Why Monogamy When I Can Bang Everyone (Hopefully)

Hi, Athol -
I have a question for you. On your blog you describe three key biological subsystems related to interpersonal attraction – the dopamine subsystem (related to ‘in love’ attraction), the (male) vasopressin subsystem (related to pair bonding), and the… sex drive subsystem (related to sexual desire). Since these three subsystems are not within our conscious control, or we at least exercise only limited control over them (e.g., choosing not to see someone anymore, choosing to do things with our partner that enhances pair bonding, etc.), and since these three subsystems need not be synchronized, what, in your view, justifies choosing monogamous marriage?
For example, rather than choose to marry and remain faithful to one woman, why should I not choose one woman with whom I can pair bond over the long term (satisfying for me, that need for a ‘special’ someone, that ‘you’ to whom I will always remain loyal no matter what), range freely among women who fire up my dopamine subsystem, and have sex with as many women as are willing, provided (as conscience dictates) I never deceive any of them about my activities and intentions?
(Jennifer: Ah I see where your flaw is already, you need a woman to go along with that!)
Would this arrangement not correspond better to my biological constitution than monogamous marriage, which by its nature forces me to constantly adapt, to the best of my limited ability, three, independently functioning biological subsystems to one person? The only objection I can imagine is that individualism is not the formula for a soundly functioning society. Even there, however – I’m not sure I care. I’m going to die some day and I want to be happy in the meantime. Interested to know your thoughts.
Right now I am a single, unmarried man. I crush constantly. My sex drive is not selective – all that is required, as you say, a warm, willing, and proximal vagina (gets me fired up just thinking about it). I also feel a raging need to pair bond with someone, to form a foundational relationship with someone who will be my constant in all things. There you go – the three subsystems. I can’t remember the last time they worked in harmony. And the thought of taking one woman to the exclusion of all other possibilities, never permitting myself, after marriage, to pursue, if only for a time, an option that blazes with all the fleeting and facile glory of a life that is never more than fleeting anyway, never allowing myself to go where happiness is easily found when it is otherwise hard to find happiness – how on earth does a man make such a choice in a world that is more permissive now than it ever was of conjugal options?
Please let me know your thoughts,
Hi D
this is a non-simple question, but a very good one.
As you can probably divine, a perfectly functional relationship can work just fine with a oxytocin/vasopressin and testosterone base. Truly two out of three isn’t bad. That’s a functional, enjoyable, relaxed, intimate and sexual. The role of dopamine is to lure you into a relationship like that.
Once in that relationship, the dopamine will drop off a bit, which sounds bad, but is actually a good thing because it really is impossible to endlessly sustain a very high dopamine state without exhausting yourself with courting behaviors. Specially once you mate and have children, the parents endlessly crushing on each other isn’t in the best interests of their gene transmission… so they start calming down and loving the kids etc.
What I suspect happens though, is every so often, your body surveys your environment and looks for the best possible person for a sex partnership with to make a new baby. Your current partner has some advantages in this in that they are proximal and already involved with you. Whoever your body selects as the best possible partner, you body hits you with a blast of dopamine. So if your wife comes top of the list, you can get a crush on her again, if someone else tops the list, you crush on them.
The reason you are crushing on everyone now, is because you don’t have a current relationship capable of effectively creating a full mating partnership. So your body is pounding you with dopamine to go find a woman to basically get pregnant. Once you’re in that relationship, the dopamine will calm down a bit eventually.
Over the very long term of failing to develop a pair bond, and especially if you have had a very high number of short term relationships and hook ups, I suspect that your body adapts to your strategy and diminishes your own vasopressin response as a protective mechanism. In more plain English – if you fuck everyone under the sun, you’ll eventually lose your ability to feel anything deeply emotionally connective about the opposite sex. After a certain point, players can’t really have a deep relationship. They have literally trained their bodies not to attach to the other person during sex. This is incidentally why you don’t want to marry a woman with a very high partner count… she simply won’t attach to you the same way a lower partner count woman will. They may scream that it’s slut-shaming to say that, but I just don’t care. There’s no good reason to risk marrying a woman that can’t attach to you properly. In other news – I don’t buy rotten fruit in the supermarket either.
You’re also missing a critical piece of the puzzle in your master plan for a pair bond + fun. Her.
You’re assuming that she would be down with all this running about getting some on the side; she won’t be. If she is, she isn’t really all that concerned about you. Which means you don’t really have the pair bond you may like to think you have.
Plus while you’re running about getting some on the side, so might she. You’ll want to paternity test the kids she has. That’s not a joke I’m making.
All that being said… I hear you. Monogamy isn’t natural. We are designed to have a primary pair bond, and sneak opportunistic sex with other partners. Monogamy is a sexual strategy and is for the majority of men, a winning strategy. Only the very highest cohort of males and all females benefit from a non-monogamy free-for-all culture. The free-for-all is designed to cut most men out of having sex entirely.
 

