Monogamy

I would be the last to deny the promiscuous nature of man.
It is evident that many of the failings of modern-day coupling and marriage is due to the fact that it is imposed upon an instinctive beast that has little ability to control self through the intellect and must be coerced, threatened or rewarded and/or indoctrinated into a moral dogma in order to remain disciplined and
moderate.
Common man, governed by a need that emerges in times of indigence, has carried this superfluity like a camel carries its hump into a luscious rainforest.
This doctrine of excess, which forces out behaviors of gluttony, is an expression of undiscriminating tastes and subdued palates that are more interested in quantity than quality.

The practice of suppressing sexual drives, that sometimes threaten social order and harmony, has been a deciding factor in the emergence of civilizations and complex human economic and cultural structures. It enables the full participation of males/females in the system and the full investment of these males/females in the system itself that turns them from rebellious vagabonds or indifferent observers into defenders and guardians of the norm.
This imposition of monogamy on a polygamous species has been successful, or relatively so, mostly through the utilization of institutional authority and the restriction of female sexual choices. But I am going to defend and describe a spontaneously emerging form of monogamy that is not a product of moral and cultural force or paternalistic social order but more a product of refined tastes and noble predispositions.

It would be remiss of me to neglect to state that the creation of distinction and refinement could only happen, ironically, in times of superfluity and in ages of abundance, for in times of poverty all, by necessity, become ascetics and minimalists and it is leisure that often results in heightened awareness and wisdom.

This spiritual refinement that is shaped by hypersensitivity and an overabundance of inner strength leads to a discriminating palate and a pickiness that should not be misconstrued for snobbery or pretentiousness; this discriminating taste that leads to some form of monogamy should not also be misjudged as another instance of the common form of monogamy that is more a
result of moral imperatives, hypocrisy and socio-economic pressures as well as cultural conformity than anything else.

Since metaphor and allegory are the best ways to become precise while still remaining discreet and indirect I begin by encapsulating my perspective of this more noble form of monogamy with symbolism:
Let us then take wine as a substitute for mating, since it is an unnecessary aspect of individual survival, as sex is, while still retaining the attraction and sweetness associated with coupling.

The common man, with his unsophisticated tastes, gluttony-sometimes reaching the proportions of alcoholism-and insensitive tongue, may find that all wines are the same or similar enough to not make great differentiations, and all that really is at stake here, for him, is access and availability. In other words, the average man wants wine on his table-if it is his preferred beverage- as a sign of affluence or happiness or conformity and its quality, its distinctive bouquet, the year and the region it was harvested in, is of no or little importance to him. For him the experience of wine drinking is merely encompassed in the general sensation of
swallowing and tasting its broad and obvious aroma and in the inevitable highspirits it results in. Any bottle will do, within reason, from any time and from any place, and large quantities of it are preferred so that his greedy needs are met, his belly and ego are engorged and his needs momentarily placated.
But for a refined palate, one that can discern nuance and subtlety, not all wines are created equal. His discriminating tastes are not a consequence of pretentious snobbery and feigned aristocracy but a result of an oversensitive taste-bud and a hypersensitive nose. He cannot ignore, no matter how much he may try, the faint fragrances, the quiet bouquets, the textures, the aftertastes or the colorations of each Olympian nectar; for him the wines history, its symbolism and art are just as relevant as its simple drinking. He may drink an inferior fermented grape, from time to time so as to not insult a host or as to not make an unwarranted fuss, but
given a choice he will prefer abstinence from indulging in pigswill and fire-water.

The refined palate, therefore, will choose asceticism rather than to debase and degrade one self by settling for inferior products and individuals just to quell an inner instinctive need or desire. He will see any submission to his hunger and thirst, which often demand compromises of great proportion, as a defeat, as an insult to self and a loss of dignity that is often felt in hindsight.
We must keep in mind again that this refined taste is not an act of conceit but a product of awareness. It stems from this extreme sensual perceptiveness [hypersensitivity] that is inescapable, as no man can blind himself to what he sees or ignore for long what he hears, and it also stems from a deeper appreciation of emotions and of self. It is an appearance of pride we call nobility.

