Hypergamy is NOT natural

[druid]

Hypergamy isn't natural because it is a mathematical consequence of Lust, lust isn't natural neither as it is only a perversion of natural sexual desire.

Saying hypergamy is natural is the same as saying masturbation is natural, the fact that both happen in nature doesn't make them natural since naturality is defined by what a specie ought to be doing at the best of his function and well being not of what it does impulsively. But you may ask then how come hypergamy happens so easily?

To understand this one must accept that naturality isn't impulse>reason, it is impulse+reason, which means laws are an extention of human nature, when you cancel laws and deem reason as unnatural you leave the impulse dominate. The apollonian is full human nature, the dionysiac is disordered and incomplite human nature rapresented only by insticts.

When the impulses dominate sexuality it turns to lust, but here's the difference between men and women:
women have far less libido meaning that on average women can go more time without active sex (at least initially)

therefore they can permit themselves to wait and select more, this is indeed natural and is tied to biological functions to preserve pregnancy either for the best time or the best person possible,

But My True Point is that what this ends up causing is not natural,

When left unchecked by enforced rules to stop lust and to check in people in monogamous marriages, it all ends up creating hypergamy as all of you know.

This happens only when marriage is not there and is not enforced,

As it is scientifically proven, women tend to tie to who takes their virginity even more than men due to the release of specific hormones which deeply tie psychologically and biologically to the partner taking their virginity, especially if there's insemination,

Over time this bound becomes stronger and stronger leading up to the true nature of humans (marriage, especially monogamous marriage),

This is impossible in modern society tho ,due to the highly lustful impulses that are not only incorrected but also incentivized,

Therefore as for women it manifests in hypergamy and extreme vainglory, in men it manifests as chronic masturbation.

It is "proven" even though through correlation that couples in monogamous marriages are more psychologically deemed as "happy" have a much healthier life by medical parameters and have a longer lifespan than both "single" people (even if isolating only women to not screw the average) and polygamous people,

This corrispondes to Aristotle's idea of happiness tied to Telos(natural fulfillment) instead of impulsive raw joy.

Therefore we can pretty safely claim that patriarchy and enforced monogamy isn't just good for society mechanistically speaking but it is Also Natural.

 

[Krami2020]

How can you say that lust is a perversion of natural sexual desire? The word natural itself is bound by the society that enforces this normality. For example right now in western society what's natural could be cheating around or whatever degeneracy, while 100 years ago it was monogamy and commitment to a partner. That's why you can't say that lust is perversion of natural sexual desire because natural itself does not exist and is simply a representation of society as a whole. Although I agree with you that partners generally are happier through commiting to one relationship due to psychological connection aka oxytocin release, I still believe that hypergamy is a natural thing. All throughout humanity women had to marry someone that can protect and provide for them leading to sometimes polygamy and hypergamy, although I agree that unchecked social rules do cause hypergamy and of course social media and exposure to a wider variety of men, I still believe that hypergamy as an idea has been prevalent throughout all of human society

 

[druid]

How can you say that lust is a perversion of natural sexual desire? The word natural itself is bound by the society that enforces this normality. For example right now in western society what's natural could be cheating around or whatever degeneracy, while 100 years ago it was monogamy and commitment to a partner. That's why you can't say that lust is perversion of natural sexual desire because natural itself does not exist and is simply a representation of society as a whole. Although I agree with you that partners generally are happier through commiting to one relationship due to psychological connection aka oxytocin release, I still believe that hypergamy is a natural thing. All throughout humanity women had to marry someone that can protect and provide for them leading to sometimes polygamy and hypergamy, although I agree that unchecked social rules do cause hypergamy and of course social media and exposure to a wider variety of men, I still believe that hypergamy as an idea has been prevalent throughout all of human society

