your hands on a high quality woman.

We sure are lucky we have you here to set everyone straight.

On a serious note, it sounds more like you don't have much experience with 8+ women since you talk as if they are some magical unicorns that need to be wifed up.

That is what we call thirsty with a side of projection.

Post: #57

(03-17-2015 05:05 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 04:52 PM)ballybally Wrote:  When talking about marriage on "PUA" forums the most vocal guys are usually the ones with the least experience with women,guys that never got their dicks anywhere near true 8+,funny,intelligent girl - let alone were able to keep her for 6+ months.

Marriage might not be all that much fun when you get there but PLEASE, I bet that 90% of you that are so vocal against it would sign the papers the second you got your hands on a high quality woman.

We sure are lucky we have you here to set everyone straight.

On a serious note, it sounds more like you don't have much experience with 8+ women since you talk as if they are some magical unicorns that need to be wifed up.

That is what we call thirsty.

I have enough to know that 1 girl like that is worth about 10 average lays easily (at least for me).
And girls like that are pretty fucking rare, anyone who is claiming to be slaying them left and right is full of shit.

Here in Poland finding legit 8 requires some walking around, then you'll probably need to approach 80-500 of these for 1 lay(numbers a lot higher if you add fun/intelligent in the mix).

There are additional problems with 8s+: For one, most of them have high social status and don't wanna be even seen with guy that is below her in looks, second problem is that just looks and game are not enough since she already has 10-20 guys like this in line, you also need money/status.

So I guess you are right, they are almost magical unicorns.

http://www.goodlookingloser.com/entry/ge...re-my-odds
This is the most legit article on the odds and matches my experience and pretty much any other honest guy I've discussed it about.

Post: #58

(03-17-2015 05:23 PM)ballybally Wrote:  I have enough to know that 1 girl like that is worth about 10 average lays easily (at least for me).
And girls like that are pretty fucking rare, anyone who is claiming to be slaying them left and right is full of shit.

Here in Poland finding legit 8 requires some walking around, then you'll probably need to approach 80-500 of these for 1 lay(numbers a lot higher if you add fun/intelligent in the mix).

There are additional problems with 8s+: For one, most of them have high social status and don't wanna be even seen with guy that is below her in looks, second problem is that just looks and game are not enough since she already has 10-20 guys like this in line, you also need money/status.

So I guess you are right, they are almost magical unicorns.

http://www.goodlookingloser.com/entry/ge...re-my-odds
This is the most legit article on the odds and matches my experience and pretty much any other honest guy I've discussed it about.

I don't get it. First, you make comments that people would wife up an 8+ the minute they say hello.

Then you go into, "it's a numbers game" which makes your first point null and void.

If you really thought it was a numbers game, you wouldn't be so quick to wife up one knowing there are enough out there to not worry.

I take it you have never been married even though you are telling the rest of the members what they would do when confronted with 8+ women.

Post: #59

(03-17-2015 05:23 PM)ballybally Wrote:  I have enough to know that 1 girl like that is worth about 10 average lays easily (at least for me).
And girls like that are pretty fucking rare, anyone who is claiming to be slaying them left and right is full of shit.

Here in Poland finding legit 8 requires some walking around, then you'll probably need to approach 80-500 of these for 1 lay(numbers a lot higher if you add fun/intelligent in the mix).

There are additional problems with 8s+: For one, most of them have high social status and don't wanna be even seen with guy that is below her in looks, second problem is that just looks and game are not enough since she already has 10-20 guys like this in line, you also need money/status.

So I guess you are right, they are almost magical unicorns.

http://www.goodlookingloser.com/entry/ge...re-my-odds
This is the most legit article on the odds and matches my experience and pretty much any other honest guy I've discussed it about.

I don't know what you are talking about - not all Polish 8+ have 20 guys in petto. The young ones are barely stretching their feet especially when they came from rural areas.

If your value is high enough they are by the way chasing you and not the reverse. For any guy truly rich can be chased by a number of those. I hung out with guys in Poland from Ferrari clubs and what I saw was that a bunch of 8s and 9s were usually around those places.

Sure there is a higher number of 6s and 7s in Poland, but that does not mean that you occasionally can bang an 8 - it's not like some kind of unicorn.