What a common man calls ‘love’, ‘compassion’, ‘loyalty’, ‘responsibility’, ‘commitment’ and ‘empathy’ pales in comparison to what a noble mind understands them to be.
If we are to understand hypersensitivity or awareness or refinement we must here use, once more, some figurative symbolism.
Two men walk into a room in which a party is going on. The first is a common, average man for whom the scene is a joyful one, full of smiling faces, mirth, clinking glasses, the din of happy conversation, the smells of food, all engulfed in a kaleidoscope of pleasant background music and dazzling lights.
The second, “suffering” from hypersensitivity, perceives a totally different scene.
He sees what the first man sees but also so much more. He sees a momentary frown, a glance, a stolen kiss, a discreet touch, a smirk; he hears a sarcastic giggle, a stomach churning, a door slam; he smells perfume, cologne and sweat; he knows who’s had a little too much to drink, who is walking with a limp, who’s talking with whom, who wore mismatched socks today, who just hit on
someone’s wife and so on.

It is possible for two individuals to experience the same thing but perceive it on different levels, levels of lucidity if you will.
It is this lucidity that gives reality, life and emotions more substance for the noble man. His love is more precious to him and not something he gives out lightly, his compassion is more profound, his loyalty more true, his friendship more deep and weighted down with meaning and not mere words he flings around to appear
civilized and moral or to ensure another’s respect.
This noble man of refined tastes takes responsibility seriously and that’s why he enters it so rarely, he takes commitment more austerely and that is why he rarely commits. For him love/hate, loyalty/betrayal, compassion/cruelty, mean so much
more than for the common man that enters relationships of enmity or cooperation blindly and full of insincere innocence, delusional confidence and naïve hope derived from an absence of awareness or an inability to self-discipline.

That’s why Christianity and Democracy, or any ideology that institutionalizes emotions and behaviors, is an anathema to him. Compassion and love are precious things to a noble mind; precious things beyond measure that are offered only to the worthy and to those that have earned his trust and loyalty and that is why his emotions are so much more weighty and meaningful and not just words that lead to ephemeral commitments of need.
Common love relationships often begin with an attraction based on superficial
criteria.
A man may just be attracted to a woman’s ass, to her full bosom or wavy hair, a woman to a tall, dark and handsome man or a rich man or a man of status and so soon reality will disenchant them from their fantasies about how things could
be or should be.
Sometimes shallow relationships are a product of physical needs and social imperatives that force two people into each others spaces for better or for worst, often the second more than the first. Shallow choices lead to shallow lives where often the sense of something missing is felt and one blames the other or conditions but rarely ones judgment, original choices and criteria of evaluation.
So errors are repeated, over and over and over again.
In comparison noble love relationships are more difficult to find and so much more valuable.

It is difficult enough to nourish nobility and remain noble at all in such a world of superficiality and vulgar narrowness, it is rare that the right genetic and environmental circumstances will arise in an individual at all and that the right
balance of strength and consciousness will coincide in a single entity, so two noble spirits finding each other is a rare thing indeed, especially when one considers their solitary and shy nature.
This is what makes them precious and an exemplification of idealistic romantic
love.
Their rarity and value is due to the fact that they are based on more than just mere lust but exhibit a spiritual interconnectedness where two people become
united in more than a physical way, although the physical is always the first connection. Here the mind takes precedence and decides when to suppress or express desire and need, when to expose or hide vulnerability and strength, when to love, commit and remain loyal because only it can comprehend the full breadth and depth of the issues involved.

This nobility of spirit, this refinement of taste forces the individual endowed with it, into some uncomfortable choices: Either find solace in solitude and asceticism through the denial of instinct, as many sages have done, so that no compromises are made and no loss of self worth ensues or search and wait for that single one, that diamond in the dirt that lives up to heightened standards and meets reality eye-to-eye, that gives as much as it takes and understands the entirety of what commitment, loyalty, trust, compassion and finally love entails.

Only nobility can truly love whereas a common man merely lusts and covets.

An interesting exposition of how and why superfluity, as we experience it in modern systems, creates more alienation, accentuates the lack, present in all existence.
Man feeds the symptom, and leaves the dis-ease intact.

With all this abundance, is modern man "happier", healthier?
With all this information available is modern man wise than the ancients, more "full"?
With all this free flowing love/lust, is modern man content, does he love himself, to begin with, more?  

The mind that knows not itself, seeks in all a gratification.
Gratification becomes its end, because it cannot reach at the source of the need.
When the past is ridiculed, or dismissed as "done with", then what is left in the immediate sensation of need/suffering.
Dealing with that because an easy consistent feeding, where the act is the goal, and has no connection to anything besides that momentary satisfaction, that negation of the sensation which comes to us through the past.

