Humans were polygynous, for the "Alpha Male" deniers

Page 1 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Aug 2017, 2:57 am

Yesterday a korean friend was explaining to me the marriage system in ancient Korea - Japanese cultures; she explained how marriage was a birth right only for the elite males, while lowest status male weren't allowed to marry. Polygyny was indeed a very common practice among ancient Asian dynasties and nobles.

It is the case in many ancient civilizations though; I do think you all know about how common polygyny and harems were in ancient Indian and Middle Eastern civilizations.

However, there's a feminist-friendly narrative out there that always says that primitive humans were more like bonobos, egalatiran and matriarchal, but then at some saddening point of human history, humans became bad... and patriarchal.

They claim that Patriarchy is unnatural and our true nature is egalitarian or even matriarchal, and that appeared from unnatural conditions (ie. agricultural advances).

There's also a strong denial that the concept of "alpha male" exist in humans. (and yes I know it doesn't exist in wild wolves, wolves are actually by far a more naturally egalitarian species than humans and most primates).
By Alpha males here I mean the males who are by far more successful and desirable than other males, to attract females.

But all these narratives are PC and wishful ideas, humans were always more like the chimps.
Humans actually display more sexual dimorphism than bonobos, socially and biologically.
These narratives are not objective and not scientifically-based, because science and researches show a different story of human's nature:

"When polygamous marriages occur in premodern societies, they are overwhelmingly likely to involve polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) as opposed to polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands). Overall, of the 1,231 cultures in the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, 84.6 percent are classified as polygynous, 15.1 percent as monogamous, and 0.3 percent as polyandrous. ".

Ha! Deny this too.

The 84.6 percent of premodern societies being polygynous can't be a coincidence, and have nothing to do with the post industrial patriarchy; it's a compelling evidence, besides history and our biology, that humans were more chimp- like than bonobo-like.
His examples of male rich men, celebs and stars praticing polygyny or serial monogamy are good examples of humans' polygynous nature. I mean, how many times have you ever seen a large audience of male teens screaming for a female singer or going crazy for some female vampire character?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/da ... lygamous-0

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 06 Aug 2017, 5:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

06 Aug 2017, 3:16 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Yesterday a korean friend was explaining to me the marriage system in ancient Korea - Japanese cultures; she explained how marriage was a birth right only for the elite males, while lowest status male weren't allowed to marry. Polygyny was indeed a very common practice among ancient Asian dynasties and nobles.

It is the case in many ancient civilizations though; I do think you all know about how common polygyny and harems were in ancient Indian and Middle Eastern civilizations.

However, there's a feminist-friendly narrative out there that always says that primitive humans were more like bonobos, egalatiran and matriarchal, but then at some saddening point of human history, humans became bad... and patriarchal.

They claim that patriarchy is unnatural and our true nature is egalitarian or even matriarchal.
There's also a strong denial that the concept of "alpha male" do exist in humans. (and yes I know it doesn't exist in wild wolves, wolves are actually by far morennaturally egalitarian species than humans and most primates).
By Alpha males here I mean the males who are by far more successful and desirable than other males, to attract females.

But all these narratives are PC and wishful ideas, humans were always more like the chimps.
Humans actually display more sexual dimorphism than bonobos, socially and biologically.
These narratives are not objective and not scientifically-based, because science and researches show a different story of human's nature:

"When polygamous marriages occur in premodern societies, they are overwhelmingly likely to involve polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) as opposed to polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands). Overall, of the 1,231 cultures in the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, 84.6 percent are classified as polygynous, 15.1 percent as monogamous, and 0.3 percent as polyandrous. ".

Ha! Deny this too.

The 84.6 percent of premodern societies being polygynous can't be a coincidence, and have nothing to do with the post industrial patriarchy; it's a compelling evidence, besides history and our biology, that humans were more chimp- like than bonobo-like.
His examples of male rich men, celebs and stars praticing polygyny or serial monogamy are good examples of humans' polygynous nature. I mean, how many times have you ever seen a large audience of male teens screaming for a female singer or going crazy for some female vampire character?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/da ... lygamous-0

There does seem to be a patriarchal bias among the human species. However I don't think the modern usage of the term "alpha male" is entirely analogous to elite men of past societies who had many wives. It seems that the modern concept of an "alpha male" is one who managed to attract women by virtue of his essence rather monetary assets or tangible resources, as I think was more often the case in the past. Marriages in the past were often arranged, with the girl...and she was often a girl, having little to no say. An affluent man could approach the parents of a girl and request to marry her and if the parents agreed, the girl often had no choice but to marry the man. His sex appeal, charm, personality, or social skills mattered little.

Sabreclaw
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Dec 2015
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,971

06 Aug 2017, 3:22 am

I don't understand you, Boo. You have a partner now. Why do you still care so much about all this nonsense?

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Aug 2017, 3:26 am

Chronos wrote:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Yesterday a korean friend was explaining to me the marriage system in ancient Korea - Japanese cultures; she explained how marriage was a birth right only for the elite males, while lowest status male weren't allowed to marry. Polygyny was indeed a very common practice among ancient Asian dynasties and nobles.