All this pedastelizing and unicorn-creating is useless. Also the numbers you state with regards to approaching 100 8s to bang one is pretty much useless too. Hardly anyone keeps exact track on approaches and the level of girls he approaches and subsequently bangs.

Then it's all about wiving an 8+ up the moment you can finally bang her. For a wife other factors are much more important than pure looks, so even those mindless statements are useless unless you want to find yourself in divorce-court soon.

Post: #60

@Zelcorpion I don't know which Poland are you talking about or how 8 looks to you. In general 5-10% of girls are gonna be in 8+ category (some places a lot less) and at this time Poland is not that much different from the west, best looking girls are constantly hit on... It's the worst PUA lie of all time that hot girls are lonely because guys are too afraid too approach them or something.

About numbers, yeah people don't keep track on that ... But you probably still have some idea in your head what's your average if you do it a lot + it's good to know that numbers are always true and even if you temporary aren't having success it could be just bad variance.

(03-17-2015 05:34 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:23 PM)ballybally Wrote:  I have enough to know that 1 girl like that is worth about 10 average lays easily (at least for me).
And girls like that are pretty fucking rare, anyone who is claiming to be slaying them left and right is full of shit.

Here in Poland finding legit 8 requires some walking around, then you'll probably need to approach 80-500 of these for 1 lay(numbers a lot higher if you add fun/intelligent in the mix).

There are additional problems with 8s+: For one, most of them have high social status and don't wanna be even seen with guy that is below her in looks, second problem is that just looks and game are not enough since she already has 10-20 guys like this in line, you also need money/status.

So I guess you are right, they are almost magical unicorns.

http://www.goodlookingloser.com/entry/ge...re-my-odds
This is the most legit article on the odds and matches my experience and pretty much any other honest guy I've discussed it about.

I don't get it. First, you make comments that people would wife up an 8+ the minute they say hello.

Then you go into, "it's a numbers game" which makes your first point null and void.

If you really thought it was a numbers game, you wouldn't be so quick to wife up one knowing there are enough out there to not worry.

I take it you have never been married even though you are telling the rest of the members what they would do when confronted with 8+ women.

You are making random connections, "it" being a numbers game has nothing to do with getting married due to scarcity. One can fully understand that there are better woman out there if he decides to play the numbers and still get married. That would save a lot of time and energy that are imo. better invested into other things.

My point was that getting new quality women on regular basis is close to impossible for most guys, might as well stick to one when you find her instead of wasting time again on more boring,average looking girls.

About second point, yes I wasn't married and I probably won't be anytime soon and once again you are making random assumptions, me guessing that most guys would get overran by chemistry if they got girl like that, isn't the same as me suggesting to actually do it.

Post: #61

(03-17-2015 06:15 PM)ballybally Wrote:  You are making random connections, "it" being a numbers game has nothing to do with getting married due to scarcity. One can fully understand that there are better woman out there if he decides to play the numbers and still get married. That would save a lot of time and energy that are imo. better invested into other things.

My point was that getting new quality women on regular basis is close to impossible for most guys, might as well stick to one when you find her instead of wasting time again on more boring,average looking girls.

About second point, yes I wasn't married and I probably won't be anytime soon and once again you are making random assumptions, me guessing that most guys would get overran by chemistry if they got girl like that, isn't the same as me suggesting to actually do it.

You came into this thread making assumptions about what other members would do. As I said, it was more about you projecting what you would do.

I wouldn't consider marriage as saving time or energy. I always got more accomplished when I was single.

There will also be a time in your relationship that magical 8+ doesn't look like a 8+ to you. She may be your friend, or the mother of your children, but the magical unicorn you wanted to fuck all the time will be lost forever.

Post: #62

Thought I'd log this somewhere since it's sort-of related but probably doesn't warrant its own thread:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-...7268061536

Basically, the more conscientious your spouse is at home, the more likely you'll be a success at work. The most salient part of the study:

Quote:The study investigated a person’s job outcomes (job satisfaction, income and likelihood of being promoted) against five characteristics exhibited by their partner (extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness and openness).