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    This question was definitely asked by a Roissey-ite.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Over the very long term of failing to develop a pair bond, and especially if you have had a very high number of short term relationships and hook ups, I suspect that your body adapts to your strategy and diminishes your own vasopressin response as a protective mechanism.

    Protective of what?

    They have literally trained their bodies not to attach to the other person during sex. This is incidentally why you don't want to marry a woman with a very high partner count… she simply won't attach to you the same way a lower partner count woman will.

    Is the argument here that she doesn't release vasopressin because she has trained her body not too? Is what is being suggested that if the body does not use a hormonal system frequently enough that system will lose potency?

    D.B.

  3. Miles Anderson says:

    Anonymous nails is sarcastically here. Those systems don't run dry. In fact I think the training they get is actually in a positive direction (to work better).

    The think I think might be getting confused here is really if the stats which show people with high partner counts tend to cheat more is a cause or an effect. Many "monogomists" think it is a cause. But there is no proof of that. I think it is an effect. In fact those with a high partner count are acting normal for themselves. They didn't get a high partner count by sitting on the sidelines.

    So does that mean you shouldn't pick one of these people. I think counting them out merely because they have a high partner count is a mistake. Before you know their partner count you probably will learn more about them then that partner count tells you in isolation. At that point the partner count might be the pebble that killed the camel but it isn't the stone.

  4. I can't even fathom why such high-risk behavior is even attractive. With the risk of accidental pregnancy and STDS…not to mention False Rape Accusations .. its playing with fire.

    As for finding a woman to accept non-monogamy…I suppose anything is possible but I can't help but think such a woman would be an idiot. HPV and herpes are not totally preventable with condoms, and then there is the fact that condoms break putting you at risk for every other disease out there. Many STD's can heavily complicate pregnancy so Dads promiscuity can even put his children at risk (Chlamydia can make your baby blind). Frankly- if I am going to put myself at risk for all those horrible diseases I might as well be the one out having all the sex. I open myself up to disease so HE can have fun? Heh. No.

    If you accidentally get a woman pregnant you could find yourself paying child-support for a child you are never allowed to even see.

    I understand the argument that letting your impulses lead the way can be satisfying, but DUDE…life has consequences and in our current promiscuous and feminist culture those consequences start to get really heavy.

  5. Athol Kay says:

    D.B. – protective of the high sexual partner count person not pair bonding to multiple people constantly.

    I'm saying pair bonding is hormonal based, and like all hormonal systems there is the potential to overwork it/risk damage.

    For about a million years humans lived in groups of less than 150 people. We're simply not designed for partner counts of 50.

  6. Strong Man says:

    Right on! The pair bond and real, emotional connection requires two people to commit to each other. Without that mutual commitment, it's meaningless and loses its' value.

    Paige is also right. I would have to think that any woman who would go along with a continually philandering husband would be a low-quality person with low self esteem who is most likely also sleeping around herself.

    More men and women than you might think–perhaps even the quiet majority–realize the true blessings of saving sex for marriage. Now that's a real emotional connection!

  7. Anonymous says:

    I hope you advise women not to marry men with high partner counts also.

  8. I think men and women are not the same on pair bonding. Most men are polygamous or promiscuous in nature, while most women are monogamous or serially monogamous in nature. After all, many societies have institutionalized this by allowing polygny for a small elite of men; polyandry is virtually unknown, a no account Nepalese tribe that feminists finally managed to dig up, notwithstanding.

    Following Elizabeth Langley, I think that when a pair bonded woman, who is well past the infatuation stage, has sex with another man and falls in love with him and feels infatuation, that the sexual desire for her husband usually dissolves as her serial monogamy instincts kick in, and when that goes, so too usually does her sense of pair bondedness with him. She may still like him as a friend; or he may increasingly irritate her. Sometimes the idea of having sex with her husband while she’s infatuated with her lover repulses her; men never feel that way if they liked sex with her before they have an affair. Her respect for her husband as a sexual, dominant male is likely to decrease – he’s either allowing it or is to oblivious to realize that another male now thrillingly sexually dominates much more than her husband.

