Blackpill Women are less monogamous than men

[Man]

There’s a discussion out there about why women may not be as inclined toward monogamy as men. Biologically, women have needed men for the past 200,000 years of human history, and even longer for our ancestors. Historically, men had higher mortality rates and controlled various aspects of reproduction and choice, making their presence crucial.

Women who formed deep emotional bonds with men may have had lower survival and reproduction rates, as they needed to be able to find new partners quickly. In contrast, animals like penguins and wolves can afford monogamy because they can survive without a provider if their partner dies.

Women typically need men for only a few years—around four in total (9 months of pregnancy plus 3 years of early child-rearing). With about 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and women initiating around 70% of those divorces, it’s clear that modern societal conditions give women the freedom to leave unsatisfactory relationships and pursue better options. Survival is no longer a factor.

In essence, the idea of monogamy may align more with male fantasies, as women may not find it practical or beneficial.

More often than not: Women dump, men get dumped.

TL;DR
Monogamy never made sense for women, in a game theory kind of way, and especially so in modernity.

 

[jackhanma]

the inverse would also be true though, monogamy is counterproductive to the male mating strategy (spread your seed as far and much as possible) and monogamy would be beneficial to women since involves investment from the man would be good for her offspring and herself.

I dont think humans are naturally monogamous in general, its just the better option to keep a civilisation going where men dont have the option to plunder women or rape.

 

[Man]

the inverse would also be true though, monogamy is counterproductive to the male mating strategy (spread your seed as far and much as possible) and monogamy would be beneficial to women since involves investment from the man would be good for her offspring and herself.

Paternal investment is only a 4 year commitment. If your partner died you’re fucked, in other words, you’d need another man to survive.

Men never had the option to spread their seed far and wide. In game theory your idea makes sense but historically a woman was more of a prize than an entitlement. If you had her you kept her otherwise you’d die alone.

 

[Jokerpilled]

water

 

[ResidentHell]

Good post, all very reasonable points concerning the biological conditions of female survivability. Plus it’s not about pursuit of better options. IMO most women seem to believe they can always find a better alternative, but there seems to be no “holy grail” for them in the real world. I think most women settle in some way, i.e., they deal with the men they prefer, but not necessarily the men they want. Women also tend to share the same men as sex partners or fathers to their children

The welfare government is now like a surrogate father to children of women who are single or women who will eventually become single. Men are no longer needed individually as a provider to a female parent. The government now fulfils that role. If the woman is single and has no provider, the government will help in providing food, education and shelter for her children at taxpayer cost

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Chimps and bonobos are both fairly promiscuous in the wild. Monogamy has always been more of a method for social control to maintain the fabric of society since the stability of large social groups rely heavily on the family unit as a central organizational group to maintain social order.

 

[Mark5336]

They're supposed to be livestock.

 

[Man]

Thanks chat GPT for revising my post

 

[Friezacel]

No monogamy for your face

 

[SociallyStupid]

I think the reason is way easier: Women have it easy to get another relationship, men don't. Thus the cost of leaving a relationship is lower for women than for men, thus they do if more often.

So I don't think it says anything about their inner motivations or fantasies relative to men's.

 

[Loner94]

Human beings aren't naturally monogamous

 

[ThisSongGoesVerHard]

True, and even without the high mortality aspect, women more than men crave a better mate and will easily abandon their partner if they can find a better one. They take longer to fall in love, they fall out of love and get tired of relationships more quickly, and they get over breakups more easily... "She isn't yours, it's just your turn."

On the other hand, men have a stronger desire for sex outside the relationship, so in that aspect they're less monogamous. But men on average have an easier time at detaching sex from romance, so a dude is more likely to have sex with another woman and still have feelings for the woman he's romantically involved with. This makes sense biologically since it increases his chances at reproduction while keeping the risk low because the man won't get pregnant.