The researchers even put a dollar figure on it. For each standard deviation above the mean conscientiousness in a partner, you’re likely to earn $US4000 more. If your partner is very conscientious, expect an extra $US8000. Those with extremely conscientious partners are also 50 per cent more likely to get promoted than those with extremely unconscientious partners...

The study’s authors, Brittany C. Solomon and Joshua J. Jackson, wrote: “Our findings indicate that highly conscientious partners help improve their spouses’ occupational success, as measured by job satisfaction, income and promotion. This benefit does not arise from partners doing their spouses’ work; rather, it is due to partners creating conditions that allow their spouses to work more effectively.”

Ms Soloman and Mr Jackson said the reason conscientious partners benefit their partners is because they create a less stressful environment at home. This is done through the conscientious partner taking on more of the housework, thereby freeing up someone to perform better at work, as well as having fewer relationship strains in general. A person also benefits from a conscientious partner by taking on some of those conscientious traits themselves.

This held true for both men and women.

This is probably not so much red pill as it is evidence in favour of a traditional marriage with a wife who actually can be arsed to be a housewife and be good at it. This is a vote in favour of the Adam Smith model of households as economic entities: you do better when one person specialises rather than have both people doing the same job.

Post: #63

blue pill.

Nuclear family is solely and exclusively a product of economy.

Expanded family is biologically determined form of family (and therefore red pill).

Nuclear family split from expanded one when married couple moved away to cities to work in industries. Since elderly were an expense they couldn't take after, they would leave them at village and bring only kids with themselves.

Post: #64

(03-17-2015 02:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  To the people saying marriage is unnatural:

What are you talking about?

Marriage predates all recorded history.

If it predates recorded history, how do you know it happened? :/

(03-17-2015 02:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Marriage for all we know has occurred for millions of years.

That's wrong. Anatomically modern homo sapiens (AMHS) have only been around for about 200,000 years. Shocked? That's right: YOU (i.e., people just like you) have not been around millions of years. Are you saying your monkey ancestors walked down the aisle and had child support judgments enforced on them? The evidence suggests otherwise.

I think what you are saying is that it is not unnatural for humans (like most primates) to pair-bond for a time, sometimes (though not always) for life. No one disagrees with that; we've all done it time to time, whether it be a girlfriend, wife, or a bullpen of booty-calls. But polygamy is equally natural, or we wouldn't be attracted to others. What is most decidedly NOT natural is today's system of rigged laws in which the fruits of a man's labor can be taken from him on the whim of a capricious female, and with nothing in return. Find me ANYTHING like that in nature.

Post: #65

I love it how we discuss red pill and blue pill here while people still have hamster mindset

If something doesn't fit my lifestyle = it's blue pill

For example "NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE IS BLUE PILL !!!"

No brother, NSBM doesn't fit your lifestyle. It doesn't fit mine, or anyone's lifestyle today. But it's red pill. It works. It makes for a good moral foundation in regulating biological activities of humans. Remember ? Civilization = regulation.

Just because TODAY abstinence is blue pill when dealing with modern women, doesn't mean that idea itself leads to decadence and misery. It leads to a stable, male regulated and dominated society.

Post: #66

(03-18-2015 10:02 AM)The Father Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 02:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  To the people saying marriage is unnatural:

What are you talking about?

Marriage predates all recorded history.

If it predates recorded history, how do you know it happened? :/

(03-17-2015 02:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Marriage for all we know has occurred for millions of years.

That's wrong. Anatomically modern homo sapiens (AMHS) have only been around for about 200,000 years. Shocked? That's right: YOU (i.e., people just like you) have not been around millions of years. Are you saying your monkey ancestors walked down the aisle and had child support judgments enforced on them? The evidence suggests otherwise.

I think what you are saying is that it is not unnatural for humans (like most primates) to pair-bond for a time, sometimes (though not always) for life. No one disagrees with that; we've all done it time to time, whether it be a girlfriend, wife, or a bullpen of booty-calls. But polygamy is equally natural, or we wouldn't be attracted to others. What is most decidedly NOT natural is today's system of rigged laws in which the fruits of a man's labor can be taken from him on the whim of a capricious female, and with nothing in return. Find me ANYTHING like that in nature.