The association of choice with freedom is, for the modern mind, a disassociation of self from past, nature.
Any limit presented by this past, this inherited spirit, is a link in a chain, restricting its infinite options.
It indulges in sampling to feel that sense of liberation from the austerity of existence.

In the area of human bonding, mating, the limits imposed by the very nature of sex, are an issue to be overcome.
The modern considers an intimate bond, a prison cell.
The modern associates "giving one's self" to another, as a bondage.

Promiscuity as it evolves, as reproductive method, is a result of weakness.
The organism samples, spreads its options, so as to have one or two attain a fruition.
The environment with its chaotic unpredictability, makes the organism vulnerable to its power. To compensate the organism spreads itself, trying to cover spatial ground, hoping to deal with its temporal limitations.
     

For the sexes the mind/body dichotomy manifests in different ways, in relation to intimacy, sexual options, relationship towards otherness.

For the man a woman is a means.
If he is average his options are many, and all are equally satisfactory.
His only issue is his physical burdens, the past imposing limits upon his need's gratifications.
A man is easily pleased, in this area.

For an above average male, the options may be unsatisfactory, but he will make use of whatever he can find, restricted as he also is by his past/nature, and the culture, the socioeconomic environment, he is forced to function within.
He may seek the above average, but also be aware that he may not find it, and if he does that it may not present itself to him as willing.
 
For a woman, a man is a possibility, to become a means for.
She is the one who appreciates merit and gives it an avenue to express itself, in time/space.

The end in both cases is an object/objective, that may or may not be common....and is usually a result of culture and modern, as in current, social ideals.
Shared object/objectives are shared ideals, principles, characters.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Different, but similar, personalities, produced by past, manifesting in an organic hierarchy, create the possibility of similar character traits, attracted to the same ideals.

For the average female the situation is easy, if she is average in every way.
She integrates easier.
She has options presented to her, for her to choose, easier.
The only restriction is a cultural rule, Paternalism, that may restrict her options, while at the same time protecting them.

For the above average female, things become more difficult.
Her refined tastes find few options she would consider, if she has pride, or a high self-esteem.
She cannot make-do, as easily as a male can, because of her nature, her sexual specialization.
Options are not limited because of some force, but because of her own spirit. She cannot settle for the inferior because this would make her, by extension of her actions, less than what she esteems.
   
Finding that equal, a modern code-word, for superior, to give herself to is difficult when you belong to the upper 10% of your type's possibility scale.

Monogamy obviously is the source of civilization and society.

The ancient Greeks are said to be the ones, or one of the first human tribes, which developed the technology of marriage, to manage its own population and ultimately grow its culture. Culture, civilization, society, and monogamy are bound by one principle here. A civilizing force. Common sense solves the common questions surrounding the necessity of marriage. Why is marriage necessary? Why do arranged marriages exist? Because males are the expendable gender, and most males will not receive access to females, if not for monogamy and the subtle or overt forcing women upon these "civilized" men. Lesser, inferior men are unwanted by females. Females flock to the natural "alpha males". Their first pick. They willingly give their virginity and innocence to "the best" man. Whom they sexually desire most.

If a group of humans renounced civilization, culture, society completely, then fewer and fewer males would have sex, until ultimately just a small group of males would collect all of the women. And women would exclude the vast majority of the male population. The unwanted males, what can be compared to "effete men" or "feminized men" or "emasculated men" or "beta males, or lower on hierarchies", etc, will not reproduce. However now "the state" steps in. Classically this force was represented by christian power, "God" stepped in. Priests and moral authorities routinely 'assigned' young boys and girls to marry.

And this is most obvious in the "old world" where conservative traditions still apply the "old rules" and laws. It's easily recognizable. If a society does not assign females to males, forcing females against their will, to have sex with unwanted males, then a society will collapse into anarchy eventually. Because the anti-social elements will rise up. This is proved through male competition. After more and more unwanted males are shut out from society, they eventually band together. And 1 million unwanted males attack the system in which only 1000 males are sexually desirable. Quantity, the unwanted men, overrule through force and violence, including war, the minority of highest quality males, who begin to accumulate all the women and therefore all the sexual power of a society.

