Heated Debate with GF over monogamy

[backbreaker]

Okay... last night we were eating pizza and watching TV when somethng came on... one thing lead to another and she asks me "what do you think about polygamy?"

Well.. being honest... I told her the truth. I think that from a nature's point of view, surival of the fittest works best when human beings practice polygamy. Reason being, weak men with uncharistic genes dont' get the chance ot pass on their genes.. I told her that it's very if not the exact same as Stallions who get to bred to 100's of mares a year, but the ones with undersirable traits get...put down... when they aren't useful anymore. no difference, execpt weak men dont' get put down, they live the rest of their live in agaony and suave lotion

She just so happens to be atheist (as am I) which is unique, so I didn' thave to argue with her about the whole order of church idea... but her whole "arguement" was that well.. women would get cheated on and it's "not right".

And that's true. I also told her that for my life, as of right now.. and I'm not lying.. Polygamy isn't practical (and I knew why she was asking the quesiton in the first place) and I have desire to want to practice it.. my life has a little more meaning to me than fvcking XXX amount of women. But I do believe that, honestly, part of the reason that our society is getting worse and worse is that people who have no business having kids, are having kids.


So let me ask you. Tkae your GF out of the equation.

Which do you think is honestly more natural and why?

 

[Alkali]

Okay... last night we were eating pizza and watching TV when somethng came on... one thing lead to another and she asks me "what do you think about polygamy?"

Well.. being honest... I told her the truth. I think that from a nature's point of view, surival of the fittest works best when human beings practice polygamy. Reason being, weak men with uncharistic genes dont' get the chance ot pass on their genes.. I told her that it's very if not the exact same as Stallions who get to bred to 100's of mares a year, but the ones with undersirable traits get...put down... when they aren't useful anymore. no difference, execpt weak men dont' get put down, they live the rest of their live in agaony and suave lotion

She just so happens to be atheist (as am I) which is unique, so I didn' thave to argue with her about the whole order of church idea... but her whole "arguement" was that well.. women would get cheated on and it's "not right".

And that's true. I also told her that for my life, as of right now.. and I'm not lying.. Polygamy isn't practical (and I knew why she was asking the quesiton in the first place) and I have desire to want to practice it.. my life has a little more meaning to me than fvcking XXX amount of women. But I do believe that, honestly, part of the reason that our society is getting worse and worse is that people who have no business having kids, are having kids.


So let me ask you. Tkae your GF out of the equation.

Which do you think is honestly more natural and why?

I guess we all can't be born with common sense.

You should be agnostic though. No one really knows.

You believing that there is no God is just as bad as someone else believing that there is one.

"Natural?" It depends on society. The ancient Celts, where women were superior, they had us by the balls.

From that point on men were always philandering with god knows who.

And yet, for the most part, we maintained the belief that one was enough for anyone.

Unless of course, you're comparing us to animals.

If man is indeed an animal, than the alpha male should be having sex with everyone.

But we're something else entirely.

 

[Tazman]

Reason being, weak men with uncharistic genes dont' get the chance ot pass on their genes..

How "weak" are we talking? It seems that lesser men still have the chance to pass on their genes through "lesser" women. We don't quite operate by the same standards as many other animals where you have an "alpha" male who monopolizes sex.
I think we all have the desire to get the best out of life, but we also have the ability to "reason" as to whether or not it would be worth it to have many partners as it relates to our given situation. If I was some wealthy guy who could have many wives/girlfriends around me of their own free will, I'd probably do it, but you have to weigh the risks vs advantages.

I want to bust a nut in many beautiful women like the next guy but it can become too much of a hassle depending on your circumctances. For some just dealing with "one" woman is enough of a pain in the ass. I know I can vouch for that.

 

[backbreaker]

How "weak" are we talking? It seems that lesser men still have the chance to pass on their genes through "lesser" women. We don't quite operate by the same standards as many other animals where you have an "alpha" male who monopolizes sex.
I think we all have the desire to get the best out of life, but we also have the ability to "reason" as to whether or not it would be worth it to have many partners as it relates to our given situation. If I was some wealthy guy who could have many wives/girlfriends around me of their own free will, I'd probably do it, but you have to weigh the risks vs advantages.

I want to bust a nut in many beautiful women like the next guy but it can become too much of a hassle depending on your circumctances. For some just dealing with "one" woman is enough of a pain in the ass. I know I can vouch for that.

As far as genes, I'll go to what I know. horse racing. In america.. in all.. you have a little over what... 500ish stallions, mating to give or take..40k mares a year.

the idea is to pass on as many positive genes as you possibly can.

