Isnt women's insistence on monogamy total proof of their inherent solipsism?

yasee · 2014-08-18T21:01:14+00:00

A [woman] having an affair LITERALLY CHANGES NOTHING FOR THE [MAN], assuming [she] is clean and [takes steps to not get pregnant]. But [men] will still claim "betrayal" or claim that this is some huge moral problem for them. But why? Nobody gets hurt, other than the [husband's] precious ego.

We_Are_Legion · 2014-08-18T20:37:56+00:00

I don't want my boyfriend to share an intimate experience that I only have with him with another woman. I do not want him lying to me and sneaking around. I don't want to take the chance that he bond with another woman on the level we have by having sex with her. I don't want this other woman to try and steal my boyfriend away (and according to trp, she probably would try). He and I have an agreement that we stay faithful to each other, and if he doesn't like those terms, he can break up with me.

I also think this is some pretty strong hamstering. You're saying women's hurt feelings from cheating are invalid while men's are valid because biology (though if this is real science, I'd like to see some sources). I don't think this is solipsism either. While you may not understand why a woman would feel the same way about cheating as a man would, they are the same feelings of hurt and betrayal. It is not just women making everything about women when men and women both have the same expectations and feelings about cheating.

thats_a_semaphor · 2014-08-19T00:14:50+00:00

A man having an affair LITERALLY CHANGES NOTHING FOR THE WOMAN, assuming he is clean and not financially draining her for the sake of the other woman. But women will still claim "betrayal" or claim that this is some huge moral problem for them. But why? Nobody gets hurt, other than the wife's precious ego.

I think this demonstrates quite well the completely different attitude towards relationships that redpillers and other people have. To say that someone to having an affair "literally changes nothing" in a relationship shows that to a redpiller a relationship is an economic relationship only. There is, apparently, nothing like care, trust or love between the two to take into account - unless, says the redpiller here, we consider that her "ego".

And someone said solipsism...?

[deleted] · 2014-08-18T21:04:09+00:00

[permanently deleted]

OfSpock · 2014-08-18T21:04:29+00:00

how many women would agree to a harem-like arrangement, where they got to have sex with their dream guy (and be financially provided for) but when she was at work, or busy, he was fucking someone else

Again, I am left wondering what planet red pillers live on. Women find it betrayal very painful. Every woman I know who was cheated on left the guy with one exception.

The exception was my aunt who is of an older generation and did not want to be left with four children and took him back eventually. He died recently and she has a new lease on life. It's really sweet to see.

17b29a · 2014-08-18T20:55:03+00:00

you got me

ThorLives · 2014-08-18T21:22:58+00:00

I think there are plenty of possible explanations for this besides solipsism. Unless we can rule out these other factors as playing a role (including possible explanations that we haven't thought of), then I don't know how this could be used as proof of solipsism.

Here's some other possible explanations:

When a man sleeps with other women, he is potentially destabilizing the original relationship (he might leave his wife for his mistress).
When a man sleeps with another woman, he might get her pregnant, which would mean that he has to split his resources between his wife's children and his mistress' children. Hence, a man with a mistress might end up removing resources from the original relationship. (This might not be going though her mind, but if evolutionary psychology is playing a role, this could be a good reason for our minds to be shaped to be jealous and unhappy over extramarital affairs.)
When a man spends more time with another woman, he generally has less time for his original relationship.

Raising children is a resource, labor, and time intensive task. It also takes two decades. It makes sense that women would want a stable relationship with her husband/partner. From a purely genetic standpoint, a woman will have a limited number of children in her lifetime and it's a money, labor, and time intensive task. It makes sense that she would want to monopolize as much money, labor, and time from her husband while raising her children. It's actually not very much in her interest to sleep around with a lot of different men, particularly if none of them stick around to provide money, labor, or time to raise the children. Because her desire and ability to have children is limited, her genetics leans more towards quality (through investing heavily in her children) over quantity (which adds to the required labor, since raising children falls mostly on women). This was particularly true, historically, when death in childbirth was a major cause of death for women. Merely giving birth was a risky proposition, so it was useful to favor investment in existing children over having more children. This leads women to have a higher need to have a husband who will stick around.

Alternatively, from a man's genetic standpoint, he is most "successful" if he impregnates lots of women. In other words: men's genetics prefer quantity of children over quality by raising them successfully. For example, Ghenghis Khan and other emperors had vast numbers of children.

We know he was one of history's greatest warriors, but new research shows Genghis Khan could have fathered thousands of children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456789/Genghis-Khan-The-daddy-lovers.html

A man doesn't need to stick around to raise children to be genetically successful. If his options are: stick around and help raise two or three children vs have 10 children with 10 different women, he's actually more genetically successful in the second case (unless those 10 children are really unsuccessful because they lacked a father to provide for them). Of course, depending on the society, having 10 children is probably not an option most men have. Competition between males means that most men are able to pull that kind of thing off, society frowns on deadbeat dads, women should rightfully avoid men who won't stick around and raise their children. Of of those factors make it more difficult for men to do the "have lots of children, with one or lots of different women" route. (Football players and famous entertainers, of course, have so much social power that they often pull this off.)

Of course, it's a fallacy to think that a person should always follow their genetic imperative to have as many children as possible. If a man has a bunch of children by a bunch of different women, and he gets hit with a bunch of child-support payments, his genetic might be doing quite well, even if it really ruins his life. I mean, some of those football players who make a bunch of money, and then have over half their salary taken away in child-support payments for some kid that he had in some short-term hookup with a groupie - does he, as a person, really benefit by spreading his seed? No, not at all. Your genes' interests in replicating and your own personal interests are often at odds with each other - so don't get too caught up in the whole "male genetics interest" stuff. However, your genetics might be playing a role to influence how you feel about certain things (i.e. your gene's interests are the reason you feel jealous over extra-partner affairs, the reason you "fall in love", the reason that sex feels good at all). From that standpoint, it actually makes a lot of sense for women to get jealous over extra-partner affairs, and it doesn't require solipsism as an explanation.

