In Group Female Promiscuity is natural

[Pandora]

Read it years ago, it’s psychological bable, totally unproven bullshyte that tows the female imperative. It’s gouche and so badly written, referenced and so agenda driven it’s cliche.

And at the end of the book the FEMALE author has chapters devoted to why women should understand when their man cheats. This shocked me. It was a pleasant surprise. She explained it from a man's point of view. She was saying that women need to understand that male infidelity is not an indictment on the wive/gf. It's a natural part of a man having high testosterone etc. So no this is not a feminist book.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Hey man thanks for the counterpoints. Both sides have great counterpoints. Lemme address them in the way the proponents of the book would.

1.) Jealousy and mate guarding are actually not common. In tribal units ( that we can still observe today) they are very liberal with the females. Actually the females are very liberal with the men. They can sleep with who they want. Tribes view this as forming unit cohesion. Sharing is caring sort of thing. We are referring to foraging hunter gatherer units. We are not referring to tribal untis that use any form of agriculture.

2.) So evolutionary theory does not account for reciprocal altruism. When groups look out for each other then the genetics of the species survives. Darwinism is flawed. A small unit understands that the GROUP and not the individuals genetic code comes first. This is why soldiers will fall on a grenade for their buddies.

The more I learn the more I see the huge holes in this Darwinist/ Dawkin selfish gene theory. Humans cooperate as a rule and fight as an exception. Most wars are due to govts and not true human nature. In your own life how many fist fights do you get into? Very few.

3.) Human beings are not naturally selfish. They are also insanely cooperative when resources are abundant. In the natural world resources are free and abundant. Hunter gatherer societies were not malnourished at all. They had more than enough calories and had excesses of food ( for the most part).

It is when resources are artificially scarce that's when people act selfishly. Civilization leads to capitalism and govts. These institutions create scarcity in the markets. The books Civilized to Death and Tribe explain this better.

We mate guard because of civilization. We mate guard because we don't live in small bands of interdependent men. Mate guarding is for simps. The most RedPill men on earth ( pimps) don't mate guard at all. They know the true nature of the female.

1) Which specific tribes are you referring to? I don't think that you can generalize the experience of a few isolated, backward tribes and assume this is how all human societies functioned before the advent of civilization. For example, there are tribes that practice cannibalism. But it would be a stretch to suggest that cannibalism was, at any time, common human behaviour. By the same token, just because some group of weirdos on an isolated island like to share their women does not mean that this behaviour was previously widespread. There are reasons why those tribes are still struck in the stone age and this may be one of them...

2) Soldiers are subjected to extreme mental conditioning. The main purpose of military training is to break you down as an individual and turn you into a machine that would obey orders, and, if necessary, sacrifice itself without question. This type of self-sacrifice is most definitely not natural.

3) If cooperation was a natural human state, you would not be seeing breakdown of social order in the wake on natural disasters, wars, and other calamities. When civilizations collapse, cooperation goes out the window and it's everyone for himself. Thus, cooperation is a product of civilization.

 

[samspade]

Do you think Leo DiCaprio mate guards? Hell naw. He moves on.

I was going to say something like this. Usually I avoid the Leo/George/Brad analogy, but point is, an alpha in a tribe would not care.

I'm not sure if there is an alpha in the tribes you are describing where everything is shared, however. Must be some kind of hierarchy that people fall into, no?

 

[Pandora]

1) Which specific tribes are you referring to? I don't think that you can generalize the experience of a few isolated, backward tribes and assume this is how all human societies functioned before the advent of civilization. For example, there are tribes that practice cannibalism. But it would be a stretch to suggest that cannibalism was, at any time, common human behaviour. By the same token, just because some group of weirdos on an isolated island like to share their women does not mean that this behaviour was previously widespread. There are reasons why those tribes are still struck in the stone age and this may be one of them...

2) Soldiers do what they do due to extreme mental conditioning. The main purpose of military training is break you down as an individual and turn you into a machine that would obey orders, and, if necessary, sacrifice itself without question. This type of self-sacrifice is most definitely not natural.

3) If cooperation was a natural human state, you would not be seeing breakdown of social order in the wake on natural disasters, wars, and other calamities. When civilizations fail, cooperation goes out the window and it's everyone for himself. Thus, cooperation is a product of civilization.