I don't have the time to flesh out a nuts to bolts explaination on this, but you took it too literally. Samseau is talking about the time periods where we do not have good or strongly reliable records of modern human activity. Like 10,000 or sooner. Social Contract between men just by itself existed before laws and actual government.

I don't have the time to break all that stuff down right now, but you can catch the cliff notes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Before or during these kinds of social contracts, marriage (not a march down the aisle style) existed as well. Access to females has always been contentious between other males. Even before wandering nomadic parties stopped and built communities. There is documented evidence of exclusive mating pairs and marriage like arrangements. Harems were not necessarily an early mankind thing nor disorganized mating pairs, despite handfuls of natives in both halves of America doing it, it was not the norm worldwide, but the exception to the rule.

Red pill is about the hard truth of things. Blue pill is about lies and disillusion. We all agree on that. Tying externalities like economics, governments, illuminati, etc. to concepts such as marriages and nuclear families to conclude them as blue pill is illogical and rife with fallacy. Fallacy of Association. The connections between them is not very convincing at all. Historians, philosophers, paleontologists, archaeologists, all know what things it takes to build societies and civilizations and family is at that root. Dysfunction and psuedo-intellectual rebellion has not built shit that will stand the test of time. This junk is just dominating the narrative right now. God and nature will have the last laugh regardless of anyone's dismissive arrogance.

In a world now where everyone wants to eagerly drop out of "basic human nature", MGTOWs, Feminists, rejection of traditional family building, etc. cannot call activities of basic human nature that literally built the modern world to it's current strength as a giant lie. The giant lie is thinking you are somehow better than any of that. I would not call it blue pill directly (even though it probably is), but it is misguided and lacking of understanding for sure.

Post: #67

(03-18-2015 01:52 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  I don't have the time to flesh out a nuts to bolts explaination on this, but you took it too literally. Samseau is talking about the time periods where we do not have good or strongly reliable records of modern human activity. Like 10,000 or sooner.

You say I took it too literally. I say it's sloppily written.

Post: #68

I take the deist approach. There is no proof on your part that an omnipotent force that controls space, time, and reality does not exist. Since it suits my personal needs I choose to believe in a hell, heaven, and God. Your ignorance and one sided thought process is rather annoying.

Also where is your proof besides " ITS IN OUR GENES GUISE" to why some form of marriage did not exist. Even in nature lions have prides and wolves have singular mates that they raise cubs to a certain age with. In modern society we just choose the arbitrary number 18. Your rape/abduction theory is just another form of arbitrary human society you thought up. Clearly you need to attract a mate and that's the most natural process as seen in nature.

Edit: not to mention your assumption that the state should somehow be involved to institute called marriage. I believe even apes voluntary raise progeny instead of abandoning them.

Post: #69

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
Read up on some classic biology. K selected reproduction is very akin to marriage as heavy care is taken to raise offspring usually by both parents.

Post: #70

(03-18-2015 02:10 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 01:52 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  I don't have the time to flesh out a nuts to bolts explaination on this, but you took it too literally. Samseau is talking about the time periods where we do not have good or strongly reliable records of modern human activity. Like 10,000 or sooner.

You say I took it too literally. I say it's sloppily written. We didn't not have "good or strongly reliable records" of modern human activity prior to 10,000 yrs ago - we literally have NO records. These times pre-date any recorded history; they are literally "pre-historic". And so we can only speculate how they lived based on fossil records and cave drawings. But no language existed. Some of the fossil record (DNA records) indicate that at certain times, when it benefitted the species, mankind led a fairly monogamous lifestyle but that MOST times he led a polyamorous lifestyle. Our genes tell us this.

(03-18-2015 01:52 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  There is documented evidence of exclusive mating pairs and marriage like arrangements. Harems were not necessarily an early mankind thing nor disorganized mating pairs, despite handfuls of natives in both halves of America doing it, it was not the norm worldwide, but the exception to the rule.