    I don’t think this happens very often with men when they sleep with another woman, even if they have a full blow affair and become infatuated with her, as men do far less often when the have extramarital affairs. If his marital relationship is quite good, he isn’t likely to lose sexual interest in his wife; in fact it may well increase as he feels a boost to his sexual confidence. He’s more than happy to have and feel bonds for two women at once. He’s more than happy to be sexually dominant over two women at once. He’s polygamous in nature. In our culture, he’ll stick with his wife and kids. Single women tell each other this all the time when one of their friends takes up with a married man.

    As well our culture tells women that if they aren’t any longer fully “in love” with their husbands they have every moral and legal right to leave him, or rather kick him out of the house while forced to leave his kids behind. It teaches women they shouldn’t work to rekindle sexual interest in their husbands if they aren’t feeling it, or have jump start sex with him anyway. It tells married women to follow their hearts. It tells married men to suck it up and live up to their responsibilities, and to try harder to make the marriage work. Not only is it vastly more likely that having an affair will dissolve a wife’s feelings of pair bondedness than the reverse, the consequences of her feeling less pair bonded are far far greater for both the husband and the children in our society.

    American feminism has taught that if women are supposed to be completely faithful in marriage then it’s only fair and moral that men be as well – never mind the sex differences on the effects of straying. This position goes back to first generation feminism, but wasn’t nearly so prevalent before that. After a number of years high status men were expected to probably discreetly have dalliances. As well American woman project their own intuitions about losing a bondedness feeling for their husband if they fell for another man, onto how an affair would affect their husband, when it really isn’t the same.

    Further our feminist culture shames women who allow their husbands to sometimes sleep with other women. It tells wives they’re being disrespected and demeaned, when the only thing necessarily doing that is other women carrying out those cultural memes.

    French women of the educated upper middles classes and above not only tolerate their husbands having some discreet affairs while not abandoning their husband and father duties – they expect it.

  9. *steps on soap box*

    Defending non-monogamy while in the same breath criticizing serial monogamy shows a serious disconnect between a gender relations fantasy and the real world.

    It is beyond comprehension that a man should be allowed to follow his tingles wherever they may lead because they won't necessarily break up a family (just lead to illegitimate children when the mistress "oops" you) but a woman doing the same is considered a problem because it does.

    We all talk about how the double standards between the sexes has its basis in nature, but the complaint isn't the specifics of the double standard, but rather the fact that a woman should just suck-up her misery for "the good of society" while men need not. THIS is the attitude that gave rise to feminism.

    So either both sexes take on the social responsibilities that make a good society (and discomfort that sometimes comes with it) or they best not complain when women decide that they are as entitled to narcissistic self-empowerment as men are. This is how we get what we now call the "gender war"…because unfortunately what "empowers" one gender REALLY SUCKS for the other gender.

  10. Anonymous says:

    You are forgetting many things on this idea that women should be more understanding of men affairs.
    1-The risks of STD's are bigger for women, many men can get infected and suffer no ill consequences while women suffer the disease and get terrible consequences.
    2-The mistress can plot to erode the bond the husband has with the wife, in my country mistress are called "queridas" (loved ones) because they try to shine on all the areas the wife is lacking, after a few years is not rare to have a man leaving the wife when the kids are grown up or the mistress starts to demand that she has sacrificed no having a family for him and is all it takes for them to leave.
    3- Men are better at handling multiple partners, but they are no perfect again many men end up leaving their wives and falling in love with a ONS. This are the type of things hard to predict.
    4-Jealousy is present on women too, as a biological response if the natural state was for men to cheat then women wouldn't have any biological imperative to feel jealousy, but they had done it long before feminism "invented" it.

    So yeah monogamy is hard for both genders but is also beneficial for both, the thing is is a long term benefit so is harder for modern world to understand this, YMMV.

    S.R>

  11. Paige–

    We all talk about how the double standards between the sexes has its basis in nature, but the complaint isn't the specifics of the double standard, but rather the fact that a woman should just suck-up her misery for "the good of society" while men need not. THIS is the attitude that gave rise to feminism.

