Blue Pill what is your response to this video on male distaste of female promiscuity?

2015-01-27T20:46:34+00:00

Video coming from Lui Marco bodybuilder and popular MGTOW Youtuber: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMZtRvvkC4w...

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GridReXXit be like that12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LaLaJoy11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]princesseudoxieHi4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus1982-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus19822 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phokus19825 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SnarigunStahl Pill0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFormidableContenderPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

... and paternity does not matter in an ancestral environment where a whole tribe, an extended family, or at least close relatives all pitch in in raising children.

Of course it matters; evolution selects for traits that are advantageous for survival and procreation. Everything else being equal, a male who monopolized a female's sexuality (aka jealousy) was a lot more likely to have descendants than a guy who didn't care. Everything else being equal a promiscuous person is also more likely to cheat, break up and what not, so developing a distrust of that kind of person in general is also an evolutionary advantageous trait (for males far moreso than for females).

Thinking that jealousy and doubts regarding paternity just popped into being once private property was introduced is naive at best and wishful thinking at worst - because there has always been one thing your descendants can inherit from you, and it is (evolutionary speaking) infinitely more valuable than your property: one's genes. So not wanting to be an evolutionary dead-end is a rather powerful incentive overall, don't you think?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Everything else being equal, a male who monopolized a female's sexuality (aka jealousy) was a lot more likely to have descendants than a guy who didn't care.

How can you calculate that it was a better investment to work on guarding a female 7/24 (jealousy) instead of chasing another female?

The whole monopolizing part makes only sense - and please listen, this part is important! - if resources used for child-rearing are already monopolized. This is a fairly well-known RP theme: the man gets monopol sexual access to the woman, the woman gets monopol access to the resources of the man. Sounds familiar?

But this requires private property or else the whole thing makes no sense.

This means, if and only if a man can say "these are my resources, and I want to only spend it on children I like, most likely those who are biologically mine", ensuring paternity makes sense. But if individual men own basically nothing and the children get food and other stuff from the common supply of the tribe, there is very little point in jealousy.

Because a man would spend no individual resources on a child, he would be better off trying to chase another lady and try to make another kid with her, instead of making sure his lady is not boning any other guys, because he NOT giving any special resources to his lady because they don't yet have private property. Clear?

Everything else being equal a promiscuous person is also more likely to cheat, break up and what not, so developing a distrust of that kind of person in general is also an evolutionary advantageous trait (for males far moreso than for females).

"Cheat" has multiple meanings, one means to break trust, the other means to have multiple partners. Clearly when people do not care about multiple partners, where it is approved, it is not cheating. It is only so in a monogamous culture where a relationship carries an implicit promise of monogamy. So let's ignore this part.

Similarly, break up is only relevant if relationships existed at all - which is not clear.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Similarly, break up is only relevant if relationships existed at all - which is not clear.

It isn't too far-fetched to assume they did - after all, lifelong monogamy, fighting off other rivals, alpha males with harems, vying for the attention of females etc. wasn't so predominant across all species if it hadn't fulfilled an evolutionary purpose (heck, one can even observe some sort of transactional mating among hermaphrodite animals). Do you think everybody would be so hung up about the bonobos (the hippies among the animals) if they weren't extremely peculiar?

And suddenly all this came to a screeching halt when apes evolved into cavemen and suddenly the whole species adopted a polygamous lifestyle, only to regress back to mate guarding (monogamy, polygyny) once they introduced private property? I surely hope you don't believe that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I was asking for proof for either of those statements and it sounds like you don't have any.

Sure I do.

Here is an interview with a psychologist from Cornell about her work on the subject. She says:

"She added that prior research shows that men often view promiscuous women as unsuitable for long-term romantic relationships"

...and now you'll say exactly what I predicted you'll say: that it's measuring culture. I even explained why you believe that. TRPers tend not to believe it. Given an observed effect, we first believe it's probably innate, and require additional evidence that it's cultural. You as a blue piller on observing an effect, first believe it's cultural and require additional evidence that it's innate.

I'm not trying to convince you. But you need to understand that this is why I believe what I believe. You think that the science is on your side and that I have none on my side, but you're wrong about that. I have tones of science to back up what I believe - and you would discard all of it as simply the result of our evil oppressive culture.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Given an observed effect, we first believe it's probably innate, and require additional evidence that it's cultural.

That is curious. Why would biology be the "default" option for humans?

For example if you feed both animals and humans hot spicy food, both will get used to it and be okay with consuming it over time, yet animals will never prefer it over plain food, while humans will: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/01/13/376963730/how-do-we-grow-to-like-the-foods-we-once-hated

Food preference is a very primal thing, on par with mating and social behavior, I hope that is clear and not challenged. Yet, it is much more social for humans than for animals.