Monogamy very rare either way, especially among males. Our genes tell us this, too. Or you can study any gorilla or chimp troop in wild...one (or at most two) large males mating with a half dozen or more females. The males get sexual variety. The females get beaten within an inch of their lives if they try. THAT is your primate nature. You don't have to conform to it; civilization is about over-coming nature. But just understand that monogamous pair-bonding, like a man flying to the moon, is aspirational, not natural for men. When we do it, it's often because we have no choice. A blue-collar guy can choose to have a monogamous marriage with his chunky wife, or no relationship at all. But Messi or Ronaldo are mobbed with super-models when they go out. Point being: Absent constraints, nearly EVERY man is polygamous. It is our natural condition. As for the early "marriage-like arrangements" you refer to, they bear a greater resemblance to rape and abduction than to modern marriage. Established religion or the state was NOT involved. You literally "caught" a female from a neighboring tribe and your buddies (groomsmen) helped stop her from getting away. Voila! Instant wife/fuck slave. Does this bear any resemblance to modern state-run marriage where your wife becomes "entitled" to half your shit two seconds after you marry her, even if she is simply "bored" and wants some strange cock?

(03-18-2015 01:52 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  God and nature will have the last laugh regardless of anyone's dismissive arrogance. The giant lie is thinking you are somehow better than any of that.... it is misguided and lacking of understanding for sure.

You're free to believe that. I believe that the unproven belief in a myth called God is misguided...there may be something intelligent out there that I don't understand, but there is no evidence that some guys with beards in the middle-east are his chosen people (if they cut off their foreskins), that his son came to earth as a carpenter (lol) or that he picked a dude named Mohammed to represent him and so we can't eat pork.

Prevalent rapes and or abductions, is not evidence that social contracts (political or family) did not exist. There is far more evidence that monogamy was far more prevalent and par for the course based on the proof of societal building. Chaos is not normal. Fucking each other's women (inter-tribe) like lunatics is not. Raping another tribe's women, upon conquest, was normal. The victors goes the spoils. The fact that many Americans have DNA that can go back to several handfuls of pilgrims, does not mean polygamy was the norm. It just meant the population was not the same as it is now. The world was smaller than now.

You make alot of the same points a typical Atheist loves to make. Evidence does not support chaotic animal like behavior being the norm, even prior to 10,000 years ago. Also there have been writings found that are older than 10,000 we just cannot read or translate much of them if at all. Human beings veer towards order. You really need to read through the ideas of Social Contract or Thomas Hobbes's writings, to get a better understanding.

I honestly cannot see the difference between a liberal cultural marxist and a garden variety atheist sometimes.

Post: #71

Depends

Post: #72

(03-18-2015 03:39 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  You make alot of the same points a typical Atheist loves to make.

I guess

Post: #73

(03-18-2015 03:39 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Prevalent rapes and or abductions, is not evidence that social contracts (political or family) did not exist. There is far more evidence that monogamy was far more prevalent and par for the course based on the proof of societal building. Chaos is not normal. Fucking each other's women (inter-tribe) like lunatics is not. Raping another tribe's women, upon conquest, was normal. The victors goes the spoils. The fact that many Americans have DNA that can go back to several handfuls of pilgrims, does not mean polygamy was the norm. It just meant the population was not the same as it is now. The world was smaller than now.

You make alot of the same points a typical Atheist loves to make. Evidence does not support chaotic animal like behavior being the norm, even prior to 10,000 years ago. Also there have been writings found that are older than 10,000 we just cannot read or translate much of them if at all. Human beings veer towards order. You really need to read through the ideas of Social Contract or Thomas Hobbes's writings, to get a better understanding.

I honestly cannot see the difference between a liberal cultural marxist and a garden variety atheist sometimes.

Exactly - it's possible that humans were by far more monogamous than we can all assume. One thing about humans is that it takes such an enormous amount of energy and time for our children to attain maturity. That is even off-the-charts if you compare us to apes. Whenever your investments into progeny are that intensive, then it is more likely that the species cares deeply for their children. There are plenty of tests out there which prove that fathers especially can find their children in huge crowds way faster than women can. We have plenty of instinctive measures which support the thesis that nuclear families are more instinctive than we may think.

Besides - apart from the instincts there is the higher nature, that we can rise beyond the purely animalistic one. We have the luxury to go beyond our primitive aspects and to reach higher realms than less sentient creatures.

I would be always careful to start using arguments by Atheists, Feminists and Eugenicists.

