Subscribe for more!

@andrewwillard5773

15 күн бұрын

Did last year

@GrinningWolfGames

15 күн бұрын

Francis is right. At least it’s not a kid

Feminism promised empowerment but delivered a 7th century harem culture. Congrats, ladies!

@NightinGal89

6 күн бұрын

It's not feminism, this isn't a black or white problem. The main issue is men continuing their path of willful ignorance about women's basic needs in relationships ,coupled with women's lower power in society and limited fertility window.

@salkoharper2908

5 күн бұрын

It is strange isn't it. All the women in my family who are liberal don't seem to see the end stage of this ideology. The top 10% of men essentially take all the women. Like in Medieval Europe or the Ottoman Empire. The tp 10% of men then (Kings, princes, lords, Sultans, Raj, Khans... Whatever society or nation. It was the top tier elite warlords and aristocracy that had access to literally 100s of women each. Most common serfs only had access to a few serf women in their village, nothing more.

@GK-op4oc

4 күн бұрын

I've written the same sentiment, but WOW, your phrasing is tops !

@toxicxhazard

21 сағат бұрын

@@salkoharper2908 Yeah, but now the serf women can be part of the harem if they want to be. Guess what option they choose?

It's almost like societies evolved over thousands of years and developed ideas that worked.

@ivanamicimici

10 күн бұрын

Shocking.

@ivanamicimici

10 күн бұрын

Actually,life use to be about sustaining the tribe and securing the survival of the species. I love how men today think that 100 000 years ago people knew when a woman was pregnant who the father was. Such ideas were beyond their scope of interest. There was children being born and that was all that mattered. No one cared about anything. And if one individual showed emotional instability they were shunned out of the tribe much like animals are to this day,because they were not useful to the tribe. I don't expect you to understand.

@mudblood9699

10 күн бұрын

​​@@ivanamicimiciWritten history only goes back 12,000 years or so, we don't know how societies looked 100,000 years ago. The advancement and wisdom of humanity has ebbed and flowed. It's true that in our distant past, there were periods of polygamy and uncertain paternity, but these where during our more primitive stages when quality of life and life expectancy where lowest. It's pretty absurd to think men have only cared about passing on our genes until relatively recently in our history. Monogamy and stable family structure are foundational to social trust, technological development, and general advancement in society.

@ciscornBIG

9 күн бұрын

​@@ivanamicimicido shutup

@DaPhreshestKidd

9 күн бұрын

Lmao and these fools finna undo it as if this is the first time people have suddenly become intelligent. We are a narcissistic society and we suck our own dicks as if we are geniuses compared to the people of the past. Totally false

Children benefit from monogamous, loving relationships. The family is the foundation of a stable, successful society.

@paarker

15 күн бұрын

THE most successful society. The one we currently live in and brought the golden age of humanity

@FazeParticles

15 күн бұрын

the male have authority over that family is the only way to incentivize men to have families again. no amount of simp men wanting to have families will be enough because they can't get access to a family.

@itwoznotme

11 күн бұрын

and you can already see the shit storm that is coming, off the back of the more modern ME ME ME attitudes. in 50 years this world will look VERY different and i dont think in a good way.

@ivanamicimici

10 күн бұрын

😂😂😂😂 right😂😂😂😂

@ivanamicimici

10 күн бұрын

​@@itwoznotmeand the polyamorous families will bond together to create communities that focus on the progress of the whole,rather than fight about who gets to have a woman to abuse and control. You will be left in the dust while the rest of us emotionally stable,mature adults build a world without poisonous manipulation and abuse of partners. It's called real love. I don't expect you to understand.

Leaving monogamy behind is like burning your cities down and returning to warring tribal factions.

@villeveikko1

15 күн бұрын

BS

@kenofken9458

15 күн бұрын

I left monogamy behind decades ago and haven't had any fires or tribal wars.

@FazeParticles

15 күн бұрын

@@kenofken9458 true. people fear monger too much. idiots are always complaining.

@benjaminwilliams3168

15 күн бұрын

​@@kenofken9458are you from a majority monogamous society? If yes, perhaps you're at risk of compositional fallacy. Perhaps you haven't worked with or lived around many violent men. Otherwise you'd probably realise how much violence is the distal consequence of unstable families and proximal consequence of competition for/control of sexual access to women.

@alenaadamkova7617

15 күн бұрын

I think in every habit "compound pounding" effect is the best solution.. People probably know this effect but forgot about it because of being too distracted by media or thoughts etc. in sport, in business, in relationships. 1. If you use compound pounding in sport, (exercissing for an hour) you will see no results in 5 days,but you will see big results in 100 days. 2. If you will say a good morning to people, you will see no effect in 5 days, but you will see a great difference in 100 days. 3. If you will practice the compassion for your partner and make some good deed, you will see no or small difference in 5 days, but you will see a great difference in 50 or 100 days, you will see how much you mean to them. People see this compound pounding effect in the nature, the garden looks the same after few days, but after a 100 days it looks different. Therefore you can not tell if your values are working after one week, because you see the effect after 100 or 140 days. Maybe each couple should practice this technique, If I will make something small to make my partner happy, for a little moment, they will remember these little moments, and good calm or happy mood increases the immunity of the body by 50 percent in 4 days. So their kids will learn the same technique. They will learn that if they will read a book 10 minutes a day, it has a great impact on brain. Next time it may be 20 minutes a day. But if you stop doing the healthy habit now... after a week it makes no difference after 140 days the results change for worse, you lose muscles or you lose some skill or motivation etc. Good deed may be also making a pizza or small things. People actually enjoy small things much more than big gestures, because it´s about living in the moment...... Big gestures (expensive car) mean that you actually burned out too much energy to make a small effect, rather than small gestures that after time create a great effect of connection, and people like you for your authentic personality.

Feminism was bad for men short-term. Long-term it has been catastrophic for women.

@Andy-di1zd

15 күн бұрын

Radical feminism has been bad for both genders. Don’t confuse the two terms.

@villeveikko1

15 күн бұрын

Yeah thats all about racism, seggregation and all the other horrible shit we get rid of before.

@painbow6528

15 күн бұрын

@@Andy-di1zd They're the same thing. Pretending otherwise is a cope.

@Andy-di1zd

15 күн бұрын

@@painbow6528 hmm. Nope! They’re not, that’s just ill informed garbage 😂

@jackeagleeye3453

15 күн бұрын

Saying it has been bad for women long term sounds like something only a scorned man would say.