No because natural≠normal, normality changes with society nature stays fixed, you gotta understand the difference between an impulse and full human nature, what we think as natural in classical philosophy would be called Dyonisiac (caothic and based only on impulses not necessarily long term fulfilling of the goal of our organism/mind/soul), before late modernity natural meant apollonian or telos(goal) reaching it meant that what was natural was the fulfillment of the function of the object/subject, for example the function of the sword is to cut so it is "natural" for it to be sharp, as for humans they have a low instinct that is like the stick of a blind person with which they can touch the ground that stick is called pleasure, when you rely only on that and don't use your higher senses you lose your way when instead of using sex to reproduce or emotionally tie in a marriage you use it only for pleasure, you are perverting it's function. Tell me what you think

 

[druid]

How can you say that lust is a perversion of natural sexual desire? The word natural itself is bound by the society that enforces this normality. For example right now in western society what's natural could be cheating around or whatever degeneracy, while 100 years ago it was monogamy and commitment to a partner. That's why you can't say that lust is perversion of natural sexual desire because natural itself does not exist and is simply a representation of society as a whole. Although I agree with you that partners generally are happier through commiting to one relationship due to psychological connection aka oxytocin release, I still believe that hypergamy is a natural thing. All throughout humanity women had to marry someone that can protect and provide for them leading to sometimes polygamy and hypergamy, although I agree that unchecked social rules do cause hypergamy and of course social media and exposure to a wider variety of men, I still believe that hypergamy as an idea has been prevalent throughout all of human society

Hypergamy has always been there but has always been blocked in civilizations because it is the destructive effect of uncontrolled lust in women

 

[Krami2020]

No because natural≠normal, normality changes with society nature stays fixed, you gotta understand the difference between an impulse and full human nature, what we think as natural in classical philosophy would be called Dyonisiac (caothic and based only on impulses not necessarily long term fulfilling of the goal of our organism/mind/soul), before late modernity natural meant apollonian or telos(goal) reaching it meant that what was natural was the fulfillment of the function of the object/subject, for example the function of the sword is to cut so it is "natural" for it to be sharp, as for humans they have a low instinct that is like the stick of a blind person with which they can touch the ground that stick is called pleasure, when you rely only on that and don't use your higher senses you lose your way when instead of using sex to reproduce or emotionally tie in a marriage you use it only for pleasure, you are perverting it's function. Tell me what you think

Thats an interesting view point but I believe that sex is both naturally for reproduction and also for physical or mental pleasure, if that was not the case our brain wouldn't release those feel good hormones although it can be argued for that reproduction's driving force is those feel good hormones so that humans dont go extinct I think thats just interpretation as we cant really say that, which is why fulfilling those physical and mental pleasure is not necessarily an evil thing, also true hypergamy has been blocked or censored in humanity and our society only reinforces/adds on to hypergamy but still hypergamy has been a thing whether it was supressed throughout society. Through your viewpoint if hypergamy IS natural and is repressed through society wouldn't it be a negative thing that woman's natural feelings are being supressed although I may have misunderstood a lot of words you used i was unfamiliar with so I wouldn't mind if you were to enlighten me

 

[druid]

Thats an interesting view point but I believe that sex is both naturally for reproduction and also for physical or mental pleasure, if that was not the case our brain wouldn't release those feel good hormones although it can be argued for that reproduction's driving force is those feel good hormones so that humans dont go extinct I think thats just interpretation as we cant really say that, which is why fulfilling those physical and mental pleasure is not necessarily an evil thing, also true hypergamy has been blocked or censored in humanity and our society only reinforces/adds on to hypergamy but still hypergamy has been a thing whether it was supressed throughout society. Through your viewpoint if hypergamy IS natural and is repressed through society wouldn't it be a negative thing that woman's natural feelings are being supressed although I may have misunderstood a lot of words you used i was unfamiliar with so I wouldn't mind if you were to enlighten