    My point is that women need not feel misery just because their husband after a number of years of marriage occasionally discreetly and prudentially (re STD’s) has sex with a few other women, while not neglecting her or their kids. French women of a certain class (educated upper middle class and above) typically don’t; there’s a whole social code and culture that they shouldn’t. It’s not thought to be in good taste to do this early on in a marriage. It’s thought to be horribly gauche to end a marriage for this reason.

    I think it’s Anglosphere feminist culture that makes women feel they’re so fundamentally betrayed if after a number of years their husband sometimes has outside sex, brought to bear and enforced by the wife’s girlfriends. As well her jealous feelings, which are heavily influenced by her projecting her own intuition as to how her falling somewhat or a lot in love with another man would leave her desire for her husband, onto her husband’s likely feelings, when it really isn’t the same. Further the culture greatly encourages this belief of American wives that the genders are the same on this when they aren’t.

    Simultaneously but contradictory to this equivalence meme, American feminism teaches that “all men are dogs”, meaning primarily that even if they’re happy with their marriage they’ll cheat if they can get away with it, just as a matter of male sexual nature.

    If I thought that most women WOULD’T feel dissolved sexual attraction for their husbands and thus feel much less pair bonded, if they have sex with and become infatuated with another man, I’d not necessarily be against women having the same freedom after a number of years. I’ve actually been trying to figure out the answer to this for a number of years, through various avenues. It is true that in more recent years educated middle class French women have after a number of years of marriage been taking lovers too. This seems to happen less often than the other way around, but it happens, and it’s very frowned upon for a man to make a big fuss about this if she’s very discreet and doesn’t neglect him. However I wonder how much sex most women subsequently has with her husband. They may go on being good mothers and wifely companions, but do most French women continue to have enthusiastic sex with their husbands when they have lovers?? I really haven’t been able to figure out the answer to that.

    I really do think that Anglosphere women, especially if they were raised here, but even just after being here a good number of years and existing in our legal framework, and by far the worst marriage deal for men in the world. And I’ve travelled a lot, and read up a lot, both.

  12. Paige–

    Defending non-monogamy while in the same breath criticizing serial monogamy shows a serious disconnect between a gender relations fantasy and the real world.

    As for fantasy world, I have permission from my beautiful live together of 4 years to do as I'm suggesting. I haven't exercised it much. Once. We also had an ongoing threesome last summer, during weekends at our place on the water. She has veto power over any particular girl as to the beginning of it, and if she feels I'm getting too involved or neglecting her. So far that's been largely theoretical.

    I'm trying to figure out whether I can give her the same without seriously jeopardizing what we have together. So far she doesn't want it, at all.

    This is how we get what we now call the "gender war"…because unfortunately what "empowers" one gender REALLY SUCKS for the other gender.

    Marriage 2.0 combined with divorce 2.0 seriously disempowers men and I say no.

  13. Anonymous–

    What country?

    Middle class and up American white and Asian men rarely leave their wives when they have minor children, even if they do have an affair and catch strong feelings.

    Keeping marriages together when there aren't children to raise and women can work in all areas of the American workforce doesn't seem that compelling to me. Great if that's what both want. Not so terrible if it isn't — so long as neither party has to support the other post divorce, or hand over huge savings from their own earnings. Which is of course what Anglosphere divorce wrecks upon men, from Sir Paul MacCarthy to your average middle class American guy.

    STD's are largely a red herring. Condoms.

  14. Real love requires a test and you only know it exists when that test has been passed. For men that test is fidelity since it is counter-instinctual. For women that test could be considered endurance through rough times (especially sickness and poverty).

    If you are in a relationship with a woman that doesn't require real love, then she probably doesn't expect it of herself either and she will only hang around until her tingles lead elsewhere.

    If that is your cup of tea then fine…but don't begrudge the men and women who want and expect more.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Doug1

    You might want to travel to latin cultures were women do suffer a lot when their husbands are cheating but do to social or religious reasons don't leave them. I must say that no women ever felt more attraction to their hubby once they knew they were banging someone else au contra ire many women become sexless on their marriages for years and I will go out on a limb and say that maybe is an evolutionary reason, carrying child of a man that is investing time and resources on another woman is a risk. Tolerating a behavior doesn't mean that you are sharing your husband's mistress pictures with the neighbors and comparing them with who has the prettiest ones. Women and men can be socialized to suppress their jealous insticts but I bet that if you placed a brain scan on this liberated french women brains and reveal them their partners have lovers you will see the truth skin deep.