If we leave monogamy behind, there is no reason at all for marriage. This would destroy the family unit (even more) and leave most children without a father figure. Not the best idea, as we already know what problems are caused by that. Masculinity is not toxic, but needed more than ever.

@Andy-di1zd

16 күн бұрын

As a mother who brought up a child alone (death of husband) and has seen them gain many qualifications and a work ethic second to none, I disagree with this social media contrived statistic. Broken homes are the problem and that is NOT the fault of only the mothers.

@villeveikko1

16 күн бұрын

Bullshit, theres a lots of fathers that dont ditch there kids even if the marriage is over 😂 Those maggots who leave their kids for any reason are called cowards, not fathers .

@plugsocket9432

15 күн бұрын

@@villeveikko1 The Black community don't care and have the highest single mother households in USA.

@plugsocket9432

15 күн бұрын

@@Andy-di1zd You’re an exception. The statistics in general prove otherwise that the best upbringing a child can have is with a mother and father who are married.

@Andy-di1zd

15 күн бұрын

@@villeveikko1 which appears to always be the mother’s fault.

What a pleasure to listen to a woman who doesn't have rainbow hair and isn't screaming ...and, by the way, is intelligent.

@rgn87654

7 күн бұрын

get out much?

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

​@@rgn87654Yes, do you?

@Potato-mu7nu

Күн бұрын

​@@rgn87654got milk?

The only reason why the norm is reverting is that productive monogamous men are subsidizing the non-productive polygamous ones. We transfer resources from responsible men to irresponsible men, and you're somehow surprised that irresponsibility spreads?

@scartissuefilms

6 күн бұрын

Yep. All Government intervention. The Government gets what ever is subsidises.

@GK-op4oc

4 күн бұрын

"productive monogamous men are subsidizing the non-productive polygamous ones" Rather, non-reproductive worker drones subsidizing reproductive polygamous Chads. I would expect the worker drones to being to work less

@toxicxhazard

21 сағат бұрын

@@GK-op4oc The drones will die off childless and stop producing more drones; nobody will stop trying to eat, but inability to breed and population collapse will give the khans the comeuppance that is needed to set things right. We won't see it though, that's the sad truth. We die childless like canaries in the coal mine, so that the children of the chads can rebuild society after the shitshow unfolds. Being a human is great!

That joke from Francis was actually spot on

@1Three8Fiver

13 күн бұрын

Saw this before the joke, made it hit harder. >_

@TmHudsonArt

12 күн бұрын

They all knew it too lol....

@briangarber7727

5 күн бұрын

If you were said Podcaster you’d be doing the same thing. Come on guys.

Hedonism isn't the species norm because fighting starvation constantly is the species norm. We don't live in a world with conditions we evolved for.

"don't tell me what to do" 25 years later: "where is everyone? why am I so alone? I need antidepressants. it's all patriarchy's fault"

@Being_Bohemian

15 күн бұрын

KZread has just asked me to rate your comment and explain my rating!! (KZread and its censorship crusade!!)

@ivanamicimici

10 күн бұрын

Or how about we grow as the village our children need to be raised. Why are people so unstable to begin with that they have to control everything 😂😂😂😂

@Augustus_Imperator

10 күн бұрын

@@ivanamicimici because a village is societal unstable and full of b*stards. every single succesful civilization in history had control over what to leave to their children

@liljinjar1268

7 күн бұрын

@@ivanamicimici we live in a culture that has completely deconstructed most guardrails developed over millennia of social development. Of course we are falling apart….. nobody knows what it means to be a human anymore and polyamory ain’t the answer. It’s just another step downwards in a long staircase we have been “progressing” down….

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

​​​@@liljinjar1268 Exactly. Shame is necessary to keep the guardrails of acceptable behavior. We killed it with the anti-bullying campaigns of the late 90s, then destigmatizing everything, to finally be replaced by "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". But that ignores long term consequences of actions and impacts to society. And it fosters selfishness, and that is a downward spiral.

I'm gonna say something wild here... sex ain't all that. It's not that difficult to keep it to one person.

@ivanamicimici

10 күн бұрын

Polyamorous relationships are not about sex. They are about being there for your partner in any way they need you to and growing as a whole village. Remember that saying it takes a village. Yeah.

@TuscanBrick

8 күн бұрын

​@@ivanamicimici It takes a whole village to raise a child, not to satisfy a grown woman ffs

@dobsok84

7 күн бұрын

​@@ivanamicimicipolyamory is just a pop culture word for having lost the ability to pair bond due to too many prior partners

@frazzeldazzel5445

6 күн бұрын

​@@ivanamicimici if polyamorous relations are not about sex then why not just have one partner? Being there for someone is far easier if you don't need to worry about multiple others.

@frazzeldazzel5445

6 күн бұрын

@@TuscanBrick You cant be Christian and have multiple partners. End. Of. Story.

A "progressive" society can simply be defined as one about to learn that the old self-evident wisdoms were correct and human nature is unchanged. A "progressive" society is a collective pathology.

Yes. It is good for society.

@villeveikko1

16 күн бұрын

Please explain?

@Andy-di1zd

16 күн бұрын

@@villeveikko1 all you have to do is look at the number of children from broken homes… 🤷🏼‍♀

@jackeagleeye3453

15 күн бұрын

@@Andy-di1zd If you want the population to increase, it seems like broken homes is the best way. They are the ones that are having the kids right now.

@Being_Bohemian

15 күн бұрын

​@@villeveikko1Mary Harington is worth checking out; she does a brilliant job at explaining why.