Hypergamy is not natural, women don't actually feel happy with it they like it like a kid likes candies full of unhealty sugar avoiding the candies to get fruits is not repressing the desire but fulfilling it, same thing women getting into marriages even if initially forced are later more fulfilled (I wait to be proven wrong if there are more data), I agree that feelings are not bad they are very good but they nees to be incanalated not suppressed or let wild, feelings are given by nature for good purposes but reason has been given too we are to use both to fulfill our nature and be happy, I have studied classical philosophy instead of limiting on "enlightment" which is a conflicting view with most of human history, the greeks had the god of chaos Dyonisius who represented raw instinct and matter, they used to make dyonisiac parties in which they went wild drank all the night had orgies and violence, that synthetizes briefly what Dyonisius is, Apollo was the god of the sun he represented reason guiding insicts to fulfillment, Apollo is not shown as a mechanistic person opressing feelings and desires he is shown as radiant because he guides them, telos is what we could call "deep purpose" reaching your telos comes with a feeling of deep happiness (not just joy but a happiness so deep that one day you can be sad and crying while still feeling happy inside) this happiness feels like a full satisfaction in life, Aristotle talks about it in his book "Nichomachean Ethics", a modern philosopher Alasaidir Maclntyre talks about something similair in "After Virtue" I'm not telling you "go read them" I just want to give you the sources in general, modernity has perverted the meaning of "nature" by calling so only what is Dyonisiac, while most of people in history called natural what was Apollonian

 

[Krami2020]

Hypergamy is not natural, women don't actually feel happy with it they like it like a kid likes candies full of unhealty sugar avoiding the candies to get fruits is not repressing the desire but fulfilling it, same thing women getting into marriages even if initially forced are later more fulfilled (I wait to be proven wrong if there are more data), I agree that feelings are not bad they are very good but they nees to be incanalated not suppressed or let wild, feelings are given by nature for good purposes but reason has been given too we are to use both to fulfill our nature and be happy, I have studied classical philosophy instead of limiting on "enlightment" which is a conflicting view with most of human history, the greeks had the god of chaos Dyonisius who represented raw instinct and matter, they used to make dyonisiac parties in which they went wild drank all the night had orgies and violence, that synthetizes briefly what Dyonisius is, Apollo was the god of the sun he represented reason guiding insicts to fulfillment, Apollo is not shown as a mechanistic person opressing feelings and desires he is shown as radiant because he guides them, telos is what we could call "deep purpose" reaching your telos comes with a feeling of deep happiness (not just joy but a happiness so deep that one day you can be sad and crying while still feeling happy inside) this happiness feels like a full satisfaction in life, Aristotle talks about it in his book "Nichomachean Ethics", a modern philosopher Alasaidir Maclntyre talks about something similair in "After Virtue" I'm not telling you "go read them" I just want to give you the sources in general, modernity has perverted the meaning of "nature" by calling so only what is Dyonisiac, while most of people in history called natural what was Apollonian

True for the first part about candies but is it not true that the treats still must exist to show the importance of the healthy alternatives? Like you get what im tryna say also yea I understand your point now and it is indeed logical I believe in the same thing almost when it comes to my belief in God which is that supressing my short term desires leads to long term fulfillment both in life and in the afterlife. Which is the reason why God commands us to do things not because he needs them but because they are good for us the supression of human "instincts" for the benefit of man I can definitely understand the viewpoint and I understand what your getting at but still I think that it is irrational and I guess impossible to fully supress hypergamy (not giving the candy to begin with) just because people will feel supressed yk its kinda how gender roles lead to people feeling more content because they didn't have the need to choose what to do it was already chosen for them but still people wanted freedom and now it leads to less contentment lower birthrate and more depressed and incels as a causation of this so idk how this could realistically be implimented and also yes it is true that studies show that people who are in long term commited relationships tend to be happier but still there will be many many outliers who find happiness in sleeping around and doing fuck all this could be because of society, testosterone or just simply personality so if even still this could be implemented a system where hypergamy is purged people will still not be content and there will still be problems I guess

 

[dumbozhina]

"true human nature" itself is a construct from a nominalist perspective. it merely represents your view of how human should live. by defining what's natural, u at the same define what "perversion" is.
the only argument i see is the vague "monogamy makes ppl happy" which i really doubt.