A overweight stupid lazy man mating with an ugly, fat woman, is not going to produce a man who is physically strong and a genius, nor would it product a woman who is physically attrctive, which in turn could attract a male who has traits that are deseriable

But mating a man with thoose traits, to a woman who is...let's say.. below avg.. has a chance in getting at the very least, SOME good traits across...

the horse racing equivlant to this would be Curlin. One of the best sires in the world.. one of the most piss poor mares you could come up with.

it's the equilvmant of shaking the pan and hoping something good comes out.

And I'm not talking about what's right and what's wrong, or what you like and dont' like.. but which is more natural.

event hough I think that's probably closer to the natural order of things, it's not for me becuase I don't have the time nor the engery to "spread my seed" to that extent, and no matter what I do, I can't control everyone else

 

[MVPlaya]

Reason being, weak men with uncharistic genes dont' get the chance ot pass on their genes.

How about that Einstein fellow, huh. Looks like a douche. Probably wouldn't survive if he was attacked by a pack of wolves. Should think about putting him down.

 

[Nighthawk]

A overweight stupid lazy man mating with an ugly, fat woman, is not going to produce a man who is physically strong and a genius, nor would it product a woman who is physically attrctive, which in turn could attract a male who has traits that are deseriable

That's what Hitler thought. But he was wrong, many geniuses, like Einstein, had unremarkable parents, and many have equally unremarkable progeny.

 

[backbreaker]

How about that Einstein fellow, huh. Looks like a douche. Probably wouldn't survive if he was attacked by a pack of wolves. Should think about putting him down.

if you actually think that's a good analogy, then you don't deserve to pass on your genes.

 

[backbreaker]

That's what Hitler thought. But he was wrong, many geniuses, like Einstein, had unremarkable parents, and many have equally unremarkable progeny.

can it happen? Two parents that don't offer two ****s to give, produce a nobel peace prize winning offspring? Sure.. but

THE ODDS ARE NOT IN YOUR FAVOR.

that's the entire point. it's about the odds of survial. the odds of survial are in your favor if you compare two people with desierable traits, rather it be attractiveness, smarts, physical ability, etc.

 

[TonyWongButOhSoRite]

A overweight stupid lazy man mating with an ugly, fat woman, is not going to produce a man who is physically strong and a genius, nor would it product a woman who is physically attrctive, which in turn could attract a male who has traits that are deseriable

Nah I don't agree. I know loads of good looking girls with ugly looking parents and stupid parents and same with some fellas. I agree with what one of the guys said above aswell about 'Lesser'' guys spearding the seed with ''lesser'' women. You can't compare us to buffalo's or horse's cause alpha males won't go about fcuking ugly chicks just cause they can. So the lesser males will be left with the lesser women and the circle of life is complete. Just watch the lion king. That'll explain it all.

 

[Maxtro]

I want a harem. And men were designed to have them.

It's all about nature. A mans job in reproduction is to mate with a woman and nothing more. The number of children a man can have is only limited by the number of women he can mate with. While a woman has to carry the baby for 9 months then she has to raise and care for it for several years after.

Men simply have the natural extinct to have sex with as many women as possible even if we don't plan on having any kids.

 

[backbreaker]

Nah I don't agree. I know loads of good looking girls with ugly looking parents and stupid parents and same with some fellas. I agree with what one of the guys said above aswell about 'Lesser'' guys spearding the seed with ''lesser'' women. You can't compare us to buffalo's or horse's cause alpha males won't go about fcuking ugly chicks just cause they can. So the lesser males will be left with the lesser women and the circle of life is complete. Just watch the lion king. That'll explain it all.

it doesn't matter if you agree. this is a law that has been proven thoughout millions of years of the earth's history. your personal opinion is of little consequence.


the species that does the best job of passing on desierable traits, is the species that survives

 

[Last Man Standing]

You're wrong BB - shyt has been proven!!!!!!

You are equating humans to animals which doesn't make sense!!!! Does not compute!! GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out!!!!

 

[backbreaker]

You're wrong BB - shyt has been proven!!!!!!

You are equating humans to animals which doesn't make sense!!!! Does not compute!! GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out!!!!

So... LMS.. human beings made it though the Prehistoric Era, the ice age, the black plague and other time frames and events by shacking up with one person?


try again

 

[Last Man Standing]

So... LMS.. human beings made it though the Prehistoric Era, the ice age, the black plague and other time frames and events by shacking up with one person?


try again

Yes!! They did not hor with 12 men!! you see, one individual has the potential DNA make-up of all humanity since humanity was propagated from one individual male and female!!!! As humanity, we all carry the genetic code to continue life!! There is no "superior genetic code!! A woman can only get pregnant from one man at a time - it has nothing to do whether she has 38 penises in her - it is only one that impregnates her!!!