@smolcutie1773

15 күн бұрын

​@@villeveikko1Polygynous human societies are only preferentially so: many men still acquire only one wife, such pairings were probably the most common throughout human history. And there have been a significant shift from polygyny toward monogamy beginning about five thousand to ten thousand years ago, judging by genetic evidence. Our polygynous past is very much with us, though, and not just in the contemporary societies that still allow men to have multiple wives: It seems to be built into our very bodies. In nature, species with the strongest polygynous inclinations-those whose males build the biggest harems-also tend to have the most exaggerated sexual dimorphism. There is a violent, high-stakes competition for females within these species, so males evolve to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. Indeed, human males are moderately taller, heavier, and more muscular than females, and it’s males who commit the overwhelming majority of human violence. Polygyny plus (a form of) polyandry: That adds up to polyamory, right? Well, no. Humans probably didn’t evolve in the sort of peaceful, bonobo-style sexual free-for-all. Promiscuous species like bonobos (and the much more violent chimps) engage in a lot of “sperm competition,” because multiple males frequently mate with the same fertile female. Thus they evolve toward that end, with large testicles, anatomical equipment designed to remove rival males’ semen, and sperm cells designed to do battle with competitors inside the female body. What’s more, sexual jealousy appears to be a human universal, seen nearly everywhere to some extent. It’s not an arbitrary cultural construct. The fact of human paternal investment also argues against polyamory. In promiscuous species, fathers rarely invest in their children, instead focusing on impregnating more females, which is a more certain bet because they don’t know which children are theirs anyway. It’s odd that so much of the world has adopted this custom if it’s in tension with human nature. Here I provide numerous reasons that cultures could have “evolved” to support monogamy, and they double as reasons to preserve it. One is just math: Males and females are roughly equal in number, so if one male monopolizes multiple females, society will have to deal with the “excess” males somehow. Otherwise, the result is violent competition over harems. Monogamy, by contrast, ensures that mates are available for nearly all men. Joint parenting is another reason monogamy may have developed, especially given that human children are so helpless in their early years. Father involvement helps kids survive and succeed, and monogamy aids this investment by ensuring that men know which children are theirs and that each mother has full access to the resources and attention of her children’s father.

Two is company, three is a crowd.

Of course marriage is good for society! The 1960s 'sexual revolution' has damaged people view of relationships and has been catastrophic for men, women and children. The 'norm' for happy functional society is Biblical marriage. The state has promoted a new normal that will make society significantly less happy!

@johnatchason6506

11 күн бұрын

If society was so happy and functional under the biblical model, why did people violently reject it?

@bigd5090

11 күн бұрын

@johnatchason6506 Because they prefer their own sinful lifestyles not caring about the repercussions for their children or society. Selfishness and "Just do you!" is par for the course and society is disintegrating because of it!

@andrewvandyk

8 күн бұрын

@@johnatchason6506 They would have been a happy, functioning society, but that requires work and an upholding of values, made difficult by the temptations of lust, exacerbated by the advent of contraception and the pill (the first sexual revolution before the 60s). Once those inventions came along it would have incentivized promiscuity, and then it was downhill from there.

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

​@@johnatchason6506 I bet they rejected it for the same reason you reject it, selfishness.

@johnatchason6506

4 күн бұрын

@@fatmonkey4716 It sounds like the world makes no sense to you without the Bible. Hope you find what you're searching for brother.

Polyamory is good for health professionals income

@NightinGal89

6 күн бұрын

Huh

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

​@@NightinGal89 When people screw up their lives because they wouldn't listen to reason, psychiatrists will be very busy trying to fix the problems these people create for themselves.

@talloolahmoon

3 күн бұрын

@@NightinGal89 shared stds

@Potato-mu7nu

Күн бұрын

💯

As someone who witnessed an unfaithful parent and devorce at a young age..I can without a shadow of a doubt tell you it is horrible for your kids and society as a whole. I lost all respect for the parent that day.. And hated that person until a year ago I made amends with them. Believe someone would destroy an entire entire family over simple pleasure, and call it a mistake without taking ownership. Fuck me up To this day, I have trust issues when it comes to relationships.

@skupikandela

6 күн бұрын

This is 100%

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

Did your dad cheat? Because you sound like you were raised by a woman.

Monogamy is about discipline and about overcoming primeval urges. Once you get past them, you can understand that its benefits outweigh whatever it is that you're leaving behind.

Louise Perry notes that bonded monogamy is only a thing for about 20% of the world. And that's the 20% of the world that brought humans out of a primitive condition: Europe, the Roman Empire, Christian based nations. Helmuth Nyborg is a racist, but he has a point: 98% of invention came from Europe....which has about 10% of the world's population. And Milo Yinnopoulos had a point in his Breitbart article "Sorry girls, all the smartest people in the world are men." Men invented everything, white men in particular. Same thing in the book by Aaron Clarey, "The Book of Numbers" which ties the fact that males invented practically everything, not females...he ties that to how the sexual deal between the genders worked in the past....men competing for the affection of women drove progress, incentivized men with biological success....which is what we are doing away with now, there is almost nothing in it now biologically, for a man to even marry. My guess is, most invention and progress came from males because they were freed of child rearing duties by women sticking to their roles, allowing some men to make progress, make life better slowly over time, for everyone. This only happens in monogamous societies....of which there have been few. Most societies are poly. My overall point is polygamy is the natural human default position, that's why it's in the Bible, right back to Abraham. That's why the myth of Solomon and his 1,000 wives. It's a story about the male side of reproductive success...how it's linked to status because that's how females sort out males, for breeding. This shows up in scientific data: Females leave offspring 80% of the time, but curiously males leave offspring only 40% of the time...that's what DNA tell us. But why the patterns listed? Monogamy gives men a reason to work for social good, since there is something in it biologically for most men. Social order comes from sexual and reproductive success in men, which makes for more social stability, which especially favors women's health and safety. In the past, women concentrated on child rearing, which was essential in a technologically primitive culture with an historic infant mortality rate of 50%...just like in all mammals, same number. The question is: once we have technology and you remove monogamy and religion as the social norm, there is very much less reason for most men to act like gentlemen to women, since there is zero in it for men, biologically. It takes many generations to make a gentleman or lady, but far fewer generations to destroy that. Which is what we are doing, in getting rid of monogamy. That's why poly societies for all races and all religions tend to unstable, as the males fight over resources and access to females. Where is this going? Poly accepted as a social norm will likely lead again, to more violence, which is almost entirely a male thing, sometimes disguised as sports, sometimes not disguised, in war. That would not be a fun time for women now busily deconstructing the most peaceful safe society ever, for women. Camille Paglia the feminist once said, "If it were up to women, we'd all be still living in grass huts." I think that's true, but why? Same answer. Men get incentivized by sexual success in mating. But Paglia is also pointing out the obvious flip side to that equation: Women in human populations control sex, so women don't really need to compete with one another on status, in order to attract a sexual partner. Men are not impressed by a woman's status. It's a good thing, but doesn't matter to us. To a typical male it comes down to a few basics: Is she cute? Feminists seem hell bent on disincentivizing good behavior in men.