Morality is the balance that interludes and intervenes here. Liberal postmodernity can call this "population control" or even eugenics. Eugenics is the extended, evolved form of originally conceived monogamy and husbandry. Husbandry is a technology, therefore, an artifice. All artifice is defined as the opposite of natural phenomenon. Therefore morality, civilization, society, and all that comes with it, is an artifice.

Christians call the one who masterminds and takes control of this system, "matrix", metanarrative, etc. as God. God becomes represented by moral authorities which perpetuate and repeat civilizing practices, namely and specifically, of assigning marriage.

And who is assigned to marry? It is beautiful females with unwanted, expendable, undesirable, disgusting males. Needy males. Boys. Man children. The state forces a rape. And this definition of "rape" is the exact opposite of what people call rape today. Isn't it true that forcing a beautiful woman to have sex with an undesirable male, the essence of "rape"? I cannot see it another way. Giving the beautiful women their "choice" of sexual partnership, and then all the beautiful women flock to just a few men, would be the most liberal and "free" society, for women. Resulting in a Matriarchy, a plentitude and abundance of female choice. Whereas the vast majority of males become sexless, restricted from sex, and sexually unwanted.

And if these males do not suppress and repress their natural desires, if they burst out in violence as becoming much more commonplace in USA today, then males are to blame. Not females to blame. Not the state to blame. Not natural consequences to blame. But the unwanted, undesirable males, are to blame. Why not? And why not allow this social phenomenon to place, as if males should remain convinced of "gender equality" or even "human equality"? Do men truly have "rights", if not the right to sex and reproduction?

But you see, now you see, the heart of civilization. Males do not have this right. Traditionally this moral right was assigned to God. And throughout thousands of years of european history, priests and nobles assigned families to inter marry, almost always against their will. And against the will of women, who desire to release their sexual tension in the same fashion as men. Specifically against the will of beautiful women.

The overall management of this reproductive force, eugenics, monogamy, husbandry, arranged marriage, artifice of society, is what is now referred to today popularly as "secular humanism". Blacks can marry whites, against the will of whites. And desirable women ought to marry effete men, against the will of women. The civilizing effect becomes inverted, an anti civil force slowly manifests, and will one day erupt.

In liberal phenomenon, people refer to these processes as an "attack against marriage" or "attack against traditional families".

This is what is meant in its fullest sense.

There is a village within which are four families. The 1st family has a fit son. The 2nd family has a fit daughter. The 3rd family has an unfit son. The 4th family has an unfit daughter.

The fit son and daughter want to marry, have children.
The unfit girl wants to marry the fit boy.
The unfit boy wants to marry the fit girl.
Nobody wants to marry the unfit boy and girl.

If "nature" ruled here then both the fit and unfit girl would have sex with the fit boy, the unfit boy would not reproduce. The unfit girl, although she would have to sacrifice, risk, and compensate compared to the fit girl, can still reproduce relatively easily. The unfit boy is pushed out of the equation.

But "artifice" steps in. A priest from Rome enters the village. He arranges a marriage between the fit son and unfit daughter. He arranges a second marriage between the fit daughter and unfit son. The fit boy and girl do not want to have sex with the unfit children. But christianity and monogamy intervenes. This is "civilization". This is the premise and foundation of civilization. The unfit are included into society by force, not choice. It is not a choice. And the priest represents "God".

However, despite the arranged marriages, the fit boy and girl sneak off, and have children outside of the marriage rules and laws. So all children reproduce, including the unfit. But the fit still feel most sexually attracted to each other.

This is "nature" and beauty, aesthetics. The fittest types are drawn to each other. The unfit are left out. And if "artifice", civilization is removed, then the unfit are culled. In some cases in history, genocide occurs. It is not merely that the unfit son, boy, is pushed out of the realm of marriage. But he is just killed outright.

But in nature, war is rampant. And war challenges the fitness of males. Sometimes unfit males overpower and overcome fit males, using quantity over quality.

Perhaps at one point priests/shamans or other spiritual leaders (ascetics) dictated the arrangement of marriage- particularly in protestant Christian countries- but to my best knowledge, and certainly nowadays, it is the parents whom dictate the marriage of their child. I presume this is because parents have a more invested and experienced eye as to which individual would best match their child. At the end of the day parents want the best for their child. Yes this still leads to inclusion of less-refined males as people tend to congregate amongst their own social type, however I'd argue this leads to- in your parlance- fit male + fit female/ unfit male + unfit female= well defined social castes/stratas. It's only with the advent of free choice amongst the masses- especially when coupled with ideological/memetic influence- that we're beginning to see a rapid increase towards entropy in the largest portion of society. Therefore in my books the traditions of sanctity of marriage is important. But with a small number of people who actually have their heads on straight, the gulf between rule and exception will just increase. Use this to your advantage and rise above the mass.