1.) Every hunter gatherer tribe ever. Virtually no hunter gatherer tribes practiced mate guarding (99.9%) . Scaroumouche commented earlier that even his Celtic tribes practiced polyamory until the Romans invaded them.

2.) Soldiers don't sacrifice themselves for their buddies because the military told them to. They do it because next to them is a person they formed a bond with. We can use other examples of altruism that destroy Dawkins model of the selfish gene. People routinely risk their lives for strangers. If you knew a baby was in a burning building I'm pretty sure you would atleast attempt to run inside to help. This makes no sense using Darwin's model. This is because his model was incomplete.

3.) So social order does not break down in the wake of disasters long term. Surprisingly people are very cooperative. What freaks them out is the media and the fact that they brainwash sheep into panic. Flint Michigan the people came together to help each other, hurricane Katrina you had random people going out with boats to help random people. So we do have a very strong cooperative trait which is often under celebrated. This is especially true if you have deep bonds with the people in your community.

So I agree that people can be selfish. But people can also be kind too. I would argue that our selfish instinct is developed when people live in crowded harsh environments like cities. If you go out in nature where everything is abundant then people tend to be incredibly kind. Tribal people were usually incredibly generous to the civilized invader forces.

People in poor nations are extremely generous. They have a sense of community.

Did you know that US air force pilots during WW2 were some of the first swingers. They were the first to do the key parties before it spread to the mainstream. They did it because it promoted allegiance and cohesion. They said that if one of them died in combat then the other guy would be likely to take care of the bastard child.

This is how humans came up. What I am describing is what we did for WAAAAYYY longer than the nonsense we are doing now.

 

[Pandora]

I was going to say something like this. Usually I avoid the Leo/George/Brad analogy, but point is, an alpha in a tribe would not care.

I'm not sure if there is an alpha in the tribes you are describing where everything is shared, however. Must be some kind of hierarchy that people fall into, no?

There were no alphas. Alphas form in argicultural tribes. In agricultural tribes you can stock up on resources. These resources allow you to have leverage and then gain power.

In hunter gatherer tribes the leadership was flimsy and often diffuse among the tribe. It was also a revolving door of leadership depending on expertise. They were extremely egalitarian. They HAD to be. You only have like 120 people. You needed everyone. Any bully would be dealt with easily. Egos we're kept in check through joking and social shame.

Plus you wouldn't care if your homie got a girl pregnant. You guys were so close that you would treat the kid like yours anyway. The bonds formed in tribal units were so close that it's hard for us to imagine.

 

[Pandora]

Saying men naturally mate guard is like saying woman are naturally gold diggers. It's hard to separate the behavior from the environment. People act differently in a competition based environment (civilization) than they do in a cooperative environment ( nature).

For example, hot young women routinely are indifferent to money in college. They will smash the broke hot artist guy when they are young. Financial status is a tertiary concern.

When they are approaching the wall they will only smash the guys with a good career. They actually get turned off by men being broke.

Their environment changed so did their behavior. Women are being supported by cooperations and big daddy govt so they don't need to worry about money that much. So they are free to get back to picking men based on what they truly like. This is physical attraction.

We are born in civilization. An intensely competitive civilization. We behave accordingly. But this is not who we truly are. In our natural state ***** is free and abundant. This is why tribal men didn't mate guard. They were in cooperative mode where resources don't matter.

 

[Pandora]

Interesting. Looking forward to responses to this thread. Valid or not it will challenge some conventional wisdom.

Exactly bro. It's always good to challenge your belief system. We don't want an echo chamber.

These ideas rocked my world but it was something that I was already kind of observing. Women act much differently in small in groups. This is why it's much easier to fuk a girl within a social circle.

The true Chads/ Tyrone don't even care. It's the betas that get too overly attached to the girl.

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

Look up "Sex at Dusk"...

Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn: Saxon, Lynn: 8601407139359: Amazon.com: Books

Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn [Saxon, Lynn] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn

www.amazon.com

 

[Pandora]

I dont mind decent guys getting laid, if a woman I love is with another guy it has to be a guy I respect who has decent values and I think is cool.

Cant be having women ****ing the wrong ones though this is a strict no no.

It is all about the best guys getting the most, the guys most deserving of love and respect.

