Explain this, Japan

Explain this, Japan.

youtube.com/watch?v=ENscSDOsodE

で、何それ

these kuck folk will be the savior of humanity.

monogamy is outdated and irrelevant in todays fast pace society. social structures will evolve and change.

>social structures will evolve and change
>women will no longer have children with natives because no more commitment
>birthrate reach alarming low-levels
>import shitskins by the millions
> EuroCuckean Union all over again
>the fall of determined civilization
>repeat

How progressive! down with the monogamy! let's all wait to die out or luckily be beheaded by a sandnigger in the process.

>get a japanese gf
>she has the netorare tag

>X is outdated
Opinion dismissed

Monogamy allows civilization to exist.

This.

The rich west has passed through a social structure change, there's no pressure (at least not that much) for people to get married and have children, you guys do whatever you want.

No children = muslims in your country or simply collapse.

yes up until a certain point then it has to change and adapt for the status quo. You can't say monogamy has worked for the last thousand years and will continue to work for the next million. Doesn't work that way. People change, social structures change. Adapt.

The Japanese are such good cheaters that the population dropped.

Humans are like mourning doves and mate for life
It's not hard to understand.

Very strange isn't it.

>MUH TRADITIONAL ASIAN WAIFU
Kill yourselves gook lovers

humans are flexible and adaptable yes but dove-like? no

There is a reason why it works and why every successful civilization used it.
It gives most people a reason to contribute to society (their family). If you take this away everything will degenerate into selfishness, greed and eventually societal collapse.
You could argue it is happening right now with most people just caring about money and their personal status rather than their family, country, etc.
This does not end well historically.

Add,
>muh atheistic society

>It gives most people a reason to contribute to society (their family)
But like I said, the status quo changes, Maybe people today are no longer family focused but that doesn't mean their next focus can't be humanity at large. Maybe humans are evolving past the point of selfishness where the only important things in life are muh family. Maybe they are now at a point where they care for the planet, the future, others in need and not just their own family.

No one is denying that it has worked, but this is a new world now. When the world was 7billion. Life is constantly changing. If the time for monogamy is over then thats the way it is.

From the """white""" argentinian? disgusting.

My god they are so fucking ugly. Even the people walking past. Inferior gooks

>Well it's the guy's fault if he couldn't keep me interested.

>Maybe humans are evolving past the point of selfishness
But they aren't. I would even argue the opposite.
Wealth inequality is increasing, the US political system is probably the most corrupt it has ever been in recent history, etc.
>No one is denying that it has worked, but this is a new world now.
Is it? What has fundamentally changed? People still want to eat and have all the luxuries they can. There are wars happening, politics are still about the same as they have ever been and except in 1st world countries people still mostly care about starting families and having children.
Nothing fundamentally changed about humans. The tools that we use changed but we still seek to achieve the same goals: become important/rich/provide for your family/gain the respect of your peers/be remembered in history/change something/etc.
It might seem that a lot of things have fundamentally changed, but I don't think it is the case.

what the fuck over 50%?

their environment has changed, how people interact with each other has changed. The internet has forever changed humanity. And as the environment changes, people have to react to that change accordingly. Even a change in the weather will have an effect. Dating in the first world is becoming increasing done electronically. Humans don't fundamentally change but their environments are dynamic. At the core of humanity you have a creature that is evolved to adapt to its surroundings. So if the new environment calls for a desist on monogamy would you deny that change purely because its worked in the past? Some humans are just better at adapting than others.

Yes because you need a stable environment for your kids to raise them in the best way possible. Monogamy ensures that. Cheating just causes drama and destruction. Chose your partner wisely the first time you chose.

Having sex with multiple people only works if there is an outside entity taking care of kids such as government. But then again those are rather depressing brave new world scenarios.

>1:40 in

DELETE THIS

DE-LETE THISSSS

>You can do anything. Just don't fall for someone else
>It will depend on whether you have feelings for someone else
>You can do anything as long as feelings are not involved

What the fuck

Exactly, it is [current year] after all.

>Chose your partner wisely the first time you chose.
how does one do that? lets take an inexperience male and an inexperienced female. How can they both choose wisely at a once in a lifetime decision? How do they magically just know without prior knowledge who is the perfect match for them? its impossible.

And from what you are implying children from monogamous families all turn out okay. Which is not true in the slightest.

