Is monogamy human nature or a social construct?

Is monogamy human nature or a social construct?

If it's human nature how do you explain
>the prevalence of sluts
>the prevalence of cheating
>the divorce rate of over 50%

Nightmare mode: "but the jews tho" isn't a real answer

Attached: DX_Im3dUMAA0-uG.jpg (1200x1200, 293K)

Monogamy is a social construct with the purpose of creating stronger societies.

This. It is a tool to harness the power of beta males to be productive by guaranteeing them mates and genetic relevance.

/thread

People will invest more in their offspring of they know they are actually theirs.

Isn't the point of being right wing to reject social constructivism and rely on what's natural?

No, it's to promote a strong family structure devoid of degeneracy so that men and women support each other instead of arguing over nonsense while the jew collects their shekels

Attached: 1520557486812.jpg (1000x667, 111K)

Monogamy occurs naturally with some humans

But not all.

See: old people who married their highschool sweethearts and were faithful until death

Attached: tumblr_m0nolgAZcu1qezho5o1_500.jpg (436x600, 45K)

social construct, like shitting in toilets and wearing clothing. Next?

Polygamists are always miserable and chasing an unattainable high devoid of real love and affection. Prove me wrong.

Attached: 1473254373065.jpg (460x338, 31K)

It's a fallacy to believe that social constructs have no genetic relevance. Genes code for behavior.

The true test is if you care if your partner betrays you with another. I'm quite sure 99% of humans do, so there's your answer.

If it's human nature how do you explain
>the prevalence of sluts
>the prevalence of cheating
>the divorce rate of over 50%

Jewish culture.

The divorce rate is only high because of serial divorcees. First-time marriages are much more successful on average.

If cheating is prevalent among you, your family, or your peers, you probably are of low genetic quality.

It’s nature, many animals keep the same
Partners of the course of a life time.

Now stop these fucking slide threads

I think you need to read Lord of the Flies. This isn't a left wing/right wing thing. This is about civilization and order versus savagery. Promiscuity will eventually lead to small numbers of men having large harems, and large numbers of thristy men forming large groups that go murdering and raping.

insane. the cops are crazy and we cant get out of here fast enough

Social degeneracy. Wolves are a socially monogamous species like humans, do you know what happens when you fuck up their social order and mash a bunch of unrelated wolves together? You get a free for-all murder-fuck fest, which is where the myth of the alpha-to-omega social order in wolves came from, dumbass scientists fucking up.

When the fuck did Sup Forums become so stupid? Literally the emotion of love is caused by massive amounts of doplamine in the brain that is comparable to doing massive amounts of cocaine.
There are some species that stay together for life
There are some species that don’t. This is a scientific fact. And this is why black people don’t have fathers .

>pic related

Attached: B56C99F6-3A27-4E14-9348-22E27178A0B8.jpg (560x315, 48K)

Society is a social construct for betas, by betas. It's a woman's nature to fuck the strongest in the pack. Betas get side pussy with a small chance of offspring making it.

Civilization, in fact, doesn't work without the illusion of a cooperative society. What this means is simply this:
Pussy is the most valuable natural resource on the planet. Without societal cooperation and taming of the puss (ensuring 50/50 access of women to men), we wouldn't have things like:
1. Laws protecting the weak
2. Innovations/Invention
3. Niceties
4. Structure
5. Borders
6. Social/National Identities
7. Brokered peace
8. Progress
9. Idealistic ventures
10. Liberties

Attached: How to treat women.jpg (1488x3024, 1.52M)

>the prevalence of sluts
>the prevalence of cheating
>the divorce rate of over 50%
None of those things would exist if men were still men and vaginas were removed from politics and workplaces.