Humans aren't perfectly monogamous, just like most animals we call monogamous, but I'd say that we're still mostly monogamous and most people want a relationship with 1 person at a time.

Chimps and bonobos are both fairly promiscuous in the wild. Monogamy has always been more of a method for social control to maintain the fabric of society since the stability of large social groups rely heavily on the family unit as a central organizational group to maintain social order.

They're our closest relatives but that doesn't necessarily mean anything, we're different in many ways and we have different reproductive strategies. Out of all apes we're closer to gibbons and siamangs when it comes to relationships, as they are mostly monogamous. They also occasionally cheat and even "divorce" their partners.


It's unfortunate that we evolved to be this way instead of being strictly monogamous. All the increased reproductive fitness due to cheating, monkey branching, harems, and like op said, being able to move from a relationship because your partner died, led to human's messy romantic lives. The only solution would be genetic engineering.

 

[BPJ]

times have changed, soycieties tend to pander towards women, so they can afford to opt out of marriages whenever they want and they do.
this is also due to technological advances, which have created more diverse career opportunities for women, which further liberates them from
male protection ( besides a strong state as a support)
its usually the women that initiate divorces and dump their partners, so this factually proves OP right, despite some good arguments made about promiscuity being the more beneficial male dating strategy

 

[Punished Watcher]

What was it at the dawn of man? 17 women per one alpha Chad male? So the other 16 guys had to build civilization just to impress women. It worked for awhile, but now thanks to women's lib we've reverted to our natural state. Women are content to share Chad. We are the other 16 males.

 

[Papers Please]

Honestly monogamy makes sense for a woman… when she is with a Chad. Otherwise she would be polyamorous with a guy she knows can’t do better than her. In both cases she is really is countering what is ideal for the man, rather than actually having a self interest.

 

[faded]

There’s a discussion out there about why women may not be as inclined toward monogamy as men. Biologically, women have needed men for the past 200,000 years of human history, and even longer for our ancestors. Historically, men had higher mortality rates and controlled various aspects of reproduction and choice, making their presence crucial.

Women who formed deep emotional bonds with men may have had lower survival and reproduction rates, as they needed to be able to find new partners quickly. In contrast, animals like penguins and wolves can afford monogamy because they can survive without a provider if their partner dies.

Women typically need men for only a few years—around four in total (9 months of pregnancy plus 3 years of early child-rearing). With about 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and women initiating around 70% of those divorces, it’s clear that modern societal conditions give women the freedom to leave unsatisfactory relationships and pursue better options. Survival is no longer a factor.

In essence, the idea of monogamy may align more with male fantasies, as women may not find it practical or beneficial.


View attachment 1226729
More often than not: Women dump, men get dumped.

TL;DR
Monogamy never made sense for women, in a game theory kind of way, and especially so in modernity.

I want get girl pregnant!

 

[Man]

Talked to friends recently, they were talking about the girls they fuck around with. If that conversation was anything to go by, like half of women are unfaithful. That’s just the women they knew about.

Stats show about 1/4 are unfaithful by survey, and if half of the unfaithful are untruthful (not hard to believe) then that about matches their experience. Brutal to think half of women can’t even stay faithful, it’s enough that the remaining half probably don’t even want to be faithful either, or at least have seriously considered infidelity.

 

[Balding Subhuman]

Of course women don't like monogamy, because why get a chump betabuxxer when you could be part of Chad's harem? And that's what women prefer. They'd rather be Chad's little cumdump than settle with an average man. They only pick the average man when they need to get their bills paid.

 

[littlemanhikicel]

Brutal. I enjoy when those normies get dumped and then become redpillers, at least they taste a little of desperation in their privileged lives.

 

[_meh]

I've always just thought of women being their own 'Chads,' they have plenty of options themselves as well. They're always constantly comparing the multiple potential dating partners they have. Always another guy for them in the corner, which is why they don't often experience those long dry spells normie-like guys face with.