[withinboredom]

There is nothing "academic" about what you posted. If it was, there would be footnotes and sources where you mentioned things... that being said...

Assumptions.

You assume that most of human history that women were not equal. This is actually, quite false[1]. Only in recent western history were they unequal. This by no means dismisses the fact that women were, in fact, oppressed for several dozen of the last generations and for most of the western world. However, this is NOT long enough to create any kind of genetic pressure.

> In anthropology there's a saying that monogamy benefits men while polygamy benefits women...

I googled this "saying" and it was only your post that came up. Did you just make this up? lol

> If a woman sleeps with another man then the partner may end up raising and spending resources on another mans child.

Sure, if you have the emotional maturity of a 16 year old, this makes a lot of sense.

> Thus all men have intense instincts to basically end an entire relationship once a woman has a single sexual affair.

No, these are not "instincts", they are a loss of trust in a partner and no relationship can survive if there isn't trust. Open relationships exist, polygamy is a thing. I can assure you.

> where women are totally ok with their husbands fucking prostitutes

I think this just proves my point... trust is essential. Sex is just sex unless you attach something special to it.

> Basically we live in an era of changing social norms and it's accelerating natural selection.

I would absolutely love to see a citation for how natural selection is "accelerating" because, if anything, it is the opposite. We're having fewer children in most developed countries, not more.[2]

:sigh:

Let me tell you what is actually going on now. Women tend to work together, more so than men[3]. What this means, is that there are entire communities where they talk about who they go on dates with. I'm not even making this up.[4] This means if you are a creep, no one will date you because you are a creep. Do something stupid, every woman will know about it on your next date. So, no, there isn't some mysterious "beta" or "alpha" bullshit, it's just that women are smart enough to work together to make sure they don't date the wrong person.

Your entire comment is built on a pile of assumptions and leaps of logic that are barely coherent, with no references to back them up.

[1]: https://phys.org/news/2023-10-prehistoric-gender-roles-women...

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103

[3]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620956632

[4]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/are-we-dating-the-s...

[seec]

You are hilarious. Most of what you say makes no sense and has little relation to what is observable in the real world. But the funniest thing is about how women supposedly work together, when everyone knows and experience that men make teams while women create clicks. If you have ever done sports or any collaborative activity, you know very much you do not want to be the guy left alone with too many women. Even if they have similar capabilities; there is no way their ego won't go in the way. Women do not work together at all; they gossip to gain knowledge on current affairs that they will potentially translate to power. They will cheer for their enemy that they secretly hate and all kinds of duplicitous behavior. This is something that is extremely well represented in literature, movies and TV shows. But I guess the authors are hallucinating or living in a complete parallel world where women are much worse than they are in reality? I mean, come on...

[corethree]

>You assume that most of human history that women were not equal. This is actually, quite false[1].

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.67680...

You present a source with women being hunters. I never denied this. I here present a source of female and male unequal-ness as a comprehensive study across time and culture. Which do you think is more relevant to the conversation at hand? Which resource was strategically picked to fulfill some biased agenda? Obviously not the comprehensive study.

>I googled this "saying" and it was only your post that came up. Did you just make this up? lol

I googled it too and found multiple resources within minutes. The reason you didn't find it is obvious. You're not conducting a logical search with intent. You're conducting a biased search. You don't agree with me so you don't want to find a source. So subconciously you spend less effort and end up finding nothing. Typical.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda... https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2015/polygyny_health...

What happens next is when presented with sources against his own agenda the naysayer starts to nitpick. Starts to find as many flaws with the source as he can.

Where this saying came from. Where I first heard it was in the UCLA anthropology department. It was stated by the professor and the text book. The professor btw, was female, and so am i.

>Sure, if you have the emotional maturity of a 16 year old, this makes a lot of sense.

This isn't a response. It's an attack please present evidence. It's called paternity fraud and it's a real genetic strategy both in humans and in animals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud

https://canadiancrc.com/newspaper_articles/Globe_and_Mail_Mo...

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-jun-02-op-zuk.r...

>No, these are not "instincts", they are a loss of trust in a partner and no relationship can survive if there isn't trust. Open relationships exist, polygamy is a thing. I can assure you.

Polygamy is a thing. I didn't deny this in my arguments. It exists but it is beneficial to women not to men.