A slut is a woman who ****s a guy with low morality ie this is a guy who is not valueble for the group. Its not about numbers its about WHO they are ****ing.

For a woman to have value she has to wanna **** guys who are decent and respected, if she wants to do it with guys I consider low-class then I am not gonna wanna be with her for the simple reason I cannot be in that group.

For the women in my group, for me to respect them, they can only be doing it with guys I respect and value, consider it like a reward thing. At the moment this is not happening in Western society simply because men are too **** scared to call women out and are simping to get some, also many guys are just trying to be the guy that women are currently giving it to instead of just calling women out for giving it to the wrong ones.

Exactly brother. . We don't get jealous if we like the guy. In a tribal unit we would have liked the guy. He would have been even closer than a brother. You would have known the guy since you were born. You guys would have had many life or death experiences together.

We feel disgust when the girl fuks a guy that we view as other. As the population grew ( due to agriculture) we suddenly had many " others".

Wanna know if you truly like a guy friend? Imagine him fuking your girl. Does it still make you mad? Then you don't like him that much.

My best friend also agrees with what you said. He said its not so much how many guys she fuked...it's about the quality of those relationships and experiences.

Yeh man i agree with what you said. Nothing worse than a ***** that picks the worst guys. We can forgive a ***** that picks really cool guys in the social circle. But not the ***** that picks the dysfunctional "other".

 

[Pandora]

Look up "Sex at Dusk"...

Ahh that sounds interesting. I will also check that out. Thank you.

 

[Pandora]

If it is an exclusive girlfriend, it would make sense to feel disgusted about sharing that woman. I think it is possible for 2 guys to have sex with a random woman that they meet at a bar one night most likely (this is not likely to happen via non-bar approaching) and be ok with it. Two male friends having sex with a woman that one of the men is in a relationship with seems to be a recipe for trouble.

https://www.bolde.com/dude-got-phd-threesomes-heres-found/

So what changed between the girl at the bar vs the exclusive relationship girl. What is the central reason that we have such drastic emotional differences between the two women. Are they that drastically different?

I think in a tribal unit we would view every woman like the girl at the bar maybe. Or maybe tribes never pedestalized women's sexuality in the first place.

 

[Pandora]

There's a lot of pseudo science these days that tries to tell us things like transgenderism, female promiscuity and gay are all natural behaviors rather than deviations.

If human females gave birth to litters of humans, like rabbits do, then I'd believe that people are meant to be promiscious. The fact is that the cost of pregnancy is so huge for women, both physically and emotionally, that the idea of sex being an insignificant choice for any woman throughout history is just plain stupid.

Female promiscuity is an incel wank fantasy. Unless you're a hypothetical woman's best option, she will never feel truly horny for you.

My question to you is this bro...what do you make of the evidence that all hunter gatherer tribes were polyamorous. This can't be argued as it can be observed today in the few we have left. This is definitely observed in the Australian aboriginal tribes that are relatively easily accessible. Do you think anthropologist and video evidence is lying. I get where you are coming from but that does not address the fact that this is happening and happened.

 

[Pandora]

There's a lot of pseudo science these days that tries to tell us things like transgenderism, female promiscuity and gay are all natural behaviors rather than deviations.

If human females gave birth to litters of humans, like rabbits do, then I'd believe that people are meant to be promiscious. The fact is that the cost of pregnancy is so huge for women, both physically and emotionally, that the idea of sex being an insignificant choice for any woman throughout history is just plain stupid.

Female promiscuity is an incel wank fantasy. Unless you're a hypothetical woman's best option, she will never feel truly horny for you.

Idk man. In my experiences female smash multiple dudes in a social group. The term "homie hopper" is a real phenomenon. It's quite common. This is why often a female will be dating you but have the hots for your friend and vice versa. But maybe my sample population was biased.

 

[Pandora]

Women have been conditioned to share high value men over the course of human history. This wouldn't have been the choice of women to do this - the Alpha simply would have chosen his harem. If a woman complained about it she would have been clubbed to death. So, women defying Alphas dictates would well and truly have been bred out of humans.

Men, on the other man, are largely conditioned throughout history to spend their entire lives not getting laid. This idea that humans lived in these tribes where everyone was fvcking freely is such a pathetic Indian IT worker wank fantasy. It is well known that the tribe structure of early humans was Alpha breeding males and Beta worker bees that didn't get laid (that's why you have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors - and it's probably far more than that).