    Jealousy and betrayal are not feminists invention, that is one of the few things that feminist go it right, instead of crying yourself to sleep over your husband's affair (which what these "understanding" women used to do) you can say it out loud.It always hurt, unless of course they weren't in love for the first time and the marriage was arranged for other reasons.

    HPV and Herpes are not 100% sure with a condom as unwanted pregnancies, no to mention I know plenty of women that snag a rich guy support by getting "accidentally" pregnant.

    So no dope feminism only allows women to express their feelings of anger and betrayal, they were there all along, read classic literature. Was Hera happy and understanding of Zeus multiple mistresses? Didn't Deyanira killed Heracles by accident when she wanted to regain his affections when he cheated on her? Ancient Greek culture was far from feminist and yet cheating is devastating for women there as well. Check other pasts works on fiction pre-feminism and get back at me.

    S.R.

  16. I personally believe that deep down inside men want limits put on their behavior just like women do. Not to say they like authoritarianism but they do want to be "inspired" to reach beyond their baser instincts and a good woman with high enough self-esteem to demand monogamy is the only kind that can do that. Pandering to our lower nature doesn't make us better people and at some point I think we always resent our enablers.

  17. The MacNut says:

    Athol has said in this blog essentially that both men and women increase their "Alpha" quotient by speaking out when their spouses are doing something they don't like, especially when that something involves cheating, or even heading in that direction.

  18. Anonymous says:

    The MacNut.
    I do agree with that totally. Most of the times I had seen cheating happening there was this HUGE moment of warning that if the wife/husband had done something maybe the atraction for the forbidden would had gotten killed right there. In the case of a female friend she was having her birthday and for like a month she asked for a very special perfume, her husband not only forgot the present he forgot the birthday altogether and the man who was "working here" (which I totally told her to stop seeing him because I saw she was falling slowly for his antics and she will eventually fall)gave her the perfume she wanted her and did remember her birthday. Her husband saw the perfume the day after in her night table ask her who gave it to her and pretty much showed that he was relieved that he didn't had to buy such a "useless thing" anymore.
    Yeah less than a month later she was giving it to the other guy, and that only opened a pandora box given that she is now dating other men behind his back.
    I told her that if she doesn't want her husband anymore she should just leave him and stop the dishonesty, but I think deep down she is trying to punish him for ignoring her so much. No to mention that he doesn't has sex with her often and the few times they do it she is not satisfied, so yeah…ugly situation all around.

    I can tell you thousands of times when the male is the one starting to spent too much time with certain female and the wife is the one that decides to just no pay attention. Indeed one has always to remember that our partners can be seduced by the dark side if we are not paying attention,

    S.R.

  19. red_horizon0127 says:

    Hello, all. I wrote the e-mail that sparked this discussion and I'd like to address a few of the objections that were made in the course of this thread. I wrote a pretty detailed response earlier but as often happens on the web it disappeared after I hit the 'Post Comment' button. (Of course, it only happens when I think I've written a good response!) So here goes Round Two.

    1. There may be a misunderstanding about my proposal. Some women here seem to think I meant that the man should be free to roam while his pair-bonded female partner should have no partner but him. This is not what I am suggesting. Under my arrangement, both the man and the woman in question are free to have as many auxiliary partners as suits them. How many pair bonding partners should each person have? I suspect the best answer is ‘one’. This is certainly true where children are concerned.

    2. Athol, Jennifer, and Paige do not believe a woman would consent to this arrangement. I disagree. The fact is that a significant number of women (yes, I know that’s vague, but it should suffice for our discussion) already pursue this arrangement of their own volition. That is, many women maintain a pair-bonding relationship with a beta male while enjoying a more sexual and exciting relationship with an alpha on the side. Other women who have pair bonded with a beta do not cheat, but they no doubt feel strongly tempted to do so when confronted with an alpha. The remaining women have bonded with men who blend alpha and beta traits well enough to secure their exclusive loyalty. I conclude from these facts (which I consider fairly certain, though I do not have statistics to support them) that in most cases, monogamy is a bad fit for women.

    Just a couple of points – may post more tomorrow.

