~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
tintedlipbalm
[–]tintedlipbalm[S] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
This is a long read so I don't expect it to gain tons of traction in terms of discussion, but here it goes.
The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages. Yet, monogamous marriage has spread across Europe, and more recently across the globe, even as absolute wealth differences have expanded. Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition.
So often we discuss about the future of relationships since marriage as it exists now does not provide enough incentives for modern men and women to partake in it. Camille has previously shared posts toying with the idea of monogamy dissolving.
A 2014 column called Polygamy Fuels Violence discusses the idea that imposing monogamous marriage helped pacify the west and goes to describe the relationship between monogamy and the industrial revolution (the paper in the OP itself discussing its relationship with democracy) and relating it to instability in the Muslim world.
Furthermore, this paper on Viking raids called Male-biased operational sex ratios and the Viking phenomenon also analyses risky behavior engaged by competing males in the marriage market:
We propose that a combination of two practices – polygyny and concubinage – and the increase in social inequality that occurred in Scandinavia during the Late Iron Age resulted in a male-biased operational sex ratio. This would have created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behaviours that had the potential to increase their wealth and status, and therefore their probability of entering the marriage market. With high-status men looking to instigate expeditions to acquire plunder and develop their reputations as war leaders, raiding represented a mutually beneficial means of achieving social advancement and success.
I share this out of interest in the subject, but also wonder how it relates to testosterone decline; the modern Western fashion of "equal" polyamory that often services the female imperative instead of the male; and even more scarily, to the major influx of North African and Middle Eastern immigrants to Western land.
[–]Camille113252 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Awesome discussion points!
I share this out of interest in the subject, but also wonder how it relates to testosterone decline;
I definitely think the decline in testosterone as well as role models for masculinity is evident in the modern SMP even though a lot of the things identified in the quote you selected are also occurring.
Many "high status" options for most men today are way feminized compared to even 20 years ago. Even the once cool black community is not immune, at all income levels. Sure people are joining gangs or trying to be players, but they are also wearing really gay clothing and acting like girls more often than not. Will have to find the ROK series that touched on this in the hip hop community specifically.
As more attractive women move to cities and hook up with/date high SMV men, will average and below men across the country turn to more extreme behaviors? Outside of drug related gangs I think about Antifa and BLM, which have a lot of men and encourage their members to get violent. Would these people participate in these organizations if they were married or high status? Probably not. And note that both of these groups also are great for lower T men.
the modern Western fashion of "equal" polyamory that often services the female imperative instead of the male;
I think this makes sense because of how our government and culture are set up to be more democratic (at least in appearances lol). And also because of how comfortable women are with the privileges they currently have. This also ties into the low T issue you brought up - a more aggressive and masculine man would NOT participate in that situation.
I do feel like most of the people in polyamory are not high status men or women, so is this a trend because of the inability of average and below average men to get 1 girl? Do they put up with this because of how little power and value they have in the SMV?
And do the average and below women engage in poly because women as a whole have such an inflated value BUT they cannot get any sort of commitment from high value men so they have to get it by combining lower value men? How man lower value men = a high value man haha
and even more scarily, to the major influx of North African and Middle Eastern immigrants to Western land.
This is definitely concerning. There is an enormous amount of violence and harassment every single day in Europe thanks to the Muslim invasion. Every single thing listed in this study is occurring - rape, murder, assault, etc. It's so terrifying. These men committing the crimes seem to be under 40 and unmarried for the most part. And don't terrorist groups in general target younger, often sexually frustrated men?
[–]yetieaterHusband (9yrs), mid-30s,2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'd relate the advantage of monogamy to the ability to inherit wealth and power.
The advantage of a polygamous house is that you have more manpower with common descent, and therefore a sort of instant tribe. If wealth is enhanced by loyal manpower, then polygamy is selected for socially.
Polygamy might work quite well for a nomadic people - if wealth is gained by livestock then it is relatively easy to increase that over time naturally and a small herd can become a bigger herd. The sons who are best at herding will prosper with a portion of their father's wealth, the ones who are bad at herding become less wealthy. The form of marriage works with the grain of that society. Loyal sons in adolescence allow your wealth to increase, which advantages them as adults. Everybody wins (apart from women, probably). In a less settled environment where law is not imposed and therefore conflict between tribes more common, it seems a good strategy.
But, let us say that wealth is tied to land, and agriculture and peasants to work that land. You can't just keep subdividing that kind of inheritance. It becomes too small an area fast if you have lots of children. So there's a pressure against polygamy of nobility because that will encourage each wife and their child to try and eliminate the others to support their offspring.
Then if you have competing noble houses that are either polygamous or monogamous then inheritance will tend to mean more internal conflict in the polygamous house and every generation will see the further division of inheritance until they are too poor to be polygamous unless there is a constant increase in family wealth and power. Or there will be fratricide which will weaken your polygamous house.
So the monogamous houses are advantaged, and they get to set social norms and laws potentially. There is an advantage for women within the monogamous houses to support them as well, while there isn't the same incentive in a polygamous house. There will be pressure on husbands to become monogamous if a wife sees it in other houses.
