Self-reflection on One-Sided Monogamy

[TheEcho]

Apologies if this is just restating what any articles say, but I have been playing with the idea of one-sided monogamy and why it is (probably) the ideal. First and foremost is men are hunters and need to remain in the hunt to embody our role well. Second is women are enlivened by potential competition (while male jealousy seems more like a target on the competition's back).

The dynamic keeps the man sharp and attractive and the knowledge of potential others makes the woman feel more attracted to him while also feeding her need for drama in a way that likely gets translated to trying to grow her partner's affection, rather than blow up on them. This assumes the man is properly caring for her, though, not just being a douche.

This combats the general decay men face in monogamous relationships which (imo) is the source of most common issues that arise in LTR's, and by addressing that, the man can stay in his masculine as an aggressor/hunter/overcomer, which let's the polarization that usually fades, stay strong.

 

[ulrich]

I am a big proponent of one side monogamy (although only practiced myself for a short time).

However, I think it’s not necessarily the “ideal”.

In my short experience and from what I’ve read and seen from other seducers, it seems to make relationships volatile.
You need to spend higher energy keeping them alive and women are more likely to break them off out of minor grievances.
Also worth mentioning that you need to keep your frame not only with your girls but also society that will somewhat judge you.

All in all, one-sided monogamy is well… one-sided.
Great for the guy… not as great for the woman.

Just putting this as a counter argument for the sake of discussion.

I feel it is a high effort / high reward strategy.
And the downside about such strategies is that you will not always have the energy to do high effort, if you have other things going on in your life.

But if you have the energy at the moment, go for it.
It is a great experience.

 

[TheEcho]

Given monogamy is the less common mating arrangement across human history, do you think the increased issues are from the societal pressures the girl may face? My ex was happy for years, but once she had a feminist coworker in her ear all day every day, her expectations got screwed.

I believe the need for a man to remain on the hunt is hard to argue against and historically (and still in parts of the world) women accumulate to the top few guys in the area. I saw something about how DNA distribution of earlier times seemed to have 1 man per 17 women, which when compared to other apex predators isn't that crazy.

There's no way women didn't also find it preferential to an extent and adapt to that mode of life with how prevalent it has been. The strong trigger of female attraction for a male upon seeing their competitors' desire for the same guy is a strong indicator. I don't know about you guys, but I don't get any boost in attraction for seeing other dudes checking out a girl, so this seems to be a trait specific to females.

 

[Surveyor]

Given monogamy is the less common mating arrangement across human history

Citation needed
Polygamists with the resources to take care of multiple women are the exception in most societies.
Humans evolved mainly in conditions of lifelong monogamy, with the occasional extra-pair copulation because we’re still apes and also rape is a thing.

once she had a feminist coworker in her ear all day every day, her expectations got screwed.

That does concern me a little.

I believe the need for a man to remain on the hunt is hard to argue against

Up to a point, sure. But there comes a time when it’s better to hunt for something more meaningful than women. And the meaning in that achievement will carry over to your relationship.

and historically (and still in parts of the world) women accumulate to the top few guys in the area.

Pretty much not ever the case except maybe in those “parts of the world”.

I saw something about how DNA distribution of earlier times seemed to have 1 man per 17 women

Citation needed
Totally implausible. The Borjigins (Chinggis Khan and his relatives and descendants) are so well known for this BECAUSE they ate outliers.
While there do exist societies that mostly practice polygamy, virtually every society restricts it to the top few percent. If the “dominant” male(s) in a human group were to take too many women, they would be overthrown and a new dominance hierarchy would form.
There’s a reason it’s kings and not village chiefs who are known for polygamy.

which when compared to other apex predators isn't that crazy.

Not really comparable. Human social organization is fundamentally different than that of, say, lions.

There's no way women didn't also find it preferential to an extent and adapt to that mode of life with how prevalent it has been.

See above.

The strong trigger of female attraction for a male upon seeing their competitors' desire for the same guy is a strong indicator. I don't know about you guys, but I don't get any boost in attraction for seeing other dudes checking out a girl, so this seems to be a trait specific to females.

Well, sometimes average men are in fact susceptible to social proofing.

 

[ulrich]

Given monogamy is the less common mating arrangement across human history, do you think the increased issues are from the societal pressures the girl may face? My ex was happy for years, but once she had a feminist coworker in her ear all day every day, her expectations got screwed.