Even when fit son + fit daughter are paired, the pairing of the unfit son + unfit daughter is still an artifice because it includes the unfit male into society.

Nature is when the unfit boy gets pushed out of society completely. Because it has "space" available for the unfit daughter, girl, not unfit males.

Certainly a discriminating taste leaves one bereft of desire for most women, even some with characteristics or traits which presuppose a certain healthy potential. Being aware of smaller, subtler degrees of distinction can help one to create something longer lasting, more grounded and with deeper, shared roots.

But is casting one’s net further always evidence of ignobility or characteristic of the ‘more primitive’? The nature of the truly great man is incredibly giving, often effortlessly. Supposing one had both the means and the character to provide stability and integrity to the fruits of his relationships.

Would it still be an overindulgence to give and have what is essentially within ones means to give and have?

Or does a higher more noble spirit yet exist? - one capable of more.

Men with a certain energy and status and strength will always meet the more noble women, the authentically beautiful. One nature draws the other towards itself and vice versa. I guess I would like to know whether you believe that a noble relationship is always constituted of two monogamous energies or whether there are circumstances where a man of a certain quality could (should? – modernity, domestication, exhaustion etc.) look to expand themselves on a genetic level? I note the many extra-marital affairs of great, noble and wealthy men throughout history (often with the knowledge of his wife): are these, to you, representative of decadence, greed, detachment? If culture was more tolerant of polygyny amongst the higher male types as was the case in antiquity, would women be more able to fulfil their sexual role? Now that technologies have made the social utility and productive capacity of lesser males less valuable in relation to the average woman and women are free to engage in sterile unproductive sex we see a return to more hierarchical sexual models. Could this be harnessed if the selection criterion for success in society was not as degenerate as it has become today? - or does such a model inevitably accelerate disharmony?

For the female, and in these feminized times for the increasing numbers of beta-male psychologies, monogamy is a cover for polygamy – another example of the divide between the public and the private man, the personæ and the character.
But it is so for many seemingly monogamous species.

From Wiki:

In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history and found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe.[1] "Sex and Culture is a work of the highest importance," Aldous Huxley wrote;

Unwin's conclusions, which are based upon an enormous wealth of carefully sifted evidence, may be summed up as follows. All human societies are in one or another of four cultural conditions: zoistic, manistic, deistic, rationalistic. Of these societies the zoistic displays the least amount of mental and social energy, the rationalistic the most. Investigation shows that the societies exhibiting the least amount of energy are those where pre-nuptial continence is not imposed and where the opportunities for sexual indulgence after marriage are greatest. The cultural condition of a society rises in exact proportion as it imposes pre-nuptial and post-nuptial restraints upon sexual opportunity.[2]

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:

The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.[3]

---------------

Also, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Neither average human males nor females are biologically wired to be monogamous, and yet, monogamy seems to be one of the prerequisites of a group's survival and progress (not in the sense so called "progressives" talk about progress)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
"Sexual Revolution means the breakdown of Paternalism and the "liberation" of feminine sexual power from the restraints of masculine power.
This "return to primal" sexual practices - feminine promiscuity - is exacerbated by institutional and technological multipliers - law, prohibiting natural masculine behaviours that evolve in response to feminine sexual power - and technologies that reduce the risks and costs of feminine promiscuity.
The effects have ben devastating.

Rome lasted over 1000 years....the American Empire will barely manage to last 400...
My estimation is that, after a second American Civil War - around 2075 - the US will fragment and completely disappear around 2175 - using the 70-60 decades as America's apex.
200 years since independence - a civil war around a century afterward - and then a decline following the same patterns in reverse - so a second Civil War about a century before its total return to dependence.
The U.S. achieved world dominance - after a brief period of a not so formidable soviet challenge - after the second world war, taking advantage of Europe's destruction. I expect it will gradually lose dominance by the middle of this century - 2040-2050 - at which time it will return to being a regional power, slowly declining towards fragmentation and assimilation into emerging power.

