Thanks... Oprah?

[mb1]

https://youtu.be/nCY16F04u24

Alright so we all can dig the idea of a harem, but how many of us can deal with 'our' girls fucking other guys the next room over... Don't female primates sleep with sigmas behind the alpha's back? He's head provider.

From limited MLTR experience, it really seems that women especially have a strong mating preference hierarchy. According to Sperm Wars, most of our swimmers fight the other men's inside a woman. Yeah read that again.

So I've definitely got this thing not wanting to invest in any woman who does not view me as top (because her body could choose another's sperm, and if sex is dominance/submission, I want dominance over her submission to him too, and to win reproductive 'right of property'). Face it - providers are for raising lovers' genes and I ain't even raising his hypothetical kids, so what does this mean for HER living openly and NOT being property? If the mind is subconsciously calculating reproductive strategy and causing feelings of love/attachment to further this goal in both genders, then each man is always going to want to head the harem, and each woman's going to be unfulfilled and fall out of love and submission/compliance unless she's queen of the hill right?

No way 'the W' all love each other equally. It's pretty clear which woman's the fifth wheel.

So Blackdragon's experience (GC podcast #6) says there's always going to be a preferred woman, and it seems the ideal's to have a single most important woman (best genes? maybe this encompasses behaviour in addition to physicality) for an open LTR with many fuck buddies. Cool... but what happens when she gets old??? New queen of the hill with better reproductive potential, even if never planning to have kids?


Part 2: 'The Mission' is Bullshit

Now it seems experienced guys often go monogamous in an outcome independent way where they maintain an abundance of women and are willing to walk away, knowing she can be replaced. Assuming she's the best ever, it's knowing there's that skill in the back pocket to go out and sleep with ten new women and find someone just as good or better if she leaves right? She's 'queen' of the hill knowing she's constantly running for re-election

Having a life mission's also touted as a way to keep her attracted (as this prevents you from becoming her slave in a monogamous relationship - putting something before her). Now if Geoff Miller's book the Mating Mind's right that artistic capability, etc.'s just a mean to attract our mates, then isn't every mission simply a way to spread more genes? "Thanks for dinner, dear. Now I'm just off to work to further my goal of replacing you!"

So for the real-life question: Say I'm 50-something and my genes are grown up and successful. I evolved to just die at this point right? Say it's in an open relationship. If she's fucking around, there's other guys more preferable and I'm her provider right? Fuck that door. So say she's so emotionally and sexually satisfied as to not stray and is completely submissive to me while just fine with the fuck buddies and joining in every once in a while. Paradise right? So now she's 50-something too - I'm going to start preferring a younger fuck buddy.

Now assuming I actually want to pass on genes and let this hair continue down the generations, do I have kids with one open LTR and never move in with her? Sounds shit for the children.

The alternative's to have her take the second seat or kick her out the nest when the hatchlings have grown/flown. Grandpa did cheat...

Is life just an exercise in letting go?

 

[mb1]

This wasn't covered by Blakdragon... triad with children (though it doesn't seem they sleep around outside of the triad) - https://youtu.be/P0SOCcRWrrE

Once the kids grow up a little he'll be reduced to beta provider and both may start fucking other men right? He may start fucking around too but still has to support both women's kids.

This might be a little different though 'cause they were a female couple who sought out a man.

 

[manson7]

This might be a little different though 'cause they were a female couple who sought out a man.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Look up "biological reductionism."

Basically, you take a field, theory, or methodology and absorb everything into that paradigm.

So, "well, society is just a big war for gene dominance!"

It's not innacurate and most human behavior could be reduced to mate-choice, but there's no justification for the reduction. Yes, there seems to be a correlation between cause (biological processes) and effect (our behaviors), but there's no way for sure to pinpoint biology as the "bottom-level" paradigm that absorbs the rest (i.e., the final cause). It might not even be considered the efficient cause, only the most visible one (these are Aristotelian terms, sorry for the jargon, but they're super applicable here. Final cause, or the teleos, is the "reason" that something is the way it is, whereas the efficient cause is the mechanistic X->Y cause. Modern science really only focuses on efficient cause).

You could always go deeper - chemical reductionism. "Since all thing are just chemical compounds, we're all just chemicals reacting with each other," etc.

Then physical reductionism. "We're all just atoms being tossed around by entropy," etc.

And you can even go deeper than this with philosophy (Brain in a Vat theory, Matrix, etc) or religion/theology/mysticism (e.g., "we're all just souls heading towards the Godhead!" Btw, I actually like that one. Meister Echkart is a bawss).

Again, it's not necessarily wrong to reduce, in that it doesn't explain how things work (the efficient cause), but it's not the full picture (which I guess is wrongness?). Pretty much every time you say something like "Artistic capability is just a mean to attract our mates," you're committing reductionism. The "just" is important here. It's just this, just that, just there, just where.

My advice - if you're going to go down a rabbit hole, pick a bigger and more comprehensive one than biology/sociology. Those other rabbit holes are probably as reductionistic as biological reductionism, but at least it's more fun and less dead than "we're all just primates looking to fuck each other," even if practically that paradigm explains a lot of phenomena.

Is life just an exercise in letting go?

Like this. THIS is muchhhhhhh more interesting and fun. And probably more truthful

Hector