Are we supposed to be polyamorous beings?

Question

I personally believe that we’re meant to be polyamorous beings.

Men biologically cannot keep their eyes off of every pretty female they see. I’ve seen women cheat on their spouse with the BRAD PITT at their job time and time again.

HERE’S MY TAKE:
____________________
If we were truly supposed to be monogamous, then maybe the act of copulation/reproduction aka. “Sex” . Should require more out of both involved male and female. BUT IT doesn't. In fact the shape of a males DI—K is for scooping out previous males seed from the inside of a woman. That’s why it’s a mushroom shape. That basically means that a woman is meant to reproduce with 100 men in one night to maximize chances of better genes. Same reason a woman can have countless orgasms while a man cannot and the BANANA goes limp, a woman usually isn’t pleased with 1 encounter in 1 night. But they have to play it off as if they are.

Men on the other hand are meant to reproduce daily with a different woman every day. So that THEIR offspring are multiplied and not the babies of any other male.
ITS A COMPETITION OF GENETICS.
Once a woman is done birthing a child, she needs to find a different male to maximize chances of different better genes once again.
AKA. ITS A SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
It’s also the same reason a male tends to ejaculate “cum” in extreme amounts when sharing a female with other males in a “gangbang”.
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

In reality women are supposed to be having gangbangs. And men are supposed to be with a new female every day. But again to share that female with other attractive males as well.

If we were practicing this type of natural polyamory. We’d have Spartans all over again. We’d have some Superman’s walking around. Some WonderWomans.
Because you’d be making the BEST GENE BEARING BABIES.

You may fact check me:
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/13/penis-shaped-like-mushroom-7831438/amp/

https://observer.ug/lifestyle/54645-do-men-really-have-a-natural-instinct-to-cheat

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Well the answer, scientifically speaking, is yes, but ultimately no. Things are seldom so simple in life after all.

To start, there is actually a difference even between the sexes. Males have lots of sperm to impregnate females and make lots of babies. Evolution and survival of the fittest being what it is, early man was looking for as many females as possible to impregnate to make as many babies as possible so as to spread his DNA far and wide. Thereby outcompeting other males.

The female, on the other hand, could typically only carry one baby at a time. (In nature, human twins and multiple births did not live for very long and usually the mother died as well.) Plus, caring for an infant, feeding it and protecting it, required much time and energy. So the female was looking for ONE alpha male - so to speak. A healthy male with healthy sperm who could sire healthy babies and who could then protect mother and baby from predators and other competitive males.

So a tension was built into the system, so to speak. The female's body in part compensated for this. When the female became pregnant, her body began - and still does to some degree - to exude pheromones that the male's body would pick up and would depress his testosterone levels. This making him less of a threat to his own mom and baby and more inclined to stick around to protect them. Otherwise he would wander off to impregnate more females.

That's the evolutionary basics. From there, as civilization began to develop, it came to be seen that the most stable civilizations, the least violent and prone to upheaval came from pair bonding. The male stayed with the female and the baby and he protected them and built them shelters. This not only built civilization in the short term in the sense of constructing buildings and setting up peaceful mutually beneficial interactions between families and thence communities, but in the longer sense conduced to virtue.

The man who strove to protect his family was courageous, self-sacrificing, loving. The woman and child who benefited from such things would be grateful and loyal. This cycle conducing to virtue and nobility and the highest values.

This is what man was meant to be. This was man's "nature." Not "nature" in the sense that the modern Enlightenment philosophers meant it, i. e, spontaneous conduct. Rather "nature" in the sense the ancients - see also the great philosophies and religions of ancient times - meant it. That is that which conduced to its excellence.

Man's nature is to reach for the best that he can be. Monogamy does that. It makes men and women strive for the ideal. (Grant, that for a variety of reasons, they may often fall short and revert more closely to their primate ancestors, so to speak.)

Thus in that sense man - by that I mean male and female - is not meant to be polyamorous. Rather monogamy summons the human being to excellence and those that attain that excellence will, on balance over time, thrive - at least as a species if not always as individuals.

jirwin7979 · Accepted Answer

i agree it would put an end to any cheating

Breanna_nonbinary · Accepted Answer

Suppose to be? Everyone is different. But because we are human beings we are still animals and have have the natural instincts that all creatures have. This means that we seek specific things for our offspring’s survival, be it the best genes or impregnating as many females as possible. The biological need to have sex drives is makes us want sex with others.
The socio standards set up our society prevents us from doing what is natural. If we take out the “right or wrong” and just go by biology then we are left with just what we want.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

I've cheated on exs but they were weak men.

whirled_up_girl · Answer

Well there is biological evolution and there is social evolution. One could also argue modern society and modern medicine have impacted evolution in terms of survival of the fittest.