The destruction of the family structures in the "west" - meaning American dominated world - is a sing - symptom of the nihilistic virus, spread via a parasitical entity.
Without a family a nation state cannot replenish its human resources, forcing it to import replacements, which erode its identity.
Memes are genetically specific, viz., peoples that could not develop certain ideas/ideals, nor establish certain initiations, canto be expected to be able to maintain them when they are thrust into their midst.
This is becoming evident in the Protestant, Anglo-Sphere - ex-British commonwealth, primarily, and tis colonies, secondarily - which was the first to be infested by this virus in its present form.
The dominance of the U.S. established the dominance of these Protestant Anglo-values as dominant principles all other ethnicities ought to adopt and copy.
Protestantism is indicative of this psychology as it represents a rebellion against the original Empire - British - and the original religion - Catholicism - cultivating this attitude of rebelliousness against earthly authority - natural order. What E. Michael Jones describes in a particular way.

The emancipation of women from paternalism and from their own biology strips masculinity of its primary purpose and its natural dominance - using reason to harness nature - represented by the feminine - to a communal ideal, i.e., objective.
Females, and emasculated males, are dominated by an idea, with no external referents - nihilistic. An abstraction that alienates them form existence, via semiotics, i.e., dogmas and ideologies that symbolically, not literally, annul natural processes, beginning the process of cultural destruction; what Hindus describe as the epoch of Kali Yuga

I don't trust this Unwin character. Humans are one of the few species that suppresses its sexuality so vigorously. The normal sexuality that humans used to have very long ago, was replaced. You can be highly selective and have 2 partners or so. Being selective doesn't mean we can only select 1 mate. The point is to select a quality mate, not buy woman-animals at a shop and breed under specific restriction.

Monogamy is a technology imposing limits on male/female promiscuity to reach maximum integration: ubiquitous inventors, preventing free-radicals.

Muslims practice polygamy...as do certain sects in the US.
Civilizations cannot emerge, nor remain stable, without some form of sexual restrictions, reducing to a minimum sexual competition.

Most (European) people are serial monogamists and I mean that in the sense that most people have several sexual relationships over their lifetime which are for the most part monogamous for as long as they last. The feelings of jealousy that tend to arise in both men and women if monogamy is broken (to their detriment) makes me think that it's not just some cultural thing but a genetic disposition.

This sounds like the "seven year itch".
The theory states that a sexual relationship lasts only as long as it takes for the offspring to reach the age of independence.
In the species homo sapient this is about 7 years.
This is associated with female promiscuity...so it is females who determine when a sexual relationship is over.
Notice how the majority of divorces are instigated by the woman.


Evolutionary psychology establishes the length of female promiscuity.
Modern systems intervene to adjust this with techniques & technologies, such as institutionalized law enforcement, the contraceptives, and abortion on demand clinics.
7 years shrinks dramatically to the length of male promiscuity - parity is achieved by intervening upon feminine biology.
Of course feminine sexual power is also enforced by heavily punishing male options...like coercion (rape), bribery (prostitution) and trickery (seduction).

Psychologically, I think a key difference is that women are much more sensitive to an uninterested, not affectionate sexual partner than men. That's besides all the "the eggs are more valuable than the sperm" and so forth points.

A woman who senses that her man is not giving her top priority and affection is psychologically already starting a slow process of questioning the relationship, at later stages even beginning the mourning of the loss of the relationship even though she is still "together" with the man. At the time of formally splitting she has psychologically already moved on.

A man is less sensitive to not being a woman's top priority (besides the offspring) and if it becomes obvious or he does sense it then his response is to try and secure the relationship, to invest more. Makes sense because in most cases it was always his lot to invest more in the relationship than the woman has. So what do you do instinctively but double down on that role.

For anyone reading this - By saying the above I don't want to draw for anyone the conclusion that you have to invest more and more as a man. Ultimately I think you have to manage your expectation and invest wisely, too much is probably even worse than too little.

Anyway, it makes sense that women initiate most (longterm relationship) divorces and break-ups because evolutionarily they have to be emotionally more prepared to jump ship faster, earlier, opportunistically because hanging around the wrong mate is potentially more destructive for them than a man. (shorter fertility window, physically weaker, more dependent on external resources,...)


For a society to have emotionally and mentally healthy children it sounds like a good idea to find ways to make sustained pair-bonding more attractive to the parents for a longer time. Ideally in a way that makes neither of the parents get too fed up with the situation because that's not a good environment nor productive either.

