4 ms·

This was more or less the purpose of monogamy. If you observe many societies that don’t strongly enforce it, you see that wealthy men end up having tons of wive

This was more or less the purpose of monogamy. If you observe many societies that don’t strongly enforce it, you see that wealthy men end up having tons of wives, while poor men have none. Same situation is happening in America, we just don’t call it polygamy because it has been reduced entirely to the physical act.

DC1350 6y ago
The unfortunate reality of sexual freedom is that most men would never be freely chosen for casual sex. The only reason they historically got laid was because of social and economic pressure against women. I don’t think it’s possible to have both gender equality and large scale monogamy.
- liaukovv 6y ago
  Only if society takes it upon itself(upon undateable men really) to rear all offspring
  - durnygbur 6y ago
    I wouldn't mind not having sex, if society and labour code wouldn't force me into supporting not my children - who have both parents, by single mothers who made wrong choice, or single mothers who went through in-vitro. If there was a way to avoid it...
    - ilammy 6y ago
      > If there was a way to avoid it You can: move to a shack in the wood, be self-sufficient, don't use society's benefits, and hence don't pay taxes. Otherwise society is interested in baby taxpayers, regardless of who's raising them. Even if you don't use roads, your taxes are still used to build them. Ditto with children.
Lammy 6y ago
Sounds like we should eliminate the need for and concept of wealth, then, so people can congregate based on shared interest instead of having to factor in the possibility of monetary support from their partner(s).
- tarboreus 6y ago
  Good luck! I'll check back in with your utopia in a hundred years.
- david38 6y ago
  You propose to eliminate the concept of status? Impossible. Even monkeys have it.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    You're on the right track with that comparison but need to connect the dots. Humanity's next stage of evolution is to Oneness imo.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      Isn't that the Human Instrumentality Project that Seele was after?
      - Lammy 6y ago
        Sorry if this is meant to be a joke and I'm taking you seriously, but yeah, kinda? Just based on a read of the relevant wiki page anyway since I'm not the biggest Eva fan. It seems to portray trading individuality for oneness, though, and that doesn't fit with my beliefs. I view it more like: the thing that differentiates us from the other animals is our ability to create and exchange ideas quickly (latency) and thoroughly (bandwidth), and those ideas are a state of matter that seem totally dissimilar to our animal bodies. We talk about matter not being created or destroyed, so what is a new idea? What are ideas made of, and where do they exist? I don't know, but I believe my individual dense collection of ideas is my real "human" individual self if that makes any sense. All of humanity's various -ists and -phobias, on the other hand, seem to be about protecting our animal bodies, the food they need to eat, and the spaces they want to occupy. How much racism has historically stemmed from fear of a group of people in worse financial condition than one's own, coming in willing to work for lower wages thus threatening one's own stability in jobs, housing, food, and so on? How much homophobia (especially towards men) stems from fear of a gay son threatening generational wealth that could historically only be passed to male heirs? If humanity could collectively lose the need for all of that hate we can still have the "individual", and in fact many individuals at any level you could slice the One. The highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency links are (for now) obviously between the ideas in one's own brain, but similar densities form between people in committed relationships, between close-knit groups of friends, and so on. I just don't see any other path forward now that we humans have spread across the entire Earth and can communicate with any other person in realtime. So much land is "private" now. Where are people going to live? Depopulation should not be the answer, because that's like giving the One a lobotomy. We are all already neurons in a giant brain, like it or not, so I prefer trying to like it :)
oceanghost 6y ago
Anecdotally, I think you're on the money. "Poly" folks are overrepresented on dating apps because they never shut their profiles down after meeting someone. What's surprising to me is how much of it there is. I was on bumble/tinder and a couple of other sites when I was single, and it was so bad the first question I would ask was, "are you poly?" I don't see any value prop in being poly for a man. Every time I've seen my friends attempt it, the woman is getting laid like crazy, and the man is struggling to find anyone. Imagine dating as a poly man-- what do you tell a woman you meet? "Well, there's no future for us because I have a wife and a girlfriend, but I'd still really like to get into your pants." And then, there are issues of disease and pregnancy. You're trusting people you don't know to act responsibly as far as disease goes. And pregnancy is a nightmare-- I know a woman who has a husband and two boyfriends, and she turned up pregnant. It was a nightmare for everyone involved. Nobody knew who'd done the deed. Sex is DANGEROUS. I will get downvoted to hell for this, but, "poly" is just a modern version of Cuckoldry. If you're into that, that's your business. But all of the ephemera and justifications around it are just thinly veiled nonsense.
throwaway8581 6y ago
100%. And single young men with no prospect of a family life are not going to just accept their lot. The director of the FBI in the last few days listed “incels” as a group of “extremists” that they are concerned about. But society can’t subdue 30% of men through law enforcement. It has to give them a place in society. And as you point out, that is the function of monogamous marriage. We are in trouble.
- DC1350 6y ago
  It’s not going to matter. What do you think the gay frog experiments were for? It’s a continuation of MK Ultra which turned Ted Kaczynski transgender, but nobody ever talks about that part.