The environment might change.
Human motivation does not.
The current situation in America has caused record unemployment levels and there are plenty of articles whining about men dropping out of society and muh videogames. A society where a lot of people are idle and disinterested is not an efficient one. It will inevitably get reformed or be replaced by one who's people actually believe in it and are working.

>Maybe they are now at a point where they care for the planet, the future, others in need and not just their own family.

Ah, it all makes sense now. We as humans have reached the point of enlightenment where we care so much about the planet that we are volunteering to kill ourselves by no longer reproducing. Therefore, removing our negative impact on the ecosystem.

Amazing how life works it self out.

Monogamy represents a compromise between male and female priorities and male and female strategies, as well as between males of differing statuses. In that capacity, it is a highly successful compromise, perhaps the most successful such compromise.

But it is not what EITHER men or women naturally choose when they have their way.

We know that it is not what women choose because we have given them the choice, a century ago, in the form of the franchise, and they have voted consistently since then, and exercised all other means of influence, to undermine the monogamous, nuclear family, to lift restrictions on female sexuality, and to subsidize promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce, and sterility. (Picture related.)

We know that throughout history, when they have been able, men have also frequently chosen non-monogamous family structures. Monogamy has been the exception, rather than the rule, prior to the last few thousand years, but came to predominate in the West, and East Asia, until more recent times.

The reasons that monogamy won out are primarily that it is eugenic, and highly productive.

By giving up access to large harems, elite males reduced competition for females and obtained access to higher quality females, on average - those most suitable for the transmission of elite traits. They also obtained the support, cooperation and investment of lower status males in maintaining and defending society, as well as in conquering and subjugating other societies, by granting them access to lower status females.

Monogamy and the nuclear family also impose requirements, like financial independence prior to reproduction, which have a eugenic effect. The English word "husband" literally means "homeowner." Traditionally, a man would not marry until he had his own home.

By holding out the opportunity for reproduction, but imposing these requirements, European societies simultaneously suppressed the reproduction of the underclasses, and motivated more men to participate in production, and motivated men to participate in more production.

Eugenic excellence and high productivity enabled monogamous societies to conquer and supplant non-monogamous societies. In other words, bands of men who practiced and enforced monogamy amongst themselves bested other bands of men at bands of men things.

Women were largely just along for the ride. High status women benefitted considerably from the establishment of monogamy, in the form of monopoly access to the resources of high status males. Lower status women made out more ambiguously. They benefited from monopoly access to the resources of lower status males, but lost nearly all access to high status males; to the genes and resources of high status males.

Not coincidentally, you still see high status women largely following a monogamous reproductive strategy. Meanwhile, low status women, feminists, do their utmost to undermine and denigrate monogamy and the nuclear family. And other low status women, the underclasses, simply follow the aboriginal female reproductive strategy of promiscuity plus socializing the costs of their offspring, now that the franchise has given them the option once again.

So if you like monogamy, or the idea of monogamy, find a libidinous, wandering-eyed, western, man and thank him. If it ever makes a comeback, we'll be why. And the reasons will be the same reasons which gave rise to it initially, and the means the same means; no others have a demonstrated track record of doing so.

>this whole thread
>butthurt autists too cucked to embrace the degeneracy

Face it, Sup Forums. Women—white women in particular—expire at 18.

By then they're shameless roasties and damaged goods with gaping pussies the diameter of a fist. Most American girls lose their virginity at the ripe age of 12 to virile drug dealers, the constant stream of violent sex, feminist theory, chick flics and media brainwashing corroding their vulnerable minds into irreparably degenerate vipers and slaves to impulse, incapable of properly rearing a child.

The ultimate redpill: To uncuck society the age of consent must be lowered. Why are Millennials having less sex? They need fresh, tight pussies. Despite their brainwashing, their mammalian minds instinctually understand that the pussy on the market right now is rancid and beyond the reproductive peak.

WTF I hate Japanese now.

>Id make him suffer until we divorced

Jesus

this is actually hateful and disgusting, makes me feel like never having another girlfriend and just slaying pussy for the rest of my life.

There are good reasons to hold up strict monogamy as an ideal, but not observe or enforce it.

Men and women are different, so a marriage isn't, and shouldn't be regarded as, a symmetrical arrangement. A wife primarily owes her husband the bearing and care of his children, while a husband primarily owes his wife support and protection for her and for the children they have together.