Anfang wrote:

Psychologically, I think a key difference is that women are much more sensitive to an uninterested, not affectionate sexual partner than men. That's besides all the "the eggs are more valuable than the sperm" and so forth points.

A woman who senses that her man is not giving her top priority and affection is psychologically already starting a slow process of questioning the relationship, at later stages even beginning the mourning of the loss of the relationship even though she is still "together" with the man. At the time of formally splitting she has psychologically already moved on.

A woman's dependence during the 9 months of pregnancy and more so for the next 7 years of the child's dependence on her, makes her particularly sensitive to male participation.
Her reluctance and choosiness is the product of this.
she intuitively knows she needs help, particularly with inter-group relationships, so she picks a male who will be a father that participates or helps with the child's upbringing.

Beta males have a way into the gene pool, because alpha, roe dominant males, with more sexual options, are un-invested in the particular female who is impregnated by him.
In communal contexts the alpha participates as protector and social stabilizer, maintaining a harem of females and his offspring.
In this scenario when competing males are allowed within the group, e.g., chimpanzees, wolves, and humans, the other males vie for female attentions by becoming as useful and supportive to her as possible.

A male proves his loyalty to her with attentiveness.

In real life human circumstances if there is no friendship the sexual bond quickly gives way to disinterest or animosity, and if there is the passion becomes comfort, and the sexual relationship changes from eros to agape.

High IQ females are the most likely to remain pair bonded.

Satyr wrote:

In real life human circumstances if there is no friendship the sexual bond quickly gives way to disinterest or animosity, and if there is the passion becomes comfort, and the sexual relationship changes from eros to agape.

Or she is having the eros part with somebody else.
It depends but if there was a sudden drop in sexual activity then I'd be wondering why.
If I am to believe someone like Rollo Tomassi then women are not as interested in sex as men but it's not that big of a gap as some men would like to believe as a way to justify their woman's lack of interest in sex with them in particular.

A woman's disinterest in sexual intercourse can be the product of multiple factors:
-Her menstrual cycles.
-The man losing her respect by sharing too much of his inner insecurities - some forms of emotional intimacy are eros killers, they demystifies and eros requires some level of mystery and pretence.
-Another has triggered eros in her, i.e., she has found someone who resembles her ideal of masculinity, or her father.

Erotic feelings go from body to mind, in males, and from mind to body, in women.

Yeah, at least from what I have seen and experienced, men become stupid (I mean fall in love) when they are sexually attracted to a woman.
Women seem to be less affected by that. They don't get that stupid from being sexually attracted to a man.

What you observed is beta-males who become obsessed with a female when and if she shows any interest....a turn-off for the female.
Females, on the other hand, becomes obsessed with males who are aloof, because this indicates options.
Indifference is also a sign of power. Power = freedom.
Obsession - addiction - indicates dependence. Weakness = unfreedom.

An individual with few options are prone towards obsessiveness and addictions.
Psychosomatic feebleness.

I explain my positions on freedom and power in the free-will thread.

Lust and Love are often confused.
Lust = of the body. Physical attraction.
Love = of the mind. Mental attraction.

In a perfect pair bonding both participate nearly equally....preferably with a slight dominance of lust, in the early stages, evolving to a slight dominance of love.

Male - physical towards intellectual - moves from lust towards love.
Women - intellectual towards physical - moves from love towards lust.

Satyr wrote:

Male - physical towards intellectual - moves from lust towards love.
Women - intellectual towards physical - moves from love towards lust.

Three distinction made down from here:
1. lust
2. (erotic) love
3. (friendship-or-familial-bond) love



I see the first line but the second line reminds me of a woman "settling" for some guy.


Maybe the love part is not that different between men and women.
If I am not sexually attracted to a woman I might still like her, can be a friend but ultimately it's not the same kind of love, not the same intensity. Maybe not even the same category. Now some would say - "Well, that's not love, that's lust that you are describing" - but I don't think so.

Scenario:
If some "alpha" guy calls a girl who is into him to be at some club at one o'clock in the middle of the night then she will be there. That is a girl in (erotic) love and lust.


I am thinking maybe women have a difficult time separating (erotic) love from lust. Because men can lust for a woman and not (erotically) love her at all at the same time. Maybe that's rather unusual for women, if they lust after you they (erotically) love you as well. If they don't lust after you they don't (erotically) love you.