>I would absolutely love to see a citation for how natural selection is "accelerating" because, if anything, it is the opposite. We're having fewer children in most developed countries, not more.[2]

Having fewer children is part of natural selection. It means the children that were not "had" are naturally selected out. Natural selection happens either by not being born or being killed before reproduction. I don't think you understand.

When countries have fewer children it means MORE children are being UNSELECTED. and the natural selection process is becoming more vicious and thus "accelerating".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

>Your entire comment is built on a pile of assumptions and leaps of logic that are barely coherent, with no references to back them up.

I posted sources.

>Let me tell you what is actually going on now. Women tend to work together, more so than men[3]. What this means, is that there are entire communities where they talk about who they go on dates with. I'm not even making this up.[4] This means if you are a creep, no one will date you because you are a creep. Do something stupid, every woman will know about it on your next date. So, no, there isn't some mysterious "beta" or "alpha" bullshit, it's just that women are smart enough to work together to make sure they don't date the wrong person.

Yes that society is our current society. We have entire facebook groups where we identify and red flag men who we don't want to date. As a woman we only want to date alphas. I won't date someone who makes less than me. Alphas exist in the animal world, it makes no sense to suddenly deny the existence of alphas in the human world.

Clearly there are men who are more powerful and more attractive than others. Those men are basically "alphas". Women like you and me tend to work together to improve our own successes. That means polygamous relationships with the top men. This is what I want and this is what you want.

What confuses me is that often your arguments are in agreement with mine. I don't think you're maintaining a logical stream of consistent thought.

[withinboredom]

> I don't think you're maintaining a logical stream of consistent thought.

Apologies, I'm typing this on a busy train.

We are, in fact, in agreement on much. However, we are viewing reality through different lenses.

> I here present a source of female and male unequal-ness as a comprehensive study across time and culture.

It seems to focus mostly on the last 1-2k years, and not so much on the hundreds of thousands of years before that. You said:

> For MOST of human civilization genders were not equal so both sexes evolved traits that are also unequal.

(emphasis mine). For most of human civilization, was a very, very long time and most written records have (unfortunately) been lost prior to a few thousand years ago. That was the part I was rebutting, because it was an invalid premise that is then used to deduce that there was some kind of genetic pre-disposition that was used throughout the remainder of your comment.

> I googled it too and found multiple resources within minutes.

I couldn't find the quote: "monogamy benefits men while polygamy benefits women and general female behavior shows it" since you made it sound like it was a popular thing. I admit, I didn't bother researching the entire topic, since it wasn't "a saying".

I'm not debating who it is useful for, I was saying that it is a non-issue. Women and men cheat, and cheating is when one person in a relationship breaks the rules of that relationship. It doesn't matter if it is an open relationship, monogamous relationship, polygamous relationship, friends with benefits, swingers, platonic friendship, or whatever. If you break the rules, you can't be trusted and the relationship must be ended.

In a monogamous relationship, one of those rules is usually against sex with another person. There's no "instincts" there, they broke the rules. End of discussion. The fact that it was sexual intercourse is a non-issue. The rules of the relationship were broken.

> It's an attack please present evidence.

I present to you: adoption. It's when a man (or woman) raises another man's child as their own. The adopted even get to inherit property in some parts of the world.

> As a woman we only want to date alphas. I won't date someone who makes less than me. Alphas exist in the animal world, it makes no sense to suddenly deny the existence of alphas in the human world.

Well, there is no such thing as "alphas." This comes from a debunked paper that got popular 50 years ago ... we are not wolves and even wolves don't have "alpha males" in the popular sense.[1] A pack of wolves is simply a family and it makes sense that mom & dad would/should be the only ones having sex instead of brothers/sisters. Even when it is a mixed family, the breeding pair changes, come and go.

Instead of saying that women want "alphas," I think it is simpler to just state the reality of the situation: women want men who can pay child support / alimony, in the event things go sideways. When shit hits the fan, you don't want a hot guy with no future (maybe sometimes, actually), you want a guy who can (monetarily) care for your children that you'll be inevitably stuck with because our society sucks at taking care of single mothers. Women have even come up with creative solutions to ensure they don't end up with "losers" getting them pregnant. Fixing society's issues here is probably the way to unfuck large portions of our society, but it is unlikely to happen because it is stuck in a feedback loop -- there is still a patriarchy who has no desire to fix this.

Anyway, like I said, I think we are saying the same stuff, just different ways of seeing it.

[1]: https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastat...