Women aren’t wired for open relationships?
[http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/celebrity/lean-into-your-biology-big-bang-theorys-mayim-bialik-says-women-arent-wired-for-open-relationships]
Makes sense....
Makes sense....
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
Some of them are bound to be. Out of billions. And, they also claim that women cheat the most, if i recall--though, its difficult to measure. What isnt sifficult to measure is how often women initiate divorce. 70-80% of the time when divorce happens, it was initiated by the woman, if i recall.
Either way, its beneficial to both men and women to have multiple partners. But, women aren't really suited to monogamy, either, given the aforementioned. I would tend to believe they're more suited to polyamory or serial monogamy more so than true monogamy--as are most males. In general.
Only, polyamory is severely looked down on. And illegal in many parts. Monogamy is socially and legally enforced. And women are also much more influenced by social influence than men are, particularly influence from other women. For instance, this is why women have hard ons for married men and men who are taken. It shows them that a woman has deemed him valuable and worth risking eggs for. "He must have *something*, otherwise a woman wouldn't be interestd in him that much."
If one woman disdains the idea of multiple partners, it has a domino effect, as women form a sense of solidarity, as women. They identify with other women simply on the premise that they are also women, which is something men dont do--we have to have ideological or rational similarities or other kinds of ties. Simply also being men doesn't mean anything.
So, there are multiple levels which need examining. Social, physical, mental, and emotional. All of which can be mutually exclusive or inclusive, which severely complicates matters. As is true with all human behavior.
Ultimately, idfk. But, at minimum, humans are naturally closer to polyamory than true monogamy. Otherwise we, both men and women, wouldn't have an average of 10-15 sexual partners over a lifetime.
Either way, its beneficial to both men and women to have multiple partners. But, women aren't really suited to monogamy, either, given the aforementioned. I would tend to believe they're more suited to polyamory or serial monogamy more so than true monogamy--as are most males. In general.
Only, polyamory is severely looked down on. And illegal in many parts. Monogamy is socially and legally enforced. And women are also much more influenced by social influence than men are, particularly influence from other women. For instance, this is why women have hard ons for married men and men who are taken. It shows them that a woman has deemed him valuable and worth risking eggs for. "He must have *something*, otherwise a woman wouldn't be interestd in him that much."
If one woman disdains the idea of multiple partners, it has a domino effect, as women form a sense of solidarity, as women. They identify with other women simply on the premise that they are also women, which is something men dont do--we have to have ideological or rational similarities or other kinds of ties. Simply also being men doesn't mean anything.
So, there are multiple levels which need examining. Social, physical, mental, and emotional. All of which can be mutually exclusive or inclusive, which severely complicates matters. As is true with all human behavior.
Ultimately, idfk. But, at minimum, humans are naturally closer to polyamory than true monogamy. Otherwise we, both men and women, wouldn't have an average of 10-15 sexual partners over a lifetime.
View 1 more replies »
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@thinkbigaboutlife: Yes, yes. Typical sexist feminist drivel. "Men are animals; women are angels." Women are superior and perfect, right. Pure-hearted angels.
"Emotional connection" for women is simply an internal measurement of male value vs egg value. Meaning, female loyalty falls far below male loyalty. It is shallow. Because, as you say, women seek that emotional connection. So, if they find a better one [e.g. a more valuable male, in whatever way she measures: money, status, etc], they either cheat or trade up. Thus the high rate of female-initiated divorce. It's scientific fact, for instance, that women have many more orgasms with rich men. That's what women are born to seek.
Its not because males are assholes. Its because women are self-absorbed assholes.
Female love is superficial and self-serving, entirely based upon the resources she receives. In general. "Till death do us part, or until i find a better guy." In general. Contrasted to male love which is measured in sweat, tears, and blood.
If we really want to play the gender superiority game--as you seem to want to--then you should integrate the hundreds of thousands of men, arguably hundreds of millions, who have died for women. Try finding a woman who would die for her lover. You'll be looking a long time. But one quick Google search, and you'll find a hundred men who died for their wives or girlfriends.
Given the way you write, even if a man died for you on the spot, you'd probably still call him an asshole.
Women are not somehow glorious creatures of angelic purity. They're human. Just like the rest of us. So get the fuck off your high horse and join us in reality. Blaming men for everything. Do you have any sense of personal responsibility? Do you really think that not one instance of divorce or female-cheating was initiated because a woman was like, "later bitch, I'm gonna fuck a rich guy." Or, "I only married you so i could divorce you and take half your shit."? No? It's all because men are assholes. Ooookay. Someone is astoundingly biased.
Pff. At least read correctly. "Humans have an average of 10-15 sexual partners over a lifetime." At least understand what you're arguing against, before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
"Emotional connection" for women is simply an internal measurement of male value vs egg value. Meaning, female loyalty falls far below male loyalty. It is shallow. Because, as you say, women seek that emotional connection. So, if they find a better one [e.g. a more valuable male, in whatever way she measures: money, status, etc], they either cheat or trade up. Thus the high rate of female-initiated divorce. It's scientific fact, for instance, that women have many more orgasms with rich men. That's what women are born to seek.
Its not because males are assholes. Its because women are self-absorbed assholes.
Female love is superficial and self-serving, entirely based upon the resources she receives. In general. "Till death do us part, or until i find a better guy." In general. Contrasted to male love which is measured in sweat, tears, and blood.
If we really want to play the gender superiority game--as you seem to want to--then you should integrate the hundreds of thousands of men, arguably hundreds of millions, who have died for women. Try finding a woman who would die for her lover. You'll be looking a long time. But one quick Google search, and you'll find a hundred men who died for their wives or girlfriends.
Given the way you write, even if a man died for you on the spot, you'd probably still call him an asshole.
Women are not somehow glorious creatures of angelic purity. They're human. Just like the rest of us. So get the fuck off your high horse and join us in reality. Blaming men for everything. Do you have any sense of personal responsibility? Do you really think that not one instance of divorce or female-cheating was initiated because a woman was like, "later bitch, I'm gonna fuck a rich guy." Or, "I only married you so i could divorce you and take half your shit."? No? It's all because men are assholes. Ooookay. Someone is astoundingly biased.
Pff. At least read correctly. "Humans have an average of 10-15 sexual partners over a lifetime." At least understand what you're arguing against, before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
You are wrong on many accounts, you are not worth my time for me to go into detail as to where and how you are wrong. Anyway, you seem to have a big chip on your shoulder against women. And fyi, I have never said women are superior to men, or men superior to women, but that is the way you have interpreted so that says a lot about you and your weak points. I don't know about your country, but in my country lots and lots of women are educated and financially stable. Blocking you as you are a complete asshole who is narcissistic and on here simply for an argument with others. Get a heart and stop putting all women in the same low category! Go to hell.
@IrretrievableObito: 🤢 - for you. you make me want to throw up.
Brassm0nk3y · 36-40, F
Tatsumi · 31-35, M
@okaybut: True, but I meant from the female perspective and OP's specific biological reasoning for why a woman would only want one man.
Even so, there are still multiple men who are with one woman, today. And there would be various reasons as to why a man would share. Perhaps he sees her genes as superior to all other women, and simply having the chance to be with her would be better than banging out a bunch of inferior offspring. Or, perhaps he is insecure in his own ability to take care of a child and thinks it best to enlist the help of another man. And, over time, she could have multiple children, anyhow.
Then, there are also still people. It would certainly be more rare than multiple women with a single man, but it still happens.
But, main point is from a female perspective, wouldn't it be better to have multiple providers and protectors for her child?
Even so, there are still multiple men who are with one woman, today. And there would be various reasons as to why a man would share. Perhaps he sees her genes as superior to all other women, and simply having the chance to be with her would be better than banging out a bunch of inferior offspring. Or, perhaps he is insecure in his own ability to take care of a child and thinks it best to enlist the help of another man. And, over time, she could have multiple children, anyhow.
Then, there are also still people. It would certainly be more rare than multiple women with a single man, but it still happens.
But, main point is from a female perspective, wouldn't it be better to have multiple providers and protectors for her child?
Brassm0nk3y · 36-40, F
I think it's preference most of all. But personally I would only want one man helping me raise an offspring. Not two. And I agree with okaybut. The person who provides the offspring would ultimately win on a biological level. Why would the man who could have other women all day long, stick around to be a third wheel, exhausting his resources to take care of another mans child while there are plenty of options to have his own offspring and pack or family so to speak. He would also have to constantly compete for alpha male title.. Again it's all preference every situation is different all people have their own opinions of what's ideal and what isn't,
UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M
@Brassm0nk3y: I mean, if we go back to tribal humanity then it was generally not a one-on-one thing, it was multiple females with multiple males existing as a community. Evidence seems to suggest that there were primarily monogamous pairings but that they were likely short-lived(early human societies had a lot of this, so it probably goes back further) and tended to end once pregnancy had finished, birth was given and the previous suitor had been out-competed by someone else.
In the modern day, though, the social dynamics of it all are very different. And at no point ever was anyone thinking "Boy, I gotta get some of my [i]genes[/i] up in there!" Genetics play an evolutionary role but there is no active logical role that genes play in social dynamics beyond their affects on passivity and aggressiveness. One of the standing theories for the rise of genetics that promote homosexuality(not [i]make[/i] you homosexual, but cause you to be [i]inclined toward it[/i]) is that the genes which cause this also increase empathy and having homosexual members of the group allows for a group of stronger empathic parental figures which are not debilitated for several months at a time by pregnancy.
In the modern day, though, the social dynamics of it all are very different. And at no point ever was anyone thinking "Boy, I gotta get some of my [i]genes[/i] up in there!" Genetics play an evolutionary role but there is no active logical role that genes play in social dynamics beyond their affects on passivity and aggressiveness. One of the standing theories for the rise of genetics that promote homosexuality(not [i]make[/i] you homosexual, but cause you to be [i]inclined toward it[/i]) is that the genes which cause this also increase empathy and having homosexual members of the group allows for a group of stronger empathic parental figures which are not debilitated for several months at a time by pregnancy.
UndeadPrivateer · 31-35, M
SW-User
Not read the article.
But yeah, men are biologically predisposed to spreading their seed. (the seed does not seem to know we are already overpopulated). And women are biologically predisposed to nurturing the offspring.
The sexual arrangements are all conditioned and learned behaviour. Including monogamy.
But yeah, men are biologically predisposed to spreading their seed. (the seed does not seem to know we are already overpopulated). And women are biologically predisposed to nurturing the offspring.
The sexual arrangements are all conditioned and learned behaviour. Including monogamy.
rottenrobi · 56-60, F
Brassm0nk3y · 36-40, F
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 46-50, M
You need to interview a 2nd rate actress to find that out?