TheMightyAnusFlap · 2014-08-18T21:58:00+00:00

My boyfriend is not ok with me "loving two people at once". Befor you say "but BABIES" even when I had serious fertility problems and couldn't conceive, he wanted a monogamous relationship. What could be better evidence than the fact that monogamy is the standard in our society and people have the tendency to get jealous/possessive of their SO's.

[deleted] · 2014-08-19T01:41:02+00:00

[permanently deleted]

nicknameminaj · 2014-08-18T23:50:50+00:00

This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever encountered in this sub. Just...wow. Holy shit. What should I do here? Should I attempt to be serious? Okay, here's my (TRP-based) counterargument:

It's a woman's prerogative to cheat on her beta provider with a rogue alpha so that she has the best genetic material for her offspring. It's in society's best interest that more people are born with alpha genes than beta genes. In fact the best way a beta man can serve society is to raise the woman's alpha spawn as best he can.

BAM. My idiotic argument beats your idiotic argument by a mile.

/thread, bitches!

GridReXX · 2014-08-19T02:43:00+00:00

I really want to provide a serious reply, but this thread was too funny.

CFRProflcopter · 2014-08-18T21:28:42+00:00

What part of "Neutral Titles" do people not understand? I'll leave this up for now, but in the future, please use neutral titles. Thanks.

TheMightyAnusFlap · 2014-08-19T01:20:34+00:00

men SHOULD want a monogamous woman, because they have to worry about the paternity of their children.

Paternity tests.

nicknameminaj · 2014-08-19T16:03:11+00:00

All I heard from this was I wanna cheat on MY girl and she should accept that but if SHE cheats on MEEE then that is the ultimate disrespect because it's all about MEEEE and it hurts MY feewings waaaahhhh

are you sure the solipsism is on the part of the woman here (to use your incorrect definition of solipsism - selfishness)?

workerbeebuzz · 2014-08-19T00:31:46+00:00

Don't most people insist on monogamy? Outside of some religious groups that is. I mean there's the "play around" mentality in teenagers and twentysomethings, but monogamous family units are the most common relationship style once people mature.

totes_meta_bot · 2014-08-19T04:52:34+00:00

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

[/r/TheBluePill] Monogamy is literally Hitler

^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.

Exner2 · 2014-08-19T12:40:54+00:00

But even from a TRP or a biological perspective, it makes perfect sense. A monogamous male provides resources and protection, whereas these benefits are obviously lessened if the male is providing for and/or protecting multiple women or families.

itsalreadybeenthrown · 2014-08-20T01:28:16+00:00

WTF do you think solipsism means? Like go read any definition of solipsism from any remotely scholarly resource and let me know how it lines up with whatever it is you are saying.

MissCherryPi · 2014-08-19T17:11:05+00:00

Many people are polyamorous, so I think this invalidates your argument - there are straight men and women who don't mind their partner having other partners.

[deleted] · 2014-08-22T00:08:36+00:00

I'm a man and cheating is a deal breaker to me top. If she cheated once, she'll cheat again. For me, monogamy is non negotiable. Not sure where you're getting this idea that all men want a mistress. HELL NO. I turned down sex from others when in a relationship, never once cheated nor even considered it.

OmegaChick · 2014-08-23T18:51:43+00:00

I can and do tolerate non-monogamy with the right kind of people who can be very honest and play safely. I would not marry someone that I didn't desire to be monogamous AND sexual with for the rest of my life, because that is a standard expectation of a marriage. I don't respect people who play without their partner's consent and if at all possible, I avoid people who make choices to cheat, lie or otherwise be deceptive. Because if they would do it to someone they knew much longer and made particular commitments to, they would do it to you as well. Additionally I have less respect for those people who would sleep with a married partner without the spouse's knowledge.

My ego would be hurt by anybody, family, friend or lover if they deceived me. There's no point to our interactions if I find even some of them to be false, as how can I believe any further interactions with them? It would always be in the back of my mind.

Its not ok to be a liar even in your hypothetical world has unlimited money as well as no STIs or STDs or accidental pregnancies or scheduling conflicts like holidays.

japanesencephalitis · 2014-08-26T21:35:17+00:00

If someone wants to sleep around with lots of different people, then they need to stay SINGLE. If you don't want to be monogamous, then don't enter monogamous relationships.

Skratt · 2014-08-18T21:45:56+00:00

I wouldn't mind my husband having sex with another girl if I'm sore or just not feeling it, as LONG as he doesn't get intimate with her and start liking her more than me, or leave me out of stuff. If he starts liking her then he better introduce her to me and we both share him. I think that's the problem with most women. They feel threatened by the idea.

If I catch him cheating with another girl, that's different, that basically means he's tired of me and needs something new and spicy. Therefore I would be a bit angry, I'd ask him who this is, if he wants to leave me or just have a polygamous relationship, and just work it out from there. As long as he loves me the most (or as equally as his other chicks) I'm fine with polygamy. :)

Title	Isnt women's insistence on monogamy total proof of their inherent solipsism?
Author	TheMightyAnusFlap
Upvotes	0
Comments	137
Date	August 18, 2014 8:15 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2dwziw/isnt_womens_insistence_on_monogamy_total_proof_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/isnt-womens-insistence-on-monogamy-total-proof-of.285064 https://theredarchive.com/post/285064

Comments