I see no reason always privileging the biology hypothesis or considering it default. If anything, the social-cultural hypothesis should be the default.

Frankly, is there any rational reason for the biology-default hypothesis, given that the whole point of intelligence is to override instincts and provide a kind of adaptive behavior that does not require genetic rewiring for adaptation to happen?

Going back to food, because this is a good proxy of how humans function, how it is different from other animals, the true "paleo" diet was simply everything: http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/

While most animals have and had more or less narrow diets, "cavemen" adapted to whatever they could find.

This is how really everything works.

Humans are very, very unusual animals.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I would argue that culture is an emergent property of our biology, and that biology necessarily precedes most fundamental human behaviors. Food is an interesting one, because it's a social experience for a number of animals (sex is too, for that matter), but the tastes people prefer are generally pretty universal: sweetness, saltiness, and fats. There are layers that people put over the top, and acquired tastes, but generally, the hallmarks of taste are indicative of those three things.

In terms of sex, my question would be why there hasn't been a culture preoccupied with male virginity, whereas preoccupation with female virginity has been remarkably consistent across cultures and times? The extraordinary lengths that men have gone to to control female sexuality should be a good indicator that there's something innate there.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Humans are very, very unusual animals.

I disagree. Humans are different in degree, but never in kind. We do many (but not all) things better - sometimes significantly better, but there is always an analog elsewhere in the animal kingdom. The difference is always one of degree.

Why would biology be the "default" option for humans?

Because the alternative is an incredibly anthropomorphic conceit. You are a human, so of course you believe humans are special and unique. We're made in the image of god, right? That's where this inevitably leads.

The alternative is also the logical fallacy: special pleading. I really shouldn't have to argue against it beyond that.

The starting position must be the same for all species. I am absolutely open to cultural explanations on a case-by-case basis, but you must use the same process for all species.

animals will never prefer it over plain food, while humans will

Interesting that you brought this up. It's a great example of how starting with "culture" as an explanation leads you astray. Don't get me wrong, I understand your train of thought. It goes like this: some cultures prefer spicy food, but others don't, therefore the preference itself must be cultural.

The problem is, if you take orphans from a "spicy" culture and give them to families from (or even living in) another culture, will the preference for spicy food persist? Did you even consider that? Adoption studies, and twin studies (and twin adoption studies) repeatedly disprove conclusions that you would think are obviously, unmistakably culture.

If you actually try to approach the question from a biology-first perspective, you can reach a conclusion that isn't discredited so easily. Here's one for the spicy food preference:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1111_051111_spicy_medicine.html

See that? There is a perfectly plausible explanation for the difference in preference arrived at through a process that would work for other species besides humans. If I google it, I'm sure I can find a case where a group of monkeys in one part of the world like a particular food, but the same species in another part don't like it.

We should use the same process for explaining our behavior that we use for the monkeys, only resorting to the "special" explanation when biology doesn't work. Otherwise, we do what you just did - we ignore alternatives (you didn't even consider biology), and we are easily refuted by twin and adoption studies.

is there any rational reason for the biology-default hypothesis, given that the whole point of intelligence is to override instincts and provide a kind of adaptive behavior that does not require genetic rewiring for adaptation to happen?

Intelligence is what individuals do. Instinct is what larger groups do.

You're absolutely right, I can (almost) never point to a single individual and say, "yes, this behavior is 100% absolutely innate - no question." Because each individual, human or otherwise, has the ability to alter its behavior.

It sort of like how I can't point to a single hurricane and and say, "this hurricane is 100% absolutely the result of global warming." I can only say things about groups.

Here's what I'd like for you to consider: culture reflects our nature back to us. Culture does not create our nature out of whole cloth. When you see a behavior that varies by culture, it's certainly reasonable to suspect that culture might be encouraging it here and discouraging it there. But you're wrong to think, "because it varies, it must be a cultural construct."

After all, sexual behaviors vary by culture. But it would be laughably naive to think, "therefore sex must be a cultural construct." The correct way of thinking about it is to say, "there must be an underlying innate instinct toward sex, but some cultures encourage it and others discourage it."

[–]CyraleaRedPill Vanguard0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]princesseudoxieHi2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Petticoat_Rule4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]17b29a0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Blue Pill what is your response to this video on male distaste of female promiscuity?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	0
Comments	68
Date	January 27, 2015 8:46 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2tvqta/blue_pill_what_is_your_response_to_this_video_on/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/blue-pill-what-is-your-response-to-this-video-on.283684 https://theredarchive.com/post/283684

Comments