  20. Anonymous says:

    red horizon

    Actually I didn't though you meant only men that answer was for Doug1. I don't know how old are you but open marriages and poliamory relationship are as likely to break up as monogamous one.
    Check the statistics.
    People is complicated, more than one people just complicates the situation more, even if your plan is to pair bond with one and have sexual variety on the side, you still can accidentally pair bond with one of your lovers, specially as the main pair bond starts to grow old and you have the chance to get a younger hotter model with some effort (another natural impulse for males) and the woman can pair bond with a superior male if she happens to have sex with a man of higher sexual attractiveness or superior status (another natural impulse for females).
    Testing other people can end on a mess more often than not.
    Monogamy is not perfect, but neither are the alternatives.
    To paraphrase Churchill: Monogamy is the worst form of relationship except for all those others that have been tried, YMMV as usual.

    S.R.

  21. Anonymous–

    carrying child of a man that is investing time and resources on another woman is a risk.

    The idea is that the time and resources he devotes to another woman should be very much limited. That's where the primary's veto comes in. There are French social codes to this effect.

    many women become sexless on their marriages for years and I will go out on a limb and say that maybe is an evolutionary reason

    Many American women go sexless on their husbands after awhile as he is without his having had extramarital sex, particularly after the second and last child is born, by many account.

    Would you concede that a husband who's wife isn't given him sex or only very rarely, has a right to seek it elsewhere, while keeping the marriage together to raise the children as a couple?

  22. Anonymous says:

    D.B. – protective of the high sexual partner count person not pair bonding to multiple people constantly.

    I'm saying pair bonding is hormonal based, and like all hormonal systems there is the potential to overwork it/risk damage.

    For about a million years humans lived in groups of less than 150 people. We're simply not designed for partner counts of 50.

    This makes sense. Thanks for the response.

    D.B.

  23. Anonymous says:

    The idea is that the time and resources he devotes to another woman should be very much limited. That's where the primary's veto comes in. There are French social codes to this effect.

    Did you read the case about the surrogate woman that decided after carrying the child that she rather keep him, was given custody by a judge because in UK there are no laws that cover surrogate services and then the other guy had to pay child support for a kid he was not allowed to raise with his true wife?
    Yeah this arrangements are with other people, how many women do you know that think that they are okay with certain boundaries just to change their number a few months down the line? Or decide they want to have a kid a certain point? Really France might be having some sort of honor on this system, but I will bet that there had been ugly issues with this. Again take a look at patriarcal cultures where there is no social pressure for men to remain faithful or for woman to leave after an infidelity and see how much pain that creates and how dysfunctional this families are raised, many complications like STD's, abortions, fights and tears. It just doesn't work.
    If you personally believe in it, by all means be happy and find a woman down with it, but don't sell it as the solution of all the romantic problems because is not and please whatever you do, don't bring children to this "couple" they won't be happy and children always know this things.

    Would you concede that a husband who's wife isn't given him sex or only very rarely, has a right to seek it elsewhere, while keeping the marriage together to raise the children as a couple?

    If he talks to his wife first and she prefers him having sex with other women instead of trying to work on the issue, well why not is their relationship.
    But the issue this is that you assume that seeking sex has no risks of breaking the pair bond, when I think Athol and many other studies proof that pair bonding and having just monogamous sex is that formula that works the best on the long run for everyone involved.

    S.R.

  24. filrabat says:

    In the end, anyone who says it's ok to fuck any willing partner simply because "it feels good", ":t's not masculine to hold back", blah blah blah is in desperate need of dopamine detox – for they've been TOTALLY OWNED by that neurochemical (and the others you mentioned). In effect, any guy who is like this isn't a true alpha male so much as he's being guided by bad habits and instincts.

    Word to the "F&%$ anyone you're hot for!" gang: Those chemicals don't give a damn about your own feelings, your partner's feelings, or even about your ability to pair-bond long enough to raise your children, let alone pair-bond till death do you part. Those chemicals are only "concerned" about getting someone pregnant! Never mind if you aren't able to support the child! Never mind that you don't want to settle down! Never mind even that she (or even YOU) have some STI! Those brain chemicals just want you to screw so the DNA will transmit to the next generation. In short, the DNA and those neurochemicals are IDIOTS – and in this day and age, bullies that wear down the rational, TRULY human side of your brain just for the sake of following a Stone Age timetable of the rites of passage.