SnakeBoop · Answer

yeah, quoting newspapers is not fact checking... also the penis shaped like a mushroom thing has been dispelled, and is commonly corrected when its shared in any polyamorous community.

LazerBean · Answer

Coping so hard bc either you're a cheater or you're the kind of girl that no decent guy wants.

Berethor · Answer

In the wild slutty females get fucked an dumped, while monogamous females do not.

Snsl153 · Answer

I don't agree with a single claim you've made here.

Birdlegs · Answer

That’s not being polyamorous that’s just being a hoe for both men and women.
We don’t live in an era where we have to play the numbers game whether or not our kids will survive to pass on genes.
The penis thing is just not true
Our front teeth are literally designed to tear through meat
I don’t understand how everything you said is just wrong
Just because you cited your sources still doesn’t make you right

TenkRealist · Answer

We are not animals. We are sentient beings. The time of the fittest has passed. Now it is the time of the smartest. This is just excuse to sleep around and have sexual diseases.

Kabluie · Answer

Yeah, we can be, the heart wants what it wants, and sometimes it's more than one person and if we have all have the right thinking every relationship can have the same things as a mono partner.

ArtemisSilver · Answer

I agree, however the utility of monogamy varies greatly by the prevailing social situation.

Monogamy has been used as a trap in the modern western context, because the entire economy is built to require a dual income, which emasculates men, and reduces their value as protector/providers.

When you could afford a house, two cars and four kids on a single middle class working dudes job monogamy worked pretty good.

Now I like your notion of the model, which is kind of how pre-christian norse and germanics did it, however there's a human nature problem there.

Occasionally you'll end up with a guy who's better than his peers at something important and decides he doesn't like to share. He'll choose the men he likes, kill the one's he doesn't and declare himself Sultan, king or whatever.

It's a bloody way to do things, that results in cycles of oppression and rebellion.

However in the current world, I think it can work better. You don't have to kill the losers, you just need to give them a game console, addictive and crippling junk foods and sports to watch.

Won't be long before they're all fucking domestic robots.

Also you run into really bad problems, like harming children, when you let the losers into the breeding group, but they're not chosen or in charge.

Could probably be okay if all the men were of a high caliber, but that requires an ethos from a lost age. Almost all high value men would rather want their harem, because there's just so many weaklings to outcompete right now, as a consequence of social and economic conditions.

Just my 2 cent's though.

Rockstarrrrr · Answer

You're only seeing the animal side of humans... Fine if you wanna go full animal... Don't wear cloth and shit in public... and open your legs for any male when you're ovulating because we're brainless animals who are only there to pass their genes and reproduce... Give me a break smh...

genericname85 · Answer

by nature, it needs about 4 years for parents to stay together for survivable offspring to emerge. in practice that can work in monogamous (modern society) or in polyamorous (many tribal societies) setups. though the fact that the dominant setup is monogamous seems to indicate that this is the more successful strategy.

Jamie05rhs · Answer

100% WRONG.

motownplayer2000 · Answer

Yes. That’s why we have many many friends. But that’s why a commitment to one’s to one man or woman is a big deal for the other.

007kingifrit · Answer

logically this is probably true, but we also evolved to exist in groups of 6 to 10 people and that's not possible anymore either polyamory collapses civilizations.

Twalli · Answer

Even if multiple guys have aex with a woman nightly and she does get pregnant, you could still get shitty offspring

Fuentes · Answer

Nope i'd never share

bamesjond0069 · Answer

This is nonsense. High value men, kings, lords, military commanders, best hunter of the tribe... whatever... they tend to have multiple women for themselves. They then would also sleep with other poor mens wives who many engaged in soft prostitution. Poor men without standing would compete for wives for a monogamous relationship w the exception of the wife cheating w or without the husbands knowledge to make ends meat. And the shittiest men would have no wife. However there was often a large mismatch of men to women ratio because the men would be dying off in wars a lot since they were very costly in human life. This would help keep most men with some kind of marriage prospect.

This is generally how relationships have worked for thousands of years. Its not simply some cultural norm or something. Its been repeated in many societies most of the time over and over.

IsoUser · Answer

Freedom is not free it is just bought in this generations blood when are you children as teenagers going to defend your own rights as citizens. Your parents aren't going to be around forever to defend You. We want you to have a much better life than we had.

Creampiekarl420 · Answer

Nope only men

Xtendable · Answer

Very interesting perspective - I’ll liok at those links too. Thankyou

Are we supposed to be polyamorous beings?

Most Helpful Guys

Most Helpful Girls

Related Questions

What Girls & Guys Said

Latest Questions