 

[druid]

True for the first part about candies but is it not true that the treats still must exist to show the importance of the healthy alternatives? Like you get what im tryna say also yea I understand your point now and it is indeed logical I believe in the same thing almost when it comes to my belief in God which is that supressing my short term desires leads to long term fulfillment both in life and in the afterlife. Which is the reason why God commands us to do things not because he needs them but because they are good for us the supression of human "instincts" for the benefit of man I can definitely understand the viewpoint and I understand what your getting at but still I think that it is irrational and I guess impossible to fully supress hypergamy (not giving the candy to begin with) just because people will feel supressed yk its kinda how gender roles lead to people feeling more content because they didn't have the need to choose what to do it was already chosen for them but still people wanted freedom and now it leads to less contentment lower birthrate and more depressed and incels as a causation of this so idk how this could realistically be implimented and also yes it is true that studies show that people who are in long term commited relationships tend to be happier but still there will be many many outliers who find happiness in sleeping around and doing fuck all this could be because of society, testosterone or just simply personality so if even still this could be implemented a system where hypergamy is purged people will still not be content and there will still be problems I guess

Yes the temptation is always there but actually getting to that system is easy it has to be implemented slowly tho. In the most "extreme" case just look at afghanistan before and after the taliban and I think in less than 20 years if we had power (which we won't have) we could implement patriarchy first by starting to slowly get women out of the job market second by making divorce increasingly difficult/impossible to achieve third by taxing who has no children

 

[druid]

"true human nature" itself is a construct from a nominalist perspective. it merely represents your view of how human should live. by defining what's natural, u at the same define what "perversion" is.
the only argument i see is the vague "monogamy makes ppl happy" which i really doubt.

I disagree strongly I think you're part of that line of thought who thinks that since theory and reality don't match perfectly than there is no objective truth about humanity/human nature, that is not a logical conclusion everybody can see what a dick and a pussy exist for denying that they have a function is complete madness

 

[dumbozhina]

theory and reality don't match perfectly than there is no objective truth about humanity/human nature

it is expected when u have a theory, u could support it.
i don't see any. i am ok with a good, sound hypothesis.
u just defined what's natural for human beings, and u admit ppl don't behave this way, then u just claimed that ppl don't behave this way since they are preverted, or sinned in christian terms. this is cyclic argument. like i said, the only proof u provided is "monogamy is natural since it makes ppl happy" which is suspicious at best.
ofc u are here to support christian ethics. but since christian is a minority here, u cant use god to support it. in the end it turns out u cant really support ur position without resorting to "god commanded it"

 

[dumbozhina]

why should we accept the dionysian and apollonian dichotomy anyways... hindus have 6 categories, chinese have eight, etc, etc.
even if we accept that, why is apollonian "more natural" than dionysian? at best u can argue that apollonian is better for ppl long term. but "better" here merely reflects your understanding of how ppl should live their life. without resorting to god u cant support ur view.

 

[druid]

it is expected when u have a theory, u could support it.
i don't see any. i am ok with a good, sound hypothesis.
u just defined what's natural for human beings, and u admit ppl don't behave this way, then u just claimed that ppl don't behave this way since they are preverted, or sinned in christian terms. this is cyclic argument. like i said, the only proof u provided is "monogamy is natural since it makes ppl happy" which is suspicious at best.
ofc u are here to support christian ethics. but since christian is a minority here, u cant use god to support it. in the end it turns out u cant really support ur position without resorting to "god commanded it"

Because I was tryna pass a point I already said that what is natural for modernity is dyonisiach but it isn't actually natural, I'm marking the difference between telos and impulse that's my aurgument which you seem to ignore, women want to be in relationships deeply and men are hypergamous too the main reason of higher hypergamy in women is their lower libido which in lustful society translates in harems while for men doesn't due to a higher libido that is the only natural thing but what comes later is an entirely mathematical unnatural state as it is shown by the low psychological fulfillment of the part takers in hypergamy and harems confronted with monogamous marriages, idk how to write it better, I'm orthodox, aristotelian ethics is mostly tied to catholicism and aristotelian ethics was central for all of ancient times not just medieval, to me it seems that you're putting the horse behind the vagon, I'm not supporting christian ethics because I am christian, I am christian because I recognize christian ethics logically, I was atheistic for many years and I don't expect God to give me heaven or any consolation, I'm just saying what is true.