    If you're truly a man, truly an Alpha Male, you'll learn to DOMINATE those chemicals – otherwise you'll be nothing but an overgrown 13 or 14 year old.

  25. red_horizon0127 says:

    Oh, here we go… the 'real man' speech… lol another person trying to yank that tired old string.

  26. Anonymous–

    "But the issue this is that you assume that seeking sex has no risks of breaking the pair bond, when I think Athol and many other studies proof that pair bonding and having just monogamous sex is that formula that works the best on the long run for everyone involved."

    I think a husband's having sex on the side a number of years after getting married runs a low risk of breaking his pair bondedness with his wife, if he's additudianlly commited to remaining married and emotionally loyal to her. I think a wife's doing the same thing runs vastly greater risks of breaking her remaining sexual attraction to her husband and hence pair bondedness after awhile, particularly under the conditions of American or Anglosphere culture.

    I think the American "solution" of 50% divorce rate filed for 2.5x more often by the wife, and really initiated 90% of the time in couples with minor children by women, who always get custody when they want it and sky high as an after tax percentage child support=also stealth alimony, particularly in the case of upper middle clas men in high tax states, is greatly more unfair to men than the unfairness towards women you mention in latin American culture.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I never say this situation was particularly unfair, I'm being objective here. That system is defective on preventing divorce. Most men with something on the side don't plan on leaving their wives, but their mistress start to call their wives, harass them, telling them they are worthless women because they cannot satisfy their husbands…, sexual rivalry among women is merciless. You seeking something on the side shows how little you care about the stability of your own home, given that any of this women can decide to go for the kill, get pregnant or just work you out so you end up trading up a few years down the line. Heck I know one that got a nasty STD purposeful to infect the wife, just out of spite.

    Is really not the best solution, neither is the giving all the advantages to women on divorce court.

    The thing is that you are assuming that the opposite of one system automatically means that is better or perfect, that was feminism mistake instead of studying gender relationships and picking what worked and improving what didn't they just decided go the opposite way and that is how this culture ended up in this hole.

    Athol's system seems like an effective model, of course I will say that I need to see more people reaching their 20 anniversary to consider it perfect, but the model you offer I had seen it at work all my life (thankfully not on my own family we haven't had a divorce on 4 generations) and it doesn't work, I will say of men that did this only 20% stayed with first wife, and the kids ended up really messed up of seeing their mothers suffering and their fathers missing important dates because they were too busy with new punani, that is no effective at all, either.
    S.R.

  28. Anonymous says:

    SR, your family hasn't had a divorce in four generations?

    I'm listening to you.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Heh sadly I think is genetic, women from my mother's side are extremely picky and 90% of the time pick traditional Beta husbands. My great grandmother used to say that once you get a Rivera woman only death take you away. We are very monogamous and god's knows we all hated dating so for us it was crucial to find a good man and committed to it, forever. So I don't think we can teach it, but I do know that from my observations when done right monogamy is the best strategy for both genders, their families and their offspring, there is a reason civilization started when we invented this crazy thing called marriage and tried to make it a lifetime commitment.

    My husband's family also don't get divorced so I think unless we screw it really badly we have a good beginning.
    S.R.

  30. Anonymous says:

    "My great grandmother used to say that once you get a Rivera woman only death take you away."

    Hmm… any cute young Rivera women looking for a prospective husband? lol ;-)

  31. Anonymous says:

    Sadly my sister is 28 but I think our picky genes overdid it with her, she is even pickier than I was and she doesn't have "girl game" like I did (she has skin issues and plus she can't cook, though skinny like me we don't gain weight again genetics) she used to be the prettiest of both, but for some reason she doesn't care about her appearance anymore and trust me I had tried to make her see the light to no avail so she needs some work before I can try and match her with anyone, my female cousins are all married too, so sorry.
    S.R.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Oh, too bad. I'll just have to keep looking.

  33. Comparing a woman who had a high number of sexual partners to rotten fruit is really, really disgusting and awful. You know you’re participating in the slut shaming behaviour, so when you recognize it, then just stop and don’t write something that can offend people. Why be tongue-in-cheek about that issue? Also, not a lot of people who marry were virgins beforehand (actually-surprise! Most aren’t). What do you constitute “high”? More than 5, 10? 20? The perception of a “high number” lies with the partner. Keep that in mind.

Speak Your Mind

*