DC1350 6y ago

The unfortunate reality of sexual freedom is that most men would never be freely chosen for casual sex. The only reason they historically got laid was because of social and economic pressure against women. I don’t think it’s possible to have both gender equality and large scale monogamy.

liaukovv 6y ago
Only if society takes it upon itself(upon undateable men really) to rear all offspring
- durnygbur 6y ago
  I wouldn't mind not having sex, if society and labour code wouldn't force me into supporting not my children - who have both parents, by single mothers who made wrong choice, or single mothers who went through in-vitro. If there was a way to avoid it...
  - ilammy 6y ago
    > If there was a way to avoid it You can: move to a shack in the wood, be self-sufficient, don't use society's benefits, and hence don't pay taxes. Otherwise society is interested in baby taxpayers, regardless of who's raising them. Even if you don't use roads, your taxes are still used to build them. Ditto with children.

Lammy 6y ago

Sounds like we should eliminate the need for and concept of wealth, then, so people can congregate based on shared interest instead of having to factor in the possibility of monetary support from their partner(s).

tarboreus 6y ago
Good luck! I'll check back in with your utopia in a hundred years.
david38 6y ago
You propose to eliminate the concept of status? Impossible. Even monkeys have it.
- Lammy 6y ago
  You're on the right track with that comparison but need to connect the dots. Humanity's next stage of evolution is to Oneness imo.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    Isn't that the Human Instrumentality Project that Seele was after?
    - Lammy 6y ago
      Sorry if this is meant to be a joke and I'm taking you seriously, but yeah, kinda? Just based on a read of the relevant wiki page anyway since I'm not the biggest Eva fan. It seems to portray trading individuality for oneness, though, and that doesn't fit with my beliefs. I view it more like: the thing that differentiates us from the other animals is our ability to create and exchange ideas quickly (latency) and thoroughly (bandwidth), and those ideas are a state of matter that seem totally dissimilar to our animal bodies. We talk about matter not being created or destroyed, so what is a new idea? What are ideas made of, and where do they exist? I don't know, but I believe my individual dense collection of ideas is my real "human" individual self if that makes any sense. All of humanity's various -ists and -phobias, on the other hand, seem to be about protecting our animal bodies, the food they need to eat, and the spaces they want to occupy. How much racism has historically stemmed from fear of a group of people in worse financial condition than one's own, coming in willing to work for lower wages thus threatening one's own stability in jobs, housing, food, and so on? How much homophobia (especially towards men) stems from fear of a gay son threatening generational wealth that could historically only be passed to male heirs? If humanity could collectively lose the need for all of that hate we can still have the "individual", and in fact many individuals at any level you could slice the One. The highest-bandwidth and lowest-latency links are (for now) obviously between the ideas in one's own brain, but similar densities form between people in committed relationships, between close-knit groups of friends, and so on. I just don't see any other path forward now that we humans have spread across the entire Earth and can communicate with any other person in realtime. So much land is "private" now. Where are people going to live? Depopulation should not be the answer, because that's like giving the One a lobotomy. We are all already neurons in a giant brain, like it or not, so I prefer trying to like it :)

oceanghost 6y ago

Anecdotally, I think you're on the money. "Poly" folks are overrepresented on dating apps because they never shut their profiles down after meeting someone. What's surprising to me is how much of it there is. I was on bumble/tinder and a couple of other sites when I was single, and it was so bad the first question I would ask was, "are you poly?" I don't see any value prop in being poly for a man. Every time I've seen my friends attempt it, the woman is getting laid like crazy, and the man is struggling to find anyone. Imagine dating as a poly man-- what do you tell a woman you meet? "Well, there's no future for us because I have a wife and a girlfriend, but I'd still really like to get into your pants." And then, there are issues of disease and pregnancy. You're trusting people you don't know to act responsibly as far as disease goes. And pregnancy is a nightmare-- I know a woman who has a husband and two boyfriends, and she turned up pregnant. It was a nightmare for everyone involved. Nobody knew who'd done the deed. Sex is DANGEROUS. I will get downvoted to hell for this, but, "poly" is just a modern version of Cuckoldry. If you're into that, that's your business. But all of the ephemera and justifications around it are just thinly veiled nonsense.

throwaway8581 6y ago

100%. And single young men with no prospect of a family life are not going to just accept their lot. The director of the FBI in the last few days listed “incels” as a group of “extremists” that they are concerned about. But society can’t subdue 30% of men through law enforcement. It has to give them a place in society. And as you point out, that is the function of monogamous marriage. We are in trouble.

DC1350 6y ago
It’s not going to matter. What do you think the gay frog experiments were for? It’s a continuation of MK Ultra which turned Ted Kaczynski transgender, but nobody ever talks about that part.