@healthymindhappierlife5089

15 күн бұрын

Perfectly put and all accurate. Paste this in most subreddits on any of these topics and its an auto ban for misogyny. As someone who embraced radical honesty years ago, I'm not sure how to keep living in a world so repulsed by the truth. I want a wife and children but so few seem like good choices. And of those few, who of them would be comfortable with any of the truths you espouse.

@TimBitts649

15 күн бұрын

@@healthymindhappierlife5089 When I was young in the mid-1960s I became interested in cars, we only had American cars, GM, Ford, Chrysler basically. Then I noticed a tiny trickle of imports from Japan. They really were crap the first ones, but very cheap, so people bought them. Made in Japan means high quality now, but back then it meant crap. Over time this competition increased quality of American cars dramatically....so did Japanese cars. Be a passport bro. World's a big place. I know 3 guys that did that, seem perfectly happy. Better deals in other places. Their cultures are not as corrupt yet, as far as gender roles, in some places anyways. It will take a long time to fix our cultural problems. Don't bother sticking around, if you know this much already. Not worth your time, your life. My favorite 1960s song is "Shop Around" by Smokie Robinson and the Miracles. Cheers, good luck. 🍺🍻

@healthymindhappierlife5089

15 күн бұрын

@@TimBitts649 I'm with you. I'm aware of the concept. I make around 140k a year and still feel pretty tied down. I dont have much PTO a year as is. Aside from picking up and leaving everything, I'm not sure how to go about that transition. Any advice?

@TimBitts649

15 күн бұрын

@@healthymindhappierlife5089 General advice: Spend a lot of time immersed in the topic before you decide what to do. I like to watch The Nomad Capitalist. Also like Amelia & JP Living Abroad Channel, as I too am thinking of relocating my life. When I was a kid, of course there was no internet, we had black and white TV, very big limits to our information access compared to today. I met a girl from Florida when I was 12 and still remember her. Other than the TV show Flipper, that was my only contact or awareness of living in Florida. Today we have way more information and choice. Today as long as you are curious and self-motivated and keep looking, your algorhthyrms will drive the answers for you, based on your past searches. There is a huge amount of information out there, some great, some awful. Keep looking but be very, very picky about what you watch. Life a few decades was much easier, to get married, live the American Dream. Things have changed. That's gone. Find a new American Dream. They are out there. Might not be in America, though. Actually things are better now for many things than the past, but it takes a motivated curious self-starter....willing to do research, to take advantage of that. Sounds like you are one of those people that can thrive in this new world that is emerging. No one is really going to hand you the answers you will need or want, because we all have very unique personal histories and tastes. That's where personal motivation comes in. Another bit of advice is a true story of Joe, a retired friend of mine and his sister Cindy. When Joe was young, he did an awful lot of travel, saw the world. His sister Cindy did not. She was a buckle down accountant who didn't like adventure and risks. She never travelled when young. Then they both got old. Joe did not make nearly as much money as his sister, but in his old age Joe was very keen on travel, still did it. Cindy made tons of money, was wealthy when retired, but she refused to travel, was not interested. Why this pattern? When you are young is the time for adventure, taking risks, trying new things. If you fail you have plenty of time to start again. I don't have that time. I did, I used it, but it's no longer available to me, I don't have the time and energy to recover from mistakes. When I take trips now I look forward to it, partly because in my life, I've done a lot of it, had many adventures. That created a very positive mindset when it comes to this sort of thing, living somewhere else and travelling. But if you wait till you are Cindy's age? It will never happen. It's like learning another language or learning to play the piano. Much easier when you are young. Sure, I can take up the piano or learn Japanese. Will I? Probably not. Too old and I'd rather do something else. Do things when they are easy for you, where you look forward to the adventure. Go ahead and try a few things. Golf game now. Bye. Best of luck, hope for the best, cheers.

@chadcadsonvii5258

15 күн бұрын

@@healthymindhappierlife5089 try to transition into a location independent income. It's hard with some skills so may require you to change industry. I'm in the process of doing this myself. The best location options I've found are the Philippines and Paraguay. Both are more traditional than the west.

But both men and women prefer monogamy. I've never heard a woman saying she is willing to share any man

@chadcadsonvii5258

15 күн бұрын

Aaah the common trap. Don't listen to what they say, rather watch what they do!

@ThanosSofroniou

15 күн бұрын

@chadcadsonvii5258 ok I'll be more nuanced then. I've never seen a woman share a man, regardless of what they say. Based simply on actions - and not what anyone says - the majority of women are unwilling to share a man, unless anyone here can provide evidence to the contrary

@normietwiceremoved

15 күн бұрын

@@chadcadsonvii5258 Your generalising mindset will only bring you suffering.

@markaurelius61

15 күн бұрын

Yes, I think women who find their husband is a secret bigamist are not thrilled.

@jonahtwhale1779

15 күн бұрын

Look at the media coverage of the recent "Are we dating the same guy" law suit.. Lots of women subscribe to these groups, for varying reasons. But there are women sharing whether they know it or not! Same with Sugar Daddies etc - if he can pay the price, he can have as many women as he wants!

Life has never been fair for us or for our ancestors. Some of us are made by the process, while others are broken by it. Best of luck, gents, and may God bless you and your loved ones.

Well I'm definitely sure polygamy is terrible for everyone!

Short answer: yes Long answer: YEEEEEEEESSSSS

Working class can barely afford roof over their heads now. Who can afford children. People have sex now mostly for pleasure. And they have 30% less sex than 20 years ago. Societies will shrink.

@kotenoklelu3471

5 күн бұрын

Yeah. But I read that working class was having babies in the corner of the room full of other working class people with their families. If we are talking about more recent past they had one room, not apartment, were they had families. It was never fairy tale in my country. But we never were rich country

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

Housing prices in the USA didn't go up until after covid and the economic outlook for everyone in 2019 was great. The strain on relationships and families has been going on far longer.

“As goes the family, so goes the nation, and the whole world” -John Paul II

@kenofken9458

15 күн бұрын

Pedo enablers don't get to give advice on morals.

The Fact that this is a debate is madness 🤣 of course it is

@xornxenophon3652

16 күн бұрын

It really depends on what you understand under "good for society". From a purely economic point of view, people having less children but needing more space to live apart from each other, is not necessarily good. If you put an emphasis on personal freedom, your results could be quite different though.

@villeveikko1

16 күн бұрын

Explain?