I think it's somewhat wrong to say it's by betas for betas. We have to talk about chivalry -- real chivalry. It is not, and never has been about putting women on pedestals. It is, in fact, the heart of the patriarchal system where the underlying truth is that women are the chattel property of their either their husbands or fathers. The agreement is between men, fuck my wife or my daughter without marrying her, and us men, who are keeping this agreement, will kill you. Women's wants have always, always been completely irrelevant in chivalry.

polygamy or single parenthood is just a depressing concept to me. devotion to one person who you will raise a family with is a much better foundation for a functional society. people may rush into marriage and are too impulsive, which leads to dysfunctional relationships.

Both monogamy and slutting it up are natural, but which one you support determines the success of your society.
There are multiple breeding strategies that different humans employ. Monograms is pair bonding done to ensure highly successful offspring. Where as sluts are meant to breed like mad and pop out a ton of low value offspring.

By not encouraging monogamy we are weakening our society's proclivity and support for proper pair bonding, meaning sluts are winning the sexual arms race and our children are suffering as a result.

human nature is wrong

This. In a civilized society, monogamy is the rule, cheating whores and poly-whatevers are the snowflake/deviant exception.

We see polygamy/harems in mostly tribal societies and fundamentally-flawed civilizations like Islam empires where human thought and progress never goes beyond Bronze Age goat herders. Same is true today where you see 3rd world shitholes who can barely sustain themselves without Western aid/intervention.

Using the term social construct implies there is no component other than the psycho-social, but I see your point.

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

We have a duality of natures and thus the potential for either promiscuity or monogamy.

We almost certainly lived for a long time under a pattern of promiscuous female selection (our prominant dicks, unrivaled by other primates, are evidence of that).

Eventually, however, we began pairing monogamously as we became smarter and babies needed to be born earlier in gestation to get their large heads out of the woman. Lesser-developed newborns needed more direct investment from both parents. As men became more involved in child rearing, civilization resulted as a by-product of increased investment in children.

The urge to give into our promiscuous nature is very deeply wired due to it being an artifact of an earlier phase in our revolution. As we shift more and more towards that base nature as a society we will continue to regress until men reassert themselves and reestablish the family unit.

Social construct, but it’s a loaded question in a sense: leftists view social constructs as a bad thing. They aren’t, for example not murdering people is a social construct.

This, it's a social construct meant to keep true female nature on a short leash, otherwise you have sheboons fucking only the alpha gorillas.

Unfortunately with the advent of Tinder-thots and the likes, you have society on a slow downwards spiral into the shitter. In essence it was a necessary evil, nowadays the lemon is no longer worth the squeeze.

Why do mammals other than humans engage in monogamy?

Prevelance of sluts due to self-centered women.
Prevelance of cheating due to self-centered women.
Prevelance of divorce due to self-centered women.

Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's wrong. Humans can be monogamous and they can not be monogamous but monogamy creates stronger societies.

I think it has genetic roots to at least some degree. When looked at through the lens of evolution, it’s easy to see that dad being monogamous and hanging around allows for the better development of the offspring. Higher quality offspring have a better chance at being successful, breeding, and passing in the genes. Part of it might be a social construct as well though. It’s likely not one or the other. It’s on the nature vs nurture spectrum.

It's human nature to build social constructs. Humans can survive without monogomy, society cannot.

I think it's as natural as slutting it up, women just react to their surroundings differently and somehow we've created a society where they are going apeshit trying to fuck new males every second.

I don't know. In r/K the K animals tend to be monogamous. Wolves are essentially 'til death do us part'.

I think the harder the environment to survive in the more monogamous the people. Last thing you need when you're preparing for a winter is an argument because some guy is dipping his dick into someone else's wife

Social behavior is largely emergent from genes. It's natural for them, same as it is for us. Exceptions are either because of the innate chaos built into genes and social orders, or because of decay caused by outside forces.

I think this is an accurate assessment.

Some populations lean towards monogamy, others don't.

We're a serial monogamous species. Lifelong monogamy can not happen without society structured to facilitate it. Without these social constructs we're seeing humans fall back to temporary pair bonding, which usually lasts until the child is old enough to walk on its own.