It is the case in many ancient civilizations though; I do think you all know about how common polygyny and harems were in ancient Indian and Middle Eastern civilizations.

However, there's a feminist-friendly narrative out there that always says that primitive humans were more like bonobos, egalatiran and matriarchal, but then at some saddening point of human history, humans became bad... and patriarchal.

They claim that patriarchy is unnatural and our true nature is egalitarian or even matriarchal.
There's also a strong denial that the concept of "alpha male" do exist in humans. (and yes I know it doesn't exist in wild wolves, wolves are actually by far morennaturally egalitarian species than humans and most primates).
By Alpha males here I mean the males who are by far more successful and desirable than other males, to attract females.

But all these narratives are PC and wishful ideas, humans were always more like the chimps.
Humans actually display more sexual dimorphism than bonobos, socially and biologically.
These narratives are not objective and not scientifically-based, because science and researches show a different story of human's nature:

"When polygamous marriages occur in premodern societies, they are overwhelmingly likely to involve polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) as opposed to polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands). Overall, of the 1,231 cultures in the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, 84.6 percent are classified as polygynous, 15.1 percent as monogamous, and 0.3 percent as polyandrous. ".

Ha! Deny this too.

The 84.6 percent of premodern societies being polygynous can't be a coincidence, and have nothing to do with the post industrial patriarchy; it's a compelling evidence, besides history and our biology, that humans were more chimp- like than bonobo-like.
His examples of male rich men, celebs and stars praticing polygyny or serial monogamy are good examples of humans' polygynous nature. I mean, how many times have you ever seen a large audience of male teens screaming for a female singer or going crazy for some female vampire character?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/da ... lygamous-0

Maybe that was the case of the ancient "civilized" world where women are oppressed, but it's not the case of hunter-gatherers societies; the females in those primitive societies have their say in mating and they do *choose* and prefer to share a skilled and strong hunter as husband than being one wife to an unskilled and weak man.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 06 Aug 2017, 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Aug 2017, 3:37 am

Sabreclaw wrote:

I don't understand you, Boo. You have a partner now. Why do you still care so much about all this nonsense?

Because suddenly there are 3 other women showing explicit sexual interest in me now while knowing I am in a relationship, I wonder why. So weird.

I feel know like eating a banana, I wanna relate to the my chimpy nature. Hoo-hoo. :lol:

It's not nonsense Sabreclaw, it may explain why many males struggle in attracting females.

The vast majority of males I knew since childhood I noticed did struggle in attracting girls back at school, always heard them complain.
Only extremely few, the very handsome and skilled at sport ones, had female admirers and were always accompanied with girls.
I think you remember and noticed this too, all boys did. Most of these men get a gf and got married later, true, but usually they go for the only option they had at a time.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 06 Aug 2017, 4:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,114

06 Aug 2017, 3:56 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

herds tend to have fewer males, it's the principe of herd (of group of females with shared genes)
but humans are not herds only, they play out all sorts of possibilities,
and also raising human offspring takes more then a herd to ensure that happening, especially raising men probably, or it would lead to hordes, herds, of single men, that rings a bell, warlords and religions?

Quote:

-to much-

see the male crowd at grace jones of lately?
i don't know, it's ressources that the man needs for 'harem', hence, it can't definately not be allowed on welfare
i lived with several males on several occasions, no sex with them, but that would be obtainable if one's inclined to difficulties of that kind, i'd rather call them platonic friends
even mongolian polyandry keeps the males within the same genes, alike old traditions can be found were marrying the brothers widow was normal, protecting the genes again

Last edited by traven on 06 Aug 2017, 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,743
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

06 Aug 2017, 4:01 am

Boo has your demeanour maybe changed since being in a happy relationship. I noticed that your expression was softer in the photo you posted in the other thread.

You actually look happy.

Happiness is generally attractive. So it may be that.

Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

06 Aug 2017, 6:15 am

Allison Tieman on the subject (also College Humour);

TL;DR the concept of dominant male exists in humans. But it's not as you think of it.

_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

06 Aug 2017, 7:07 am

There's no such thing as a male who's "dominant" in all situations; henceforth, no "alphas."

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

aspiemike
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,287
Location: Canada

06 Aug 2017, 11:02 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Sabreclaw wrote:

I don't understand you, Boo. You have a partner now. Why do you still care so much about all this nonsense?

3 other women? It kinda goes as my saying about women from a few years ago and how they can be similar to having a job: When you have one, it seems like everyone else wants you too. But when you don't have one, noone else wants you either.

_________________
Your Aspie score: 130 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 88 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie

hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,743
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

06 Aug 2017, 1:48 pm

There's also the thing where you see a guy you've always known as single going out with someone and you thunk, "oh, he is attracted to women." Or you thought that he was just happy on his own and didn't realise he was looking.