 

[Falcon]

Lets look at the big picture here. The more we 'weed' out the less desirable genes the more we actually weaken the human race as a whole. Gene diversity is much more important. That nerd with no friends you laugh and pity at may actually save a lot of people some day by curing cancer... you never know. How do you maximize diversity? You pair one-by-one. If there was one super-alpha male who had 99% of the women, he would actually hurt the human species if you look at it in this way. He makes the species less diverse. But of course, if you look through his eyes, he will only think that he is benefiting his survival by 'spreading his seed'. He can't see the bigger picture. But you wouldn't do that, your much smarter than that - he is chained down by a perception of scarcity and insecurity.

 

[backbreaker]

Lets look at the big picture here. The more we 'weed' out the less desirable genes the more we actually weaken the human race as a whole. Gene diversity is much more important. That nerd with no friends you laugh and pity at may actually save a lot of people some day by curing cancer... you never know. How do you maximize diversity? You pair one-by-one. If there was one super-alpha male who had 99% of the women, he would actually hurt the human species if you look at it in this way. He makes the species less diverse. But of course, if you look through his eyes, he will only think that he is benefiting his survival by 'spreading his seed'. He can't see the bigger picture. But you wouldn't do that, your much smarter than that - he is chained down by a perception of scarcity and insecurity.

(BANGS HEAD ON DESK)


MY FREAKIN GOSH

Is the only thing you guys see as a deseriable trait is a man who is 250 pounds and 5% body fat?

Intelligence is a deseriable trait, if not moreso than physical ability.

Am I really the only person that comprehends that?

 

[Falcon]

(BANGS HEAD ON DESK)


MY FREAKIN GOSH

Is the only thing you guys see as a deseriable trait is a man who is 250 pounds and 5% body fat?

Intelligence is a deseriable trait, if not moreso than physical ability.

Am I really the only person that comprehends that?

Well to me, intelligence has more to do with upbringing and environment. That's a whole other debate. Every human being has enormous potential for intelligence. I feel that what really matters is things like strength of family structure being a huge factor, which actually supports monogamy...

 

[backbreaker]

Not necessarly.

some people are naturally smarter than others.

that can be inhanced or worsended by their enviroment you start with a certain amount of intelligence.

For instance.. and I'm sure because this is an internet forum, alot of people can relate.. but in school stuff just came a little easier to me than to most people. Not all.

The ability to learn is a trait that is passed on though parents.

and plus falcon, you are not even commenting on the original topic of hte thread. you are commenting on which " you think is right for a person for today because of your quote unquote moral values".

don't take this the wrong way.. I don't give a damn and neither does my GF. That's not with the conversation was about.

If you aren't going ot take the time to read the original post, dont' respond. Because it gets too off topic.

 

[Falcon]

Not necessarly.

some people are naturally smarter than others.

that can be inhanced or worsended by their enviroment you start with a certain amount of intelligence.

For instance.. and I'm sure because this is an internet forum, alot of people can relate.. but in school stuff just came a little easier to me than to most people. Not all.

The ability to learn is a trait that is passed on though parents.

and plus falcon, you are not even commenting on the original topic of hte thread. you are commenting on which " you think is right for a person for today because of your quote unquote moral values".

don't take this the wrong way.. I don't give a damn and neither does my GF. That's not with the conversation was about.

If you aren't going ot take the time to read the original post, dont' respond. Because it gets too off topic.

hey bro, I really have nothing against you. Maybe you misinterpreted what I was trying to communicate but I felt I did address the original post .

Well.. being honest... I told her the truth. I think that from a nature's point of view, surival of the fittest works best when human beings practice polygamy. Reason being, weak men with uncharistic genes dont' get the chance ot pass on their genes.. I told her that it's very if not the exact same as Stallions who get to bred to 100's of mares a year, but the ones with undersirable traits get...put down... when they aren't useful anymore. no difference, execpt weak men dont' get put down, they live the rest of their live in agaony and suave lotion

I addressed this by arguing against it. I argued that this actually weakens the human race. I tried to make the point that what seems to be natural and better from your perspective might not have the consequences you intended

 

[backbreaker]

nothing personal falcon... seriously.. however nothing peeves me off than lazy people. I consider someone responding to a post that is too lay to read over the entire thread, and in essesnse, posting inaccurate information, not only lazy, but harmful. But I don't take it personal

I respect your viewpoint, and if you are saying that the entire human race wuld be better than that's your opinion. however it sounded like you were saying that "i think that's the way it should be, because it's morally right" which I responded to by saying well.. that wasn't the question was it morally right or not