If a man lusts after a woman he may (erotically) love her or he might not. But if he doesn't lust after the woman he is not in (erotic) love with her.

This kind of (erotic) love that I see tied to lust makes you stupid and blind, it makes it difficult to pull yourself together and maintain your self-respect, it clouds your judgment. A situation that would seem like an obvious and clear case is muddled and confusing to a man (or woman) in love.



Now, there is a different kind of love, the love I feel for someone who is very close to me and who I have bonded with without sexual attraction, like the love for a parent or a dear friend who I have spent a lot, a lot of time with.
That love is not as blinding, comparatively I would even describe it as not blinding at all.

I think that this kind of love is the love that women think of as the love that is other than lust.
Now maybe women feel this non-sexual love more profoundly than men, I'm not sure but it doesn't come bundled with sexual attraction and it doesn't make you stupid or blind.


So I can't follow or relate to the jump from love (not erotic love I presume) to then becoming lust.
Is this meant in a timespan of weeks, months or years? Because this sounds to me like settling or wanting to give your friend some sexual release because he is such a nice person. It doesn't sound like sexual attraction or lust.

Lust = body - physical markers trigger it: symmetry/proportionality - beauty.
Love = mind - mental markers trigger it: psychological/mental symmetry/proportionality - personality, humour, charisma.

Eros
Males = body/mind = lust/love.
Males can lust without love.
Men find it difficult to love what they do not lust for.
Men can love without lusting, but they will not settle for this, unless there are other mitigating factors - like her mental circumstances, e.g., traumatic experiences, mental disorders, inebriation, no self-respect or confidence.
Females = mind/body = love/lust.
Women find it difficult to lust for what they do not love.
Women can also lust without love, but they will not settle for this, unless there are other mitigating factors - like her mental circumstances, e.g., traumatic experiences, mental disorders, inebriation, no self-respect or confidence.

Agape
Males/Females = mind = love.

Females are attracted by mind developing lust....The IQ of the female determines to what degree.
High IQ females are dominated by mental traits; lower IQ females are attracted to a combination, beginning with the mind.
Obviously both participate in attraction.
When a woman talks about mental traits she usually uses terms like "nice", "funny", "decent", "charming", "interesting", "creative", "ambitious"...
When a woman goes from love to lust she calls it "chemistry", a "connection" or simply "love".
Rarely does she call it lust, and if she does she's a particular kind of female - r/selection type, or she is settling ....attracted to the physical despite an absence of attraction by the mental.
She gives in to her impulses, despite her cognitive misgivings.
Men have no problem separating mind from body. A man can have sex with a woman - or even a relationship - despite feeling no attraction to her intellectually.
A woman has issues and usually overcomes them if she is inebriated, desperate, or simply horny and unable to find her ideal. She may regret it later, and that is where she may call "rape" or accuse the man of "taking advantage of her" or if she is impregnated seek help in getting rid of her "mistake", her settling.
She experiences this absence of a intellectual connection, i.e., attraction, as a kind of shame, or imposition.
If her mind is weak, or is somehow confused or inebriated, fooled, she experiences intercourse as a settling - which if she cannot admit she must blame another for her own settling, or confusion, inebriation.    

Settling would involve one aspect compensating for the absence of the other.

A man knows the difference between lust and love...a woman does not.
Her lust goes through love.
A man's love does not.
Dissonance of mind/body is more severe in males - males invented nihilism.
In women the synthesis is more complete - she is nature's agency where chaos/order mingle.

It may seem harsh, or cynical to say so....but, if you think about it, every choice made is a "settling".
Every choice excludes all other options, which is never, nor can ever be ideal.
Whether one realizes this before or after the choice is made is a matter of awareness.

Everyone "settles" - whether they know it or not, or can admit it or not - for what they can get, for what is available, for what they think they deserve....
Everyone puts up with another's vices, quirks, failings, if he judges the virtues warrant such a sacrifice/tolerance.
Most simply convince themselves that what they have is perfect, because it is theirs.
There is no "absolute" means there is no "perfect" and no "ideal", there is only the real.

The ideal is always a projection and the degree the mind can self-deceive or lacks awareness determines the degree the projected ideal is realizable, is real, is based on reality and to what degree it is outlandish, fantastic, unreal...
Self-Deception is always part of "settling".