I always thought that WhatsApp guy wasn't really that interested in women till he started going out with someone. Then I was actually more upset that I thought I would be. I didn't realise that I would be upset if I knew I couldn't have him. They Broke up and i stil cant have because he doesn't fancy me. oh well.

But his girlfriend didn't make him more appealing. I already liked him. I just Didn't think he wanted a relationship up till then.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2017, 2:55 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Sure, NTs are lilke that, whether they like it or not.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

However, there's a feminist-friendly narrative out there that always says that primitive humans were more like bonobos, egalatiran and matriarchal, but then at some saddening point of human history, humans became bad... and patriarchal.

Could be because many feminists are neurodiverse, and NDs don't have a background in patriarchy, polygyny or harems. They actually are a lot more like bonobos than chimps.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

They claim that Patriarchy is unnatural and our true nature is egalitarian or even matriarchal, and that appeared from unnatural conditions (ie. agricultural advances).

Again, if you are ND you find patriarchy unnatural and egalitarian natural. :wink:

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

There's also a strong denial that the concept of "alpha male" exist in humans. (and yes I know it doesn't exist in wild wolves, wolves are actually by far a more naturally egalitarian species than humans and most primates).
By Alpha males here I mean the males who are by far more successful and desirable than other males, to attract females.

Alpha males only exist for NTs.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

But all these narratives are PC and wishful ideas, humans were always more like the chimps.
Humans actually display more sexual dimorphism than bonobos, socially and biologically.

NTs certainly do, but NDs also have "gender issues", meaning they are not like the Alpha male / female prototype.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

These narratives are not objective and not scientifically-based, because science and researches show a different story of human's nature:

"When polygamous marriages occur in premodern societies, they are overwhelmingly likely to involve polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) as opposed to polyandry (one wife, multiple husbands). Overall, of the 1,231 cultures in the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, 84.6 percent are classified as polygynous, 15.1 percent as monogamous, and 0.3 percent as polyandrous. ".

Ha! Deny this too.

Easy. Every culture has a majority of NTs. This kind of research always only reflects the majority (NTs). That's why many of the so called "human universals" are not universals if you check them in NDs too.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2017, 3:02 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Sabreclaw wrote:

I don't understand you, Boo. You have a partner now. Why do you still care so much about all this nonsense?

Because suddenly there are 3 other women showing explicit sexual interest in me now while knowing I am in a relationship, I wonder why. So weird.

Not so weird. NT women use other women's mate choices to decide if they are attracted to somebody or not.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Only extremely few, the very handsome and skilled at sport ones, had female admirers and were always accompanied with girls.
I think you remember and noticed this too, all boys did. Most of these men get a gf and got married later, true, but usually they go for the only option they had at a time.

Nah, I had ND admirers both in high school and college, and I was neither very handsome nor a sporty type. Actually, the high school girl had a persistent interest for me for more than a year, and the college girl had a persistent interest for three years.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

07 Aug 2017, 3:04 am

Traditional gender roles and culture, Christian marriage or whatever you'd call it, created a much more egalitarian society for men. Before that it was just whoever was the strongest male to that could fight off the other males and provide protection, obviously led to some imbalances. Human's animal nature isn't that we all get matched up 1v1

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,089
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2017, 3:13 am

Chronos wrote:

Marriages in the past were often arranged, with the girl...and she was often a girl, having little to no say. An affluent man could approach the parents of a girl and request to marry her and if the parents agreed, the girl often had no choice but to marry the man. His sex appeal, charm, personality, or social skills mattered little.

Exactly, but we shouldn't forget that her parents probably wanted those same qualities that many NT women want too, so in a indirect way, the human female preferences were still there even in arranged marriages. IMHO, it is quite unlikely that sex appeal, charm or personality had much relevance for hunter-gatherers. At that time, survival was the ultimate goal and being fun, social and entertaining was rather irrelevant.

awkward facepalm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,114
Location: lonely

11 Aug 2017, 2:28 am

wow that's creepy!

i typed alpha male in google and found a lot of wannabe tough guys debating in fitness forums. and "apparently" those online american bad guys are alpha males themselves (all of them). :lol:

anyway they all agree that this guy is the ultimate alpha male thing that all women desire/fantasize about. lol

:lol:
pathetic and funny at the same time.

even though i do nothing all day, i still would hate to waste my time arguing with such inferior mindsets

Page 1 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Similar Topics
Why Don't Humans Have Tails? in News and Current Events	24 Mar 2024, 7:33 pm funeralxempire
Why Do Cats Rub Their Heads On Humans? in News and Current Events	22 Apr 2024, 7:29 am blitzkrieg
Scientists Unlock the Mystery of How Humans Taste Bitterness in News and Current Events	19 Apr 2024, 5:02 pm lostonearth35
Poor Things is a male take on feminism in Television, Film, and Video	10 Apr 2024, 2:27 pm lostonearth35

Humans were polygynous, for the "Alpha Male" deniers Post Reply New Topic

Humans were polygynous, for the "Alpha Male" deniers