For a woman to allow another man the chance to impregnate her is a betrayal of her husband, while for a man to have illicit sex with other women is not, in and of itself, denying his wife the proper benefits of the arrangement, only a bad sign that he might not take his commitment seriously enough. For him to set his wife aside and confer his resources and status on another woman is the betrayal she most fears, while dividing his resources between his wife and other women in secret, or shaming her in public with open disrepect, is a lesser betrayal.

It's a good arrangement for raising children, but strict monogamy is both impractical after a war and bad for the gene pool. If they marry at all, low-grade men should not expect better than having their wives bear the children of better men (either wedding a single mother in the first place, or their wives succumbing to the seven-year itch after one or two children with her husband), and high-grade women should be satisfied with the largest portion of their husbands' support, without prying into the possibility of mistresses. When men are more scarce than women, all wives but those settling for the poorest men should expect their husbands to contribute in some way to the support (and impregnation) of the unpairable women.

>he married a crazy bitch and then cheated on her
Oh well.

Can't blame you, western women aren't that different.

very large sample size

Don't be so selfish go-...I mean guys. We live in a brave new world, not the middle ages when silly outdated and irrelevant things like borders, faith, and family were important. Now let the children in so we can play hunt-the-zipper.

you wrote that in a VERY bizarre autistic style but I liked it.

and you're partially right. I've noticed that ugly girls have had more sexual partners and are usually wilder. I am yet to meet a beautiful girl who's REALLY promiscuous. most of them are in relationships, or are relationship-oriented. maybe it's just Lithuania, I don't know. with guys it's a bit different. they're more desperate and are ready to settle for less, and I honestly don't know why. some of my friends are fucking good looking but have trouble with women.

also the ratio of dudes-women here is interesting. there's more pretty girls than there are pretty guys.

it's like opposite land. hot girls need to settle with ugly guys lol. fucking love Lithuania.

My friend wrote it and he is mildly autistic

What is this picture, what am I seeing?

...except monogamy's strongly dysgenic, friendo.

For the best men to impregnate all of the women is maximally eugenic. Every opportunity for second-rate or worse men to impregnate women can only be dysgenic.

Monogamy trades away genetic quality for greater stability and cooperation.

That's why ostensibly monogamous, long-term successful cultures usually also feature a lot of cheating, mistresses, prostitutes, etc.

Mind you, a more stable and cooperative society can be eugenic in the sense of selecting for more reasonable, peaceful people, but that's an indirect effect.

No it fucking does not.

Spray and pray: You can't find the "best men" by non-monagmy, you can only get circumstantially lucky. "Best men" is defined by an aristocratic monogamous society, because good genes can only be defined over a wide time-scale. You have to retain wealth and power for 3-5+ generations for this to become evident, genetic roulette. We aren't talking about eugenics for physical aesthetics or prowess, we're talking about for all the qualities that made the West the best.

>You can do anything as long as feelings aren't involved

Isn't this literally alpha fux/beta bux?

and it's true, at least the part about no one REALLY wanting monogamy (only extremely desperate people). I mean who doesn't like having sex? if there were no repercussions, no strings attached, no STDS, no social stigma, nothing, wouldn't you just want to have lots of sex with lots of different people?

You have some very confused ideas. The West was far from strictly monogamous. While it featured monogamous marriage as an ideal, most generations ended up having about half as many fathers as mothers.

If you want eugenics in the West, look at honorable war, good treatment of enemies who surrender, and ransoming (sometimes adopting) of prisoners.

While the best men of other cultures were murdering each other by every sneaking trick, European nobles often honestly tried to see that the better man should win, and that men of quality should not die only because they lose. Japan had something similar happen (as did China, but the bureaucratic imperial age and Mongols fucked that up pretty good).

I thought the japs don't date. How do they cheat if they don't even get in relationships?

They have a high % of youngs who don't date at all, and if the video in my OP is right, those that do date have a tendency to cheat.

>flag
Nice try straya

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Video talks to like 6-7 people total.

This could be serious selection bias after he talked to 30 people and just chose the 6-7 that had it upwards of 50%.

I don't doubt that they cheat a lot or anything, but this video is pretty shit proof.

The problem with videos like these is that they also tend to attract really outgoing, "slutty" kind of people to begin with. Most people don't want to be on camera at all, and most people definitely don't want to be on camera answering questions about their sex lives. So yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of cheating, but you have to also consider that maybe the type of people who like to answer random guys with a camera on the street are attention whores that are more prone to cheating.

I guess NTR is popular for a reason