@watdeneuk

15 күн бұрын

The fact that you think it's madness that this is a debate, leads me to believe you are in no position to have an opnion on what's best for society.

@smolcutie1773

15 күн бұрын

​@@villeveikko1Polygynous human societies are only preferentially so: many men still acquire only one wife, such pairings were probably the most common throughout human history. And there have been a significant shift from polygyny toward monogamy beginning about five thousand to ten thousand years ago, judging by genetic evidence. Our polygynous past is very much with us, though, and not just in the contemporary societies that still allow men to have multiple wives: It seems to be built into our very bodies. In nature, species with the strongest polygynous inclinations-those whose males build the biggest harems-also tend to have the most exaggerated sexual dimorphism. There is a violent, high-stakes competition for females within these species, so males evolve to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. Indeed, human males are moderately taller, heavier, and more muscular than females, and it’s males who commit the overwhelming majority of human violence. Polygyny plus (a form of) polyandry: That adds up to polyamory, right? Well, no. Humans probably didn’t evolve in the sort of peaceful, bonobo-style sexual free-for-all. Promiscuous species like bonobos (and the much more violent chimps) engage in a lot of “sperm competition,” because multiple males frequently mate with the same fertile female. Thus they evolve toward that end, with large testicles, anatomical equipment designed to remove rival males’ semen, and sperm cells designed to do battle with competitors inside the female body. What’s more, sexual jealousy appears to be a human universal, seen nearly everywhere to some extent. It’s not an arbitrary cultural construct. The fact of human paternal investment also argues against polyamory. In promiscuous species, fathers rarely invest in their children, instead focusing on impregnating more females, which is a more certain bet because they don’t know which children are theirs anyway. It’s odd that so much of the world has adopted this custom if it’s in tension with human nature. Here I provide numerous reasons that cultures could have “evolved” to support monogamy, and they double as reasons to preserve it. One is just math: Males and females are roughly equal in number, so if one male monopolizes multiple females, society will have to deal with the “excess” males somehow. Otherwise, the result is violent competition over harems. Monogamy, by contrast, ensures that mates are available for nearly all men. Joint parenting is another reason monogamy may have developed, especially given that human children are so helpless in their early years. Father involvement helps kids survive and succeed, and monogamy aids this investment by ensuring that men know which children are theirs and that each mother has full access to the resources and attention of her children’s father.

@smolcutie1773

15 күн бұрын

​@@watdeneukPolygynous human societies are only preferentially so: many men still acquire only one wife, such pairings were probably the most common throughout human history. And there have been a significant shift from polygyny toward monogamy beginning about five thousand to ten thousand years ago, judging by genetic evidence. Our polygynous past is very much with us, though, and not just in the contemporary societies that still allow men to have multiple wives: It seems to be built into our very bodies. In nature, species with the strongest polygynous inclinations-those whose males build the biggest harems-also tend to have the most exaggerated sexual dimorphism. There is a violent, high-stakes competition for females within these species, so males evolve to be bigger, stronger, and more aggressive. Indeed, human males are moderately taller, heavier, and more muscular than females, and it’s males who commit the overwhelming majority of human violence. Polygyny plus (a form of) polyandry: That adds up to polyamory, right? Well, no. Humans probably didn’t evolve in the sort of peaceful, bonobo-style sexual free-for-all. Promiscuous species like bonobos (and the much more violent chimps) engage in a lot of “sperm competition,” because multiple males frequently mate with the same fertile female. Thus they evolve toward that end, with large testicles, anatomical equipment designed to remove rival males’ semen, and sperm cells designed to do battle with competitors inside the female body. What’s more, sexual jealousy appears to be a human universal, seen nearly everywhere to some extent. It’s not an arbitrary cultural construct. The fact of human paternal investment also argues against polyamory. In promiscuous species, fathers rarely invest in their children, instead focusing on impregnating more females, which is a more certain bet because they don’t know which children are theirs anyway. It’s odd that so much of the world has adopted this custom if it’s in tension with human nature. Here I provide numerous reasons that cultures could have “evolved” to support monogamy, and they double as reasons to preserve it. One is just math: Males and females are roughly equal in number, so if one male monopolizes multiple females, society will have to deal with the “excess” males somehow. Otherwise, the result is violent competition over harems. Monogamy, by contrast, ensures that mates are available for nearly all men. Joint parenting is another reason monogamy may have developed, especially given that human children are so helpless in their early years. Father involvement helps kids survive and succeed, and monogamy aids this investment by ensuring that men know which children are theirs and that each mother has full access to the resources and attention of her children’s father.

I would say, some people in comments here seem to suggest a fear/insecurity that this line of thinking might make all women go Poly and chase the most attractive 1% of males, of which they are not a part of, and therefor there's a bit of a keyboard warrior response to it. But more realistically I think the majority of women and men want to be in life long, healthy, monogamous relationships. So I wouldn't stress it. Poly is in vogue, for sure, but I work in a creative industry where I see tons of these relationships and many of my friends are trying it out, and as a piece of purely anecdotal data, I believe I've seen enough to believe that poly relationships never work. Yeah, I knew a guy once who seemed happy with his poly relationships, but he was still the broken silent sad type and the relationships did not seem to have any depth. Love and live however you want, but poly is not what it's all cracked up to be, if it works for you, great, but for the rest of us it seems that one person in the poly relationship is always secretly hoping it could be monogamous. My 50 cent

@scartissuefilms

6 күн бұрын

Once you've 'tried' it, you can't ever go back. That's the problem. The oxytocin is gone, and there's too much emotional baggage to make any kind of real relationship work.

@kotenoklelu3471

5 күн бұрын

I don't see Hollywood make films about love anymore. It's sad. I stop watching it. I am not in relationships, but I love love stories

Most polygamous scocitys are waring... For obvious reasons.

If that the species norm. Maybe she should look at what else is the norm in human history. Death and poverty are two other key ones.

@Rhuanjl

Күн бұрын

She's not in favour of it.

The idea that a woman would rather be a single mother or harlett than a wife to someone like me makes me feel like life is sooooo worth living

Even in the countries/societies where polygamy is acceptable it is not actually widespread. For very simple reason: permission to have multiple wives always comes with obligation to support them all and those rich guys are not the majority of the population. Quite the opposite. Even having one wife can be prohibitively expensive for poor guys.