Post: #74

(03-18-2015 06:18 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Exactly - it's possible that humans were by far more monogamous than we can all assume.

Guys, I'm doing a terrible job at making a key point. I'm sorry. That point is, we don't have to GUESS what's "possible" about monogamy of our ancestors, our genetic record tells us EXACTLY what went on! And it tells us that, at times, early humans were more monogamous and at other times in history, less monogamous. There are evolutionary survival reasons for this. Go read "The Selfish Gene" or dozens of other books on the subject. These books contain things called "FACTS". They are very useful and if you use them, you won't need to guess what was possible, or rely on the scribblings of some old jewish men 2,000 years ago that in all likelihood mean nothing.

If you don't have the time to read the books, here is a brief article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/scienc....html?_r=0

It notes:

"In 9 percent of all mammal species, males and females will share a common territory for more than one breeding season, and in some cases bond for life. "

That's all mammals, though. Primates, it turns out, are a little more monogamous than the average - 25% are monogamous. Not high, really. What about humans?
"Only 17 percent of human cultures are strictly monogamous. "

Post: #75

(03-18-2015 06:18 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 03:39 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Prevalent rapes and or abductions, is not evidence that social contracts (political or family) did not exist. There is far more evidence that monogamy was far more prevalent and par for the course based on the proof of societal building. Chaos is not normal. Fucking each other's women (inter-tribe) like lunatics is not. Raping another tribe's women, upon conquest, was normal. The victors goes the spoils. The fact that many Americans have DNA that can go back to several handfuls of pilgrims, does not mean polygamy was the norm. It just meant the population was not the same as it is now. The world was smaller than now.

You make alot of the same points a typical Atheist loves to make. Evidence does not support chaotic animal like behavior being the norm, even prior to 10,000 years ago. Also there have been writings found that are older than 10,000 we just cannot read or translate much of them if at all. Human beings veer towards order. You really need to read through the ideas of Social Contract or Thomas Hobbes's writings, to get a better understanding.

I honestly cannot see the difference between a liberal cultural marxist and a garden variety atheist sometimes.

Exactly - it's possible that humans were by far more monogamous than we can all assume. One thing about humans is that it takes such an enormous amount of energy and time for our children to attain maturity. That is even off-the-charts if you compare us to apes. Whenever your investments into progeny are that intensive, then it is more likely that the species cares deeply for their children. There are plenty of tests out there which prove that fathers especially can find their children in huge crowds way faster than women can. We have plenty of instinctive measures which support the thesis that nuclear families are more instinctive than we may think.

Besides - apart from the instincts there is the higher nature, that we can rise beyond the purely animalistic one. We have the luxury to go beyond our primitive aspects and to reach higher realms than less sentient creatures.

I would be always careful to start using arguments by Atheists, Feminists and Eugenicists.

Humans take soo long to develop into productive contributors mentally, physically, and emotionally. We had no choice but to collaborate.

Two 10,000 BC men see a large mammoth and somehow telepatchically tell each other, "Let's work together and kill this thing so we can eat it."?

No. They form a social contract (establish ground rules) to not only kill the beast, but to eat it together in peace, not kill the other man after the work is done and steal all the meat, and do not rape and kill his nomadic family when he isn't looking. Men don't just look at each other and understand not to hate each other. We have to communicate.

Men are naturally social. As smart as we are, we have to team up and collaborate to accomplish anything of merit. We are not lions. We do not weigh 450 pounds with 6 inch claws, and a thick fur coat. We are not a one man wrecking ball like that. Despite the power of lions, they still have family units. Young human males are basically useless until they are late into teenage years. It takes a long time to cultivate that. Our lifespans are not good enough to merely reject the idea of family as a security blanket.

Numbers = Strength. Strength = resilience. Our intelligence offers us the benefit to use collaboration in order to accumulate power. Agriculture enabled us to further concentrate that power even more.

Nomadic parties when discovering they did not have to wander anymore, realized they needed someone to watch the perimeter from beasts, watch the interior of the camp, and women to watch the children. Eventually as a civilization grows, authority is needed in more ways, which generated the need for bureaucracy, which required the authority of some style of leadership (king, monarchy, etc.).