In Europe monogamy was literally a characteristic of 'civilisation' in the greco-roman sense. Even prior to Christianity, which supported monogamy even if it wasn't mandated, it was the norm in the militarily supreme urban societies of the day. Which were settled and relatively urban and had inheritance of wealth and nobility.
[–]Camille113255 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is great! Thank you so much for sharing this and sorry for my delayed comment. I really enjoyed reading this and just wrote out my thoughts as I was reading:
I guess I knew this in the back of my mind but I didn't truly realise how recent monogamous marriage is for most of the world (1963 for Nepal??). I definitely agree with their hypothesis and the benefits of monogamous marriage that they outline.
We predict that imposing monogamous marriage reduces male reproductive competition and suppresses intra-sexual competition, which shrinks the size of the pool of low-status, risk-oriented, unmarried men. These effects result in (i) lower rates of crime, personal abuse, intra-household conflict and fertility, and (ii) greater parental investment (especially male), economic productivity (gross domestic product (GDP) per capita) and female equality.
This is so key and we can really see the negative effects of eliminating monogamous marriage in poor US blacks.
The key to understanding marriage versus pure pair-bonding is recognizing the role of a community in defining, sanctioning and enforcing marriage norms. This element of human social life is routinely missed in non-cultural approaches to monogamy
Really appreciate how they make this distinction.
Ecologically imposed monogamy occurs because the societies lack sufficiently large differences in male wealth or status to motivate women to become second wives.
This is so cool! Never heard of these two categories before!
To even enter the marriage market, a man has to be in the top 60 per cent of male status. Doubling one's number of long-term mates (to two) then requires entering the top 25 per cent of males. By contrast, normative monogamy means that no one is shut out, and increases in a man's relative status does not increase his number of long-term mates.
I like the example that came before this and the conclusion that they reached here reminds me of what a lot of people in the manosphere were even saying about the modern SMP. Since traditional marriage has been on the decline things have been swinging back to a situation where the top status men get most of the women - most easily seen in high density areas on the coast.
Across all crimes, marriage reduces a man's likelihood of committing a crime by 35 per cent. For property and violent crimes, being married cuts the probability of committing a crime by half.
Wow! That is such a huge difference and it even holds true across class lines? Amazing!
Interestingly, unmarried cohabitation does not reduce crime rates.
Interesting so it's not just being in a relationship, it's the special status and norms and higher degree of investment? The testosterone explanation is interesting but I'm not convinced that it's the main cause.
[–]Camille113254 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Accidentally pressed "send" too early here are the rest of my thoughts!
cultural group selection should act most directly on social norms that fortify monogamous marriage rather than directly on those that increase gender equality.
Very interesting! I've heard people argue that monogamy leads to gender equality specifically because it's progress and evolution. As if it's the more superior and authentic side of humanity that can only be developed once a culture is advanced enough.
Co-wife conflict is ubiquitous in polygynous households.
I bet! No idea how those women do it sharing a husband sounds terrible, especially since he has children with the other women!
Living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect and homicide of children.
:(
First, later marriage and less conflict means a greater fraction of children in a society will be reared by older, more skilled mothers who have had more time to acquire experience and education.
If only things went this well for the majority of families. It does sound nice on paper though.
The infusion of norms related to monogamous marriage into the supernaturally reinforced set of beliefs propounded by Christianity [88] may have been crucial to the long-term success of this marriage system and one element in the set of effects on religion created by cultural group selection [89].
Yay Christianity! It really did so much for Europe (and the world) and people don't even give it credit today.
In closing, it is worth speculating that the spread of normative monogamy, which represents a form of egalitarianism, may have helped create the conditions for the emergence of democracy and political equality at all levels of government
I definitely think there is a relationship but not that normative monogamy is a central cause. It certainly made it easier for the public to embrace a new system from what I can tell but I'm still learning more every day. Currently reading this book called Democracy: The God That Failed, only on page 34 but I do recommend it. The full pdf is online, iirc its 300 or so pages.
Thanks again for linking what a cool study for them to do!
[–]WaterlillyWoman2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Problem is, if there is one sided polygamy most women would refuse marriage. There is zero in it for them, especially at the current wage hight.
[–]cxj1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women didn't support polygamy, they were forced into it by circumstances beyond their control. Also, that was the way of those societies, women had vastly different expectations back then.
Your comment does not seem to relate to the content of the link at all
[–]WaterlillyWoman2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women would NOT gain anything from it. Why would we then support it?
[–]plutosheen1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
J D Unwin comes to mind.
Anyways, the supposed decrease in testosterone could be due to oestrogen mimicking chemicals from our plastics or oestrogen infused meats. Also technology has created avenues for male sexual release that has never been seen before in human history.
When the risk and cost of a wife and family is higher than ever, the safer (and smarter) alternative is to jack off to VR porn with a sex toy.
[–]lidlredridinghoodRPW 1 yr, ecstatic1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Appreciating that this was posted.
[–]ElfFey1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well it helped that throughout most of history, rich noble men had young men fighting and dying for them, so there were more women for him to take.
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]tintedlipbalm[S] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Camille113252 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]yetieaterHusband (9yrs), mid-30s,2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Camille113255 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Camille113254 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WaterlillyWoman2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]cxj1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WaterlillyWoman2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]plutosheen1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lidlredridinghoodRPW 1 yr, ecstatic1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ElfFey1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link