Not sure that is an accurate statement. You’re probably mixing history and pre-history (of which we don’t have records and it’s mostly theoretical).

As far as I understand, by the times we had written records, monogamy was already the dominant arrangement.
The Bible even starts with a long genealogy of who married who and gave birth to whom.
The exception (for most of written history) seems to be kings and nobles who would have a main family and bastard children with their slaves/servants.

If I had to guess, I think the increased societal pressures would come more from the relatively new equality between the sexes and increasing female societal power.
Yes, you could get away with these things easier in the yesteryear (assuming you were a lord).

…

Which also begs the question… how much of what we interpret as “history” is actually only focusing on the life’s of the rich and important people of the past?
Would a peasant have multiple wives and kids?

 

[Surveyor]

Which also begs the question… how much of what we interpret as “history” is actually only focusing on the life’s of the rich and important people of the past?

Quite a lot, for some people’s mental models of pop-history.

Would a peasant have multiple wives and kids?

That’s almost an oxymoron.

Btw, on average polygamy is a little less efficient/optimal for women and children (both in quality and in terms of birthrate). Polygamy tends to occur in environments with 1) a lot of resource inequality 2) women needing a lot of economic or physical protection 3) higher levels of individualism.

Humans default to monogamy because it has very low sociocultural overhead costs.

 

[ulrich]

Humans default to monogamy because it has very low sociocultural overhead costs.

Couldn’t have said it better.

It seems monogamy and inceldom (for low value males) are the energy sink of a society with balanced sex ratios.

You can build alternative arrangements… but then you’re fighting social entropy.

 

[TheEcho]

These agricultural times are nothing out of our~400k years of being in our modern form. The West carried over monogamy from the Romans. I don't see many stories about every guy getting his princess bride, the culturally significant stories always focus on the girl getting a guy.

The 1 male to 17 female period: https://www.sciencealert.com/neolithic-y-chromosome-bottleneck-warring-patrilineal-clans

 

[ulrich]

Is there any information on how aboriginal populations behave?
I think it would be more enlightening than pondering about pre-history theories.

 

[ulrich]

The 1 male to 17 female period: https://www.sciencealert.com/neolithic-y-chromosome-bottleneck-warring-patrilineal-clans

These would seem to suggest that males often died young as a result of clan fighting and females were kidnapped into the winning clan.

In that sense, a 17 to 1 ratio would not be the result of women selecting men willingly.
Rather the unavailability of enough male suitors would lead to an over demand of the existing ones.

Also, this would probably create a caste system with the clan wives being first in order and the captured wives being second which will further hamper young males availability to reproduce.

Not really comparable to modern society… unless you’re willing to go out killing other males.

If anything, this would suggest that males evolved to kill other males… so women have to share them out of necessity, not preference.

 

[Surveyor]

The 1 male to 17 female period: https://www.sciencealert.com/neolithic-y-chromosome-bottleneck-warring-patrilineal-clans

With respect, you took it totally out of context:

I believe the need for a man to remain on the hunt is hard to argue against and historically (and still in parts of the world) women accumulate to the top few guys in the area. I saw something about how DNA distribution of earlier times seemed to have 1 man per 17 women, which when compared to other apex predators isn't that crazy.

That seems to be a unique event limited to western Eurasia and it doesn’t seem to be related to regular

Is there any information on how aboriginal populations behave?
I think it would be more enlightening than pondering about pre-history theories.

Hunter-gatherers are usually monogamous, unsurprisingly. There aren’t necessarily taboos against polygamy but it means a lot more work to feed your family.
Horticultural societies, such as the infamous Yanomamo, are more variable as there tends to be a lot more social chaos, with frequent warfare and often stronger patriarchies (or occasionally matriarchal elements).
Nomadic pastoralists have perhaps the strongest tendency toward polygamy, but even among them it’s not common.
Intensive agriculture generally lends itself to monogamy for all but the top few percent (sometimes).

 

[TheEcho]

If anything, this would suggest that males evolved to kill other males… so women have to share them out of necessity, not preference.

But if that were the case for a very, very long period of time, there's no way it didn't affect female evolution to deal with it and potentially prefer it. Lionesses seem happy to be with the top guy, who is responsible for killing/running off other males.