@daotheeternalnamelessbeyon8778

15 сағат бұрын

Poor guys can't afford even one wife or girlfriend, it's Pornhub, prostitutes, occasional short term relationship or ego death(there is no ego) that shatters their world😮Marry yourself and you marry evreyone, it's a cosmic joke😂❤🎉😅

Monogamy builds families, families build civilization.

When RP was not filled with grifters, all of this was well-known, but the "mainstream" always denied it all and mocked them.

Freedom is knowing how you ought to live and having the strength to do so. ~ Josh McDowell

@xDELFYonceagain

15 күн бұрын

Brilliant

No it's not. Some girls I tried to get together with, practice open relationships and they always fall apart because the THIRD gets jealous.

@Andy-di1zd

15 күн бұрын

Probably because that’s human nature. And, imagine the fallout of one wife, three husbands…

@markaurelius61

15 күн бұрын

That suggests that monogamy is the right thing to aim for.

@fingolfin6603

15 күн бұрын

Na that’s ego, women will drop their ego if needs must and their survival or means to climb the social ladder, they will have no problem being the third or forth. It’s just an inflated sense of sense worth that allows them to feel jealous.

@C12341

15 күн бұрын

@@fingolfin6603 you left love out of the equation entirely. That's a sad life for anyone male or female to endure.

@fingolfin6603

15 күн бұрын

@@C12341 true, but you don’t need to love someone to be in a relationship with them.

Western society was created by who and when. Not perfect, but better. So, monogamy, marriage again, not perfect, is better. The lie of the perfect white picket fence, the perfect partner, freedom, the results in loneliness, replaced by what is better, monogamy. Biblically, marriage is a spiritual connection through consemation. So, multiple partners, multiple spiritual connections, that messes people up.

Feminism is burning down your house for a night’s party.

Not for me, thanks, not interested in sharing

If you look closely all the menage a trois relationships are composed by one woman and two (weak) men.

@msimon6808

15 күн бұрын

One strong man - two women. It is traditional.

@ApesAmongUs

7 күн бұрын

You just announced that you are poor and ugly. 3-way relationships take 2 forms. Rich attractive people match up with 2 women and one guy and usually a boat. The other end has one woman, 2 men she outweighs combined, and 3 lifetime memberships at the Renfair.

@janpetra1724

7 күн бұрын

Well, I've seen a relationship with one strong man, one weak man, and a woman. 12 years later they're still together with kids.........Obviously it only worked because the second man was basically a man-wife to the first one and stayed at home doing housework and taking care of the kids, while the other two were busy wotking. He was more a big brother to them if anything, given he was over a decade younger than the other two. The first man is a doctor, the woman is also a doctor, the second man......just graduated college when he got with them back then, don't know what he studied. Think it worked out for them cause the second guy was basically a house keeper and nanny to 2 busy people with a lot of money, and they're all probably bisexual, given the first guy called both the others his "wives".🤣

@salkoharper2908

5 күн бұрын

Whichever gender it is, it always follows the same pattern. 2 Subs and 1 Dom. You can change the male and female around. Still the same equation. Their is always 1 dominating partner and 2 submissive ones.

@janpetra1724

5 күн бұрын

@salkoharper2908 Wholly agreed, and my comment got removed somehow, but that's how it works, I told a story of a relationship I witnessed, 2 men, one dom, one sub, and a woman.

So what is the difference between "Humans" and Animals

@Andy-di1zd

15 күн бұрын

If you need to ask that question then your brain is no more evolved than that of a say, baboon? 😊

@tbass94

15 күн бұрын

Humans think they’re important and other animals don’t

@WhereTheyLay

15 күн бұрын

Animals are free to go where they wish, in nature.

@PJ-yp3vb

15 күн бұрын

@@WhereTheyLay You have not seen the streets of San Francisco littered with feces.

@paarker

15 күн бұрын

@@WhereTheyLay And get eaten in the pyramid of life.

J D Unwin surveyed the rise and fall of civilizations throughout history and came to this conclusion: The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a society which has advanced to the rationalistic condition unless its females have been born into an absolutely monogamous tradition; nor is there any example of a group which has retained its high position in the cultural scale after less rigorous customs have become part of the inherited tradition of all its members. When marriage is a compulsory lifelong association of two equal partners, and a woman knows no man except her husband, and a man knows no woman except his wife, sexual opportunity is reduced to a minimum. (Compulsory celibacy does not limit sexual opportunity. It attempts to deny sexual activity. Its effect upon cultural condition is devastating.) A study of historical peoples reveals the fact that those societies which have adopted such customs as most nearly approach this compulsory lifelong association (which has never yet been achieved), and who have retained their rigid laws as to sexual conduct for the longest period, have advanced in the cultural scale to the highest position which any human society has yet reached. J D Unwin, "Sex and Culture", page 84

"Who could have predicted...?" Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae

@scartissuefilms

6 күн бұрын

Yep. Christians and other sensible people who are able to understand simple cause and effect.

Comparing Christian and Muslim societies side by side and deciding the differences based on polygamy and monogamy does not control for the difference the religious beliefs make, which could arguably be the bigger impact.

I wonder - and have no idea what the answer, supported by data, is - but i wonder where the horrendous rates of child abuse are to do with family breakdown, or whether it’s just reported more now.

@kotenoklelu3471

5 күн бұрын

There are less children per pedophile. It's just statistics. Throughout history and in different cultures pedophiles were norm in some places. I saw child porn as a joke about one Muslim culture. Surveys in my small region shows that pedophiles are sadly norm, most women encountered them in childhood than women that don't. But we are descendants of Chinggis Khan. We had several wives before Russians came. Till today men are not monogamous.

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

They have been extending the definition of abuse for awhile now.

Just look at society, and you have your answer.

In my opinion, rich men can do anything so why would they feel the need for being monogamous or have intimacy. they can just get whatever they want. Woman who are part of those want the money, the comfort that they never need to worry about financial issues and that they are being taken care of without having to worry. but there more reward mentally/emotionally when there is monogomy, especially when there are children involved. however all these standards and dynamics now have been exploded!! I guess it depends how these people were raised and thought. how and what kind of person your "parents" were. Theres nothing more powerful or stronger than a monogamist family! it creates love and strength, a bond, whereas other types can lead to all kinds of toxic traits such a sconstant jealousy or who gets more attention than whom. i mean there are polygamists cults and the women were miserable because of these kinds of things.