 

[druid]

why should we accept the dionysian and apollonian dichotomy anyways... hindus have 6 categories, chinese have eight, etc, etc.
even if we accept that, why is apollonian "more natural" than dionysian? at best u can argue that apollonian is better for ppl long term. but "better" here merely reflects your understanding of how ppl should live their life. without resorting to god u cant support ur view.

Apollonian is better because it is complete, the dychotomy is pretty much the same in most of philosophies since it is a clinality of different senses to reach the "natural" goal of the being, you cannot call fully human a dead body with a very developed structure (ik bad example I'll write better later) so you cannot call fully natural something about a natural being that is only partial if anything you gotta prove that only the dyonisiac is natural since by the same abjective of "natural" we should linguistically accept the whole of the creature to understand it not just one part

 

[druid]

why should we accept the dionysian and apollonian dichotomy anyways... hindus have 6 categories, chinese have eight, etc, etc.
even if we accept that, why is apollonian "more natural" than dionysian? at best u can argue that apollonian is better for ppl long term. but "better" here merely reflects your understanding of how ppl should live their life. without resorting to god u cant support ur view.

Let me explain you why morality is objective, if will is determined by cause and effect it means that the will searches for a goal, that goal in humans is proven to be what the person thinks subconciously is flourishing/deep happiness (why does a mother sacrifices for her own children despite the pain and the self death? Because she searches fulfillment of what she thinks the deep telos is) [I'll bring more proofs later in dettail], therefore if everything you do is motivated by this you cannot logically claim to search for something else therefore at the very least for single human there is objective morality, now if we open our eyes we can see that there is a common nature too and that also the single nature needs eachother but this is a secondary point

 

[dumbozhina]

you cannot call fully natural something about a natural being that is only partial

completeness is a normative concept that relies on certain evaluative framework .When u claim that the apollonian is more complete than the dionysian, u have already posited rational participation as a constitutive condition of completeness, which is an implicit value presupposition ,rendering the conclusion a tautology of the premise.

Because I was tryna pass a point I already said that what is natural for modernity is dyonisiach but it isn't actually natural, I'm marking the difference between telos and impulse that's my aurgument which you seem to ignore, women want to be in relationships deeply and men are hypergamous too the main reason of higher hypergamy in women is their lower libido which in lustful society translates in harems while for men doesn't due to a higher libido that is the only natural thing but what comes later is an entirely mathematical unnatural state as it is shown by the low psychological fulfillment of the part takers in hypergamy and harems confronted with monogamous marriages

u just make common mistakes in metaphysics. metaphysics is 2000 yrs ago bro...
claiming "man is ..." or "women is ...." or "women wants...." assumes fixed nature of both sexes, which in reality, do not exist. men's sexual desire or women's flow in life. men's peak in youth, women's peak in 30-40, different individual's vary...

 

[dumbozhina]

it means that the will searches for a goal, that goal in humans is proven to be what the person thinks subconciously is flourishing/deep happiness

nobodys mind operates this way. chasing a fixed goal in their life.
humans have death drives bro... how do u justify death drive or masochism.... dont dodge the problem by claiming they are "perversion".

therefore if everything you do is motivated by this you cannot logically claim to search for something else therefore at the very least for single human there is objective morality

the second therefore does not work here... u just jumped from individual to all humanities.

but this is a secondary point

that's exactly the problem with realism. discarding "secondary" and keeping the else.

 

[dumbozhina]

the dichotomy is pretty much the same in most of philosophies

i dont want to discuss anymore... u are pre-kant....
read some modern stuff bro... if u are christian start with scholastic nominalists...
metaphysics is really archaic