Intensive agriculture generally lends itself to monogamy for all but the top few percent (sometimes).

Again, agriculture came in the most recent 5% of our history as homo sapiens.


Most likely we're facing two strategies at odds, with us coming from a usual apex predator dynamic that has been carried along by powerful men and the other strategy to focus on monogamy due to human baby's incredible demands. Male's sexual nature is NOT wired for monogamy, which is where religion comes in to try to reinforce fidelity. Even female promiscuity is questionable, but it seems like guys' "antenna" never turns off, unless they have hormonal issues (malnutrition/porn). I feel like outside a few always promiscuous women, women's "antenna" turns off and stays off as long as their needs are being met.

 

[ulrich]

But if that were the case for a very, very long period of time, there's no way it didn't affect female evolution to deal with it and potentially prefer it.

That’s speculation, at best.

Lionesses seem happy to be with the top guy, who is responsible for killing/running off other males.

I don’t think we can really talk about “happiness” in animals.
It seems to me like happiness is a far more advanced process that most animal brains can’t handle… other than hominids.

“Content” is maybe the word you’re looking for.

Yeah, lionesses seem content.
I don’t think they have much to say anyway, they need a big male in the pride to kill elephants and oxen… and male/female ratio is terrible in lions… like 1 out of every 6 male lions makes it into adulthood.
Most young males get killed by hyenas and other male lions.

Again, lionesses are not choosing to share a male lion with their pride, they have to. The savannah is a brutal place.

 

[TheEcho]

You are completely ignoring how a certain dynamic over a long time is it's own selective pressure...

It's really weird to suggest we have the emotions and they don't... emotions are the basic drivers of animals' behaviors, that's why they exist. "Stimulus occurs" "relevant emotions triggered" "Emotions loop until stimulus demand met"

 

[ulrich]

Happiness is not an emotion… it is a much more complex psychological phenomena.
You’re confusing happiness with joy.

Those are two different things.

 

[ulrich]

You are completely ignoring how a certain dynamic over a long time is it's own selective pressure...

Again, you are speculating.

Could you explain WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE how a dynamic is its own selective pressure, please?
The onus is proof is on you.

No offense but a lot of arguments based on evolution suffer from circular logic.

- “It is X now therefore it should have been Y in the past.”
- “What is your evidence?”
- “It is X now”

It’s a lot of pondering and almost nothing of proof.

 

[TheEcho]

How is a dynamic held any different from other environmental pressures... Other than it can become self fulfilling through selection

 

[ulrich]

That’s circular logic @TheEcho. Not very scientific by definition.

Anyway, I think we are derailing with this evolution discussion.

I found this post by Chase that could bring a light to the original point of having one-sided monogamy:
https://www.skilledseducer.com/threads/thank-you-girlschase-worked-wonders-for-me.27519/post-161657

 

[Surveyor]

But if that were the case for a very, very long period of time

It’s called a bottleneck for a reason. Read the post you linked again.

Again, agriculture came in the most recent 5% of our history as homo sapiens.

Exactly! For a million years or so we’ve been almost entirely monogamous.
I’ve posted elsewhere about why our balls are all so small. Humans have evolved with little sperm competition for a couple millions years too. Not exactly the same thing, but correlated.

us coming from a usual apex predator dynamic that has been carried along by powerful men

Pop-hist mythos alert
I don’t wanna push this too far but it’s important that random lurkers reading this see this debunked.

and the other strategy to focus on monogamy due to human baby's incredible demands.

Birds of prey are mostly monogamous…it has little to do with that

Male's sexual nature is NOT wired for monogamy

Well yes and no, there are multiple layers of programming going on

which is where religion comes in to try to reinforce fidelity

Oh it predates religion…btw not all religions are like the Abrahamic ones, to put it mildly.

 

[ulrich]

Well yes and no, there are multiple layers of programming going on

This is an interesting point to discuss.

Male lions have an interesting piece of code in their Y gene coming from their fathers that makes them grow gargantuan.
In turn, the X gene coming from their mothers, has a countercode that caps the growth so a male lion is about 25% bigger than a female lion.

A liger (cross between a lion with a tigress) can grow up to 5 times the weight of a male lion because his growth is not capped by the countercode.

Evolution can work as system of balance and checks, too.

In our case, men’s instinct to pursue many women checked by women’s instinct for monogamy and societal pressure.