This is exactly how you see mating behavior in the animal kingdom - males fighting over females. It's always been that way.

See the book addresses this too. Even if the animals fight the females are very promiscuous in the majority of animal species. And in our closest two closest animal relatives the chimp and bonobo there is very little fighting for female sexual access. In the case of the bonobo group sex is common. The book goes extensively into common misconceptions we have about animal sexuality. If we were to use animal sexuality then we would really see that females are super promiscuous and non monogamous.

We think fighting for poon is normal. This is all we know. But i don't think its as normal as we think.

 

[Pandora]

Open Poly is almost always women sharing high value men. It's only in the decadent West do we see Men sharing women as if it's natural (as if transgenderism and being gay is natural). - this is called Subversions. If you believe this behavior is natural then you have been subverted.

If a woman is sharing men, she is only able to openly do it with Betas. Alphas would never put up with it.

See again you are comparing post agricultural behavior with pre agricultural behavior. We cant do do this. Humans behave vastly differently in the presence of agricultural. Agriculture is very unatural to humans. Many consider it the biggest mistake we ever made. Again virtually no pre agricultural society was ever monogamous.

 

[Pandora]

In my experience, I walk down the street and see men wearing dresses. What's your point?

You're living in clown world bro.

Women aren't into casual sex in reality. They never have been and never will be.

Hey don't insult let's keep this academic please. If you wouldn't insult in real life then don't do it on the internet. This is not a personal disagreement. Chill with the clown world stuff.

 

[DonJuanjr]

A slut is a woman who ****s a guy with low morality ie this is a guy who is not valueble for the group. Its not about numbers its about WHO they are ****ing.

This doesn't make sense. Just because to you, their standards are low doesn't mean they don't have standards. Even if the standards are fvcked up. That "slvt" may not choose the majority of the guys on this forums due to not being low life dirt bags. I don't think any would consider that slvt behavior. I don't think of females as slvts. I think most that use the term are thinking either A:Numbers, or B: No standards.

 

[Pandora]

This idea of Communist Poon in a bonobo monkey society is gross and you should question yourself for finding this kind of society appealing.

Again, if human females were supposed to be promiscuous then they wouldn't have a 9 month pregnancy and then give birth to a baby that still needs intensive care for years.

You have to understand (but you won't) that you've completely fallen for political propaganda about human nature. Books on true human nature are banned.

Whether it is appealing or not is not my concern. I want to know what is reality.

Again the 9 month gestation does not prove lack of promiscuity. The fact that women have multiple orgasms, the fact that the female cervix is designed for sperm competition, the female ****oris etc. The female anatomy screams promiscuity way more than it does monogamy. Now they are made to be monogamous for a short period of time... maybe. But after that it's quite evident that they are not made to be bonded to one man forever.

The 9th month gestation just says that she can't get PREGNANT for 9 months. If you want I can list all the anatomical reasons that betray a woman's promiscuity.

Btw how is treating them as monogamous creatures working out for us? Lol....not every well. I'm not saying that they are all pornstars. What I am saying is that their sexual fidelity is not the norm. Society has to try really hard using religion, shaming etc to keep her from being a promiscuous. That shows that is not natural for her. We don't have to like the reality...but it's still reality.

 

[Bokanovsky]

My question to you is this bro...what do you make of the evidence that all hunter gatherer tribes were polyamorous. This can't be argued as it can be observed today in the few we have left. This is definitely observed in the Australian aboriginal tribes that are relatively easily accessible.

Considering that our ancestors have not been hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, what kind of "evidence" is there to show what their mating patterns were like? And if there is such "evidence", what are the odds that it was fudged to serve a certain socio-political agenda?

 

[Pandora]

Now you feel "insulted"?

What is it with these purveyors of filth simultaneously being so sensitive?

"Clown World" is a common descriptor used to describe things that you promote, which includes female slvtiness.

I would definitely say this to you in real life.

Okay fair enough..but i think you are in delusional world. For some reason we have a hard time believing that women actually enjoy fuking different dudes. Monogamy is the only system that fail and fail and fails yet we have a hard time accepting that we were not designed for it.