Plot twist- She poly on da low 😅

Women are gonna have to be forced back into monogamy. Handmaid’s tale, ladies, you wanted this

The worst fights both physical and emotional that I have ever seen were from people cheating. The pair bond is far too strong to f with.

I don’t need this to say no.

Or the king David, king Saul, king Solomon model…

Even ducks have partners

Probably, yes. But judging from the rate of infidelity, divorce, children from multiple partners.... it doesn't really seem to align too well with our biology.

Born out of wedlock. That also includes people in a stable relationship, who arent married, having a kid.

Why are you surprised when we are taking all the consequences for bad behavior away?

Such an attractive woman; smart, sensible and pretty.

Yes ofcorse its good. Monogamy is the reason we have a stable society!

Funny seeing Konstantine buying into the idea

Whenever I speak to a woman they've always slept with 50+ guys these days and yet every guy I know has slept with only a handful of women..... I find it so strange they women see to all be sleeping with the same few guys.

@smolcutie1773

15 күн бұрын

As a woman I believe most women have been tricked by modern feminism and the s*xual liberation movement into thinking that being promiscuous is somehow beneficial to them and that they "take matters into their own hands" and that by sleeping around they become equal to men which is very sad because they don’t realize how negatively it's going to impact them in the future.

@kenofken9458

15 күн бұрын

I'm one of those few guys. If they're willing to share us, and they are, you should ask yourselves why.

@SilverWolvesScarletForestSnow

15 күн бұрын

@@kenofken9458 For me I do not understand, having sex isn't a drive and I've never had a one night stand. I do not understand the people that enjoy it because there is no drive in me to want that. Like just there was no drive in me to go out clubbing and get wasted, none of it appeals. For some people I guess having sex is their drive, but honestly for fun I'd rather rebuild the top end of my motorbike engine or making a map for Counter Strike. Sex for me is just a byproduct of being in a relationship, I look for the relationship and not sex. If I see a half naked drunk woman, I think "skank" and not "sexy".... But maybe it's just me.

@jamiemobilerepairnow5968

15 күн бұрын

the average lifetime body count is between 7-12 for females and +1 for males (who are most likely driven up by the small number of homosexuals who have a lot more sex with eachother than heterosexuals and who obviously dont drive up the male to female ratio and only the male ratio) Women and men with +20 body count are extremely abnormal (under 5%) and those on the tails with 50+ or in the 3 digits are most likely under the 1% level. Most of the time its not even driven by attractiveness, for either males or females. But is driven by something calles sociosexuality, which is basically someone's desire to have lots of sex with different partners. High sociosexuality is often, though not always, driven by maladaptive behaviours (such as tackling low self image) and instances of childhood sexual abuse. Or sometimes drug abuse, though this normally results in sex work. If you don't understand why folks are behaving like this then thats a cue to be thankful for your upbringing and mental health.

@kenofken9458

15 күн бұрын

@@SilverWolvesScarletForestSnow Everyone is different and that's how it should be.

4:22 Bahahah. Spitting tea 😅

How much is the length of modern lives and improvements in health care impacting all of these figure. Men probably had more wives in the past due to death in child birth, women mothers children not always their own. Is this a factor as well?

Would love to hear a conversation with her and Orion Taraban from Psychacks

5:20. we dont exaggerate that. When bosses come to workplaces, women and men flock to them and the behaviour changes greatly. its so pathetic to see. The same happens when beautiful women of buff guys are around. People change.

The fact we are capable as a species of performing monogamy, polygamy and everything is bananas 🍌

This society is done!

Short answer: YES.

This woman has the most amazing capacity for doing half arsed analysis which sounds plausible backed up by vaguely mentioned statistics. She never ceases to amaze me how she takes the most complex social and cultural phenomena and produces handwaving explanations that fit her pompous sanctimonious view of life. How, for instance, can she sit there and say no-one cares about Trump's philandering when there was massive attention on this? How does she get away with this shite? Coming out with platitudes that most people accept and somehow making it sound as if she had the idea herself. She has the most miraculous capacity to find which examples and current tropes and themes will resonate so that she doesn't get seriously questioned.

@markaurelius61

15 күн бұрын

And yet she is right. Monogamy does produce the best societies.

@kenofken9458

15 күн бұрын

People who are nihilists when it comes to the behavior of their own political cult do not get to lecture anyone else on morals.

@rext3404

15 күн бұрын

You could of just said "she's full of crap." You've just word vomited about how she has no evidence, yet in your entire post, you've provided no actual counter argument with supporting evidence. The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.

@balalaika852

15 күн бұрын

@@markaurelius61 You can say the same about feminism. Most successful societies are where feminism is at the core of their policies. But I'm assuming you don't want to credit feminism with their success?

@arohanui922

15 күн бұрын

@@rext3404Build a bridge, idiot.

"Who could have predicted [pill + abortion] would have produced more illegitimacy?" Literally every ancient teaching on the subject tells us. The "mean" rules evolved for a reason. Female instinct doesn't change when presented with more choice/options, it amplifies.

"It's kind of like LDC has a fleet of Ferraris he's never driven." Yesssss, and rather than tar him as a ladies man, if we THINK about it, perhaps the truth lies in open sight right there.

It can only get worse

Yes. Next question.

I hate some of these weird labels floating around but after listening to Louise I think I’m a damn sapiosexual

Yes !

Is not even a question is it? In 2015 internet dating was good fun. Its not now! This is only an issue now women are suffering. The patriarchy is alive and well!

Yes. Period.

I have thought that a Certified Permit to Poly would be a good certification. Perhaps an international standard.

At least it's not a kid 😂😂

Her description is that of very immoral people, I don’t like this used as the norm but whatever

Christian philosophy is about mercy for the sinner, the outcast, the broken and the lost. Jesus goes to the one who society rejects. God comes down and numbers himself amongst the damned. While much of human societies is the opposite: reward the powerful, the rich, the righteous and condemn those who fail to meet the standards of the society. In many ways it's about reaching up to become a God. So on one hand you have God coming down into humanity and the other you have humanity reaching up to become like God. If women are to be like Christ, they would not seek power and status they would seek the broken and the lost. Femininity shines when it is the embodiment of mercy. It feels corrupted when it worships power. I think one of the reasons our dating culture is so broken is because of this idea. As the west became less interested in grace and more interested in power and success, women followed suit and chased all the narcissistic men and abandoned the lost and broken men. Thus you have powerful egotists that turn women into harlots, and lost and broken men that simply remain lost and broken and are never healed by feminine love and mercy.

The answer is yes!

Yes. Yes it is. Monogamy is good for society. This ain’t rocket science, people.

Yes

As someone who has been successfully navigating polyamory for a while now, its absolutely not something I'd prescribe to society or most people. I have to navigate cautiously bc most people who try to be polyamorous have no business doing so, and shouldnt be pursuing relationships with anyone but working on themselves. It works for me, and i have beautiful, loving long term relationships and I have the capacity to navigate that space, but im very much an acception. Society needs monogamy. Not everyone needs to participate in life the same way, but be honest and true with yourself and dont let undue influence direct your life choices.

At least it's not a kid. BAHAHA

Polygamy leaving a lot of men without mates, well that can be solved a few ways, just hypothetically. How about having some women with multiple men. Or even the rich ones who can have multiple wives also integrate other males into the relationship. Also a sizable portion are homosexuals anyway, so the proportion of single and unoccupied males shpuld be minimal. Also with that in mind now I know why eunuchs were a thing in the past.......too many single males, and that was done to "safely" integrate them into households, these days we dont need to do that, however, given we have DNA test, comtraceptives, and vasectomy. Anyway, bottom line is Im still torn about polygamy, given monogamy is more reliably stable, and overall more stable, doesnt mean polygamy cannot be stable if done in a right model, just works on lower proportion of people. However there is a cost to humanity as a species practicing monogamy, given most males will reproduce, especially with the advent of modern medicine, natural selection is artificially suppressed, via lack of genetic bittle-necks, given most humans will eventually reproduce under monogamy, in contrast to having only a smaller percentage of the most successful reproduce. This surely affects our long-term genetic fitness. Also not all females should reproduce, males should also be picky. But in the grand scheme of things, I see it as a pendulum. Polygamy leads to increased genetic fitness, and idealism, which leads to reform and hence monogamy, which leads to a decline in genetic fitness, which leads to social instability and leads straight back to polygamy. Rinse and repeat. At least that occurs in urban societies in which intellect and emotional stability are rewarded. It will be the opposite in more primitive societies where aggression and physical strength are selected for.

@ntolman

6 күн бұрын

I ain't sharing.

@janpetra1724

6 күн бұрын

@@ntolman Well the whole thing was hypothetically speaking, however evolution-wise a human's pen1s is shaped so that it scoops out other male's sperm from the female, so you know what that implies.....we are not a monogamous species. And unwillingness to share......oh well.....jealousy and possessiveness are pathological traits.

dont think I would date a woman who has been in a poly relationship. I also would not date a a women who does not know who the father of her children are.

Sex drive and reproductive drive jost do not match. Face it. I often joke about how many people would exist if sex didn't create pleasure. The way I see it, absolute rigid norms may be great to the masses. Well, what good does it do for misfits? All I ever saw was the middle finger. One harsh truth about life is that there is no one size fits all solution. Inceldom is unavoidable. Let men buy services from the professional ladies. That won't happen.

*I have no problem with women having control over their fertility, but men also deserve to have control over their fertitlity.* Neither gender should be forced or coerced into parenthood, Gov should have no say in Reproductive choice.

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

They made the choice when they performed the act that causes it.

@anthonyhuber-permanentlyre7808

4 күн бұрын

@@fatmonkey4716 *So force a woman into having a kid she does not want from an accidental pregnancy?* And why should the Gov have that much authority over the people?

@fatmonkey4716

4 күн бұрын

@@anthonyhuber-permanentlyre7808 The government isn't forcing anything, nature is taking it's course. The government is only intervening to stop you from killing the consequences of your actions. When people are responsible for their actions, society will suffer less negative actions. When you allow poor behavior you get more of it.

I enjoyed hearing Laura Branigans ' perspective.

Trump’s philandering is sad but not as bad as destroying your home country AND philandering.

Would it not only be the case that more women are attracted to the high status limelight as it were...

The actual behavior is a much larger number of females sharing a smaller group of males, those that are much, much better than the females. Monogamy is good for society. Harems, voluntary (Tinder et al) or other, are bad for the economy

4:11 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Seems pretty simplified. I get the theory, but I doubt it stands up to scrutiny. Seems more complex. And the alpha / beta thing is silly. It depends on the game you're playing.

I agree that this 20% of men sleep with 80% of women thing is, well, a thing. But I don't think it's 100% natural/human nature. I do think women are of course attracted to successful attractive men, but we do live in a world with successful women now. The dynamics have changed a bit, we have run into what some are calling modern feminism, when it's really just unrealistic standards based on women's success, or at least the ability to be successful. There are plenty of men that would normally qualify, yet that pool of men has gotten even small due to the opportunity to be a successful woman. Women always look up, never down or at an equal level, it's time they understand there are good men at all levels.

We should not forget that human beings are part of cultural evolution as well....Not only that we have mental capacities to determine what is better and what works, which means we are not driven by instincts only...When an evolutionary drive is pronaunced at the expense of our mental capacities, then the conclussions made are often inncorect.....To deny or negate some of the benefits of monogamy on the account of evolutionary drives, is somewhat short sighted, and factually incorrect.....

You know you could always r- anyway

Monogamy is socialised access to women. A lot of you are conservatives who believe in capitalism yet you wholeheartedly support the socialisation of access to women. A capitalist dating and marriage is mostly polygynous and polyamorous. The most successful males will accumulate more females and have more mating opportunities while a good percentage of males have little to nothing, just like capitalism.

@TeaRiker

15 күн бұрын

your worldview is very low resolution

@TeaRiker

15 күн бұрын

It's not just about the distribution of ressources. Not just about who owns how much and how much more someone is allowed to possess. You don't understand the thing you're trying to criticise

@kiuk_kiks

15 күн бұрын

@@TeaRiker I’m a socialist, if it wasn’t already obvious. But I’m never going to be for monogamy. A lot of very unattractive people simply shouldn’t reproduce and feminism makes it harder for such men to pollute the gene pool.

@kiuk_kiks

15 күн бұрын

@@TeaRiker I’m a socialist, if it wasn’t already obvious. But I’m never going to be for monogamy. A lot of very not so attractive people simply shouldn’t reproduce and feminism makes it harder for such men to muddy the gene pool.

@Gheir-xe4mv

15 күн бұрын

Monogamy isn't a currency, or a method to use currency for exploitation (capitalism). Monogamy is a devotional ideal.