If You're the Breadwinner...

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

Ive been approached myself and nowhere did I say it never happens. I specifically asked when is the last time YOU approached a man and how often does it happen. When you see a man you find highly attractive, do you take the initiative or wait for him to do so.

But I’m done with this thread. You refuse to answer anything I’m asking and are making nonsensical arguments about how a man paying for an Applebee’s meal means he won’t run out on u if he gets you pregnant.

Y’all got it

@neotheflyingone, you’re a smart breh

I should have taken your advice

I answer your questions but you simply aren’t getting the answers you want. My own personal matters have very little to do with this conversation. I might not even be a woman behind this screen. I’ll never understand why people try to personalize these conversations when we are talking in generalities.

As for the other answer to your question, once again I answered it and you simply don’t like the idea of some women regarding a man’s willingness to court her financially in dating as a tone setter for their relationship. Resenting that mentality or calling it nonsensical won’t change the fact that this is indeed the rationale for many in their expectation that men pay and pursue.
If you disagree, or don’t like it, thats fine but it is what it is.

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

You've just been brainwashed by the European to think a toilet is a better quality of life. In nature pissing and shytting "everywhere" is good for the soil. Plus we had enough sense to not shyt where we eat and sleep. I liken this to cheating,sometimes cheating will improve the quality of the soil aka the relationship. As long as you aren't cheating(shytting) everywhere. Cheat far away from where you eat,sleep and outside of common areas and the view of the public. This is just a matter of you being raised in a zoo environment. shytting on newspaper isn't all its cracked up to be,you would be much happier if you and the black men around you hadn't been programmed the way we were.

But the so-called programming happens with both polygamy and monogamy. The programming is humans acting on instinct and then reacting to consequences that occur as a result of acting on instincts. It’s a constant reflexive evolutionary conversation between biological drive and environmental reality.

Sure we have biological instinct to be oriented towards promiscuity as human beings. It’s useful to maximize reproduction and increase population and carry on the species. But doing so unchecked means humans fukking any and everything including children and other family members. Well, without parameters, this behavior results in chaos and dramatically decreases the health of offspring (I.e. incest linked to genetic deformities), and jeopardizes the welfare of the offspring your biological drive pushed so hard for you to create (I.e. excessive violence, death, lack of resources, stds).

Early humans saw this and nature stepped in once again in human consciousness to develop different pair bonding scenarios to mitigate the harmful affects of unchecked promiscuity. Hence monogamy. The human impetus towards damage control is no less natural than the drive to act without restraint. Evolving the common sense to restrain yourself from shytting where you eat and linking yourself to one unit to maximize attention, protection, and resources given to a few offspring instead of spreading oneself thin is a natural reaction to the consequences of living without self-control.

 

[Still Benefited]

But the so-called programming happens with both polygamy and monogamy. The programming is humans acting on instinct and then reacting to consequences that occur as a result of acting on instincts. It’s a constant reflexive evolutionary conversation between biological drive and environmental reality.

Sure we have biological instinct to be oriented towards promiscuity as human beings. It’s useful to maximize reproduction and increase population and carry on the species. But doing so unchecked means humans fukking any and everything including children and other family members. Well, without parameters, this behavior results in chaos and dramatically decreases the health of offspring (I.e. incest linked to genetic deformities), and jeopardizes the welfare of the offspring your biological drive pushed so hard for you to create (I.e. excessive violence, death, lack of resources, stds).

Early humans saw this and nature stepped in once again in human consciousness to develop different pair bonding scenarios to mitigate the harmful affects of unchecked promiscuity. Hence monogamy. The human impetus towards damage control is no less natural than the drive to act without restraint. Evolving the common sense to restrain yourself from shytting where you eat and linking yourself to one unit to maximize attention, protection, and resources given to a few offspring instead of spreading oneself thin is a natural reaction to the consequences of living without self-control.

Thats like saying slaves evolved into good employees because they stopped running away as much after the first wave. Colonization,fear,the demasculization of man and the rise of power of the feminine is what has caused all this. This is oppression on display,and that only leads to the devolving of people from a natural state. I think the proof its not about "evolving" is the fact that men still have multiple women while in supposedly monogomous relationships. The second proof is how horribly it is working out for what you said here:

" linking yourself to one unit to maximize attention, protection, and resources given to a few offspring instead of spreading oneself thin is a natural reaction to the consequences of living without self-control."

How has the ways of this society helped men or women in this regard? Women don't even feel the need to stay linked with a man due to being able to get resources from her real husband,better known as the European. And men still are willing to take the punishments of child support and losing family to get side p*ssy. Not sure what society your are looking at where you don't see shyt and piss all over the walls. Is there a natural level up that isn't polygamy?possibly,but I wouldn't say its monogomy and it definitely ain't what we have going on right now whatever this set up is. Calling it "monogomy" would be a big reach.

Also living among family and as a community would actually maximize resources. Everyone needing there own seperate 2000 sq foot space is not one maximizing resources,nor is it maximizing natures resources. Nothing about our trajectory points to us "evolving" if you look past the Matrix.

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

Thats like saying slaves evolved into good employees because they stopped running away as much after the first wave. Colonization,fear,the demasculization of man and the rise of power of the feminine is what has caused all this. This is oppression on display,and that only leads to the devolving of people from a natural state. I think the proof its not about "evolving" is the fact that men still have multiple women while in supposedly monogomous relationships. The second proof is how horribly it is working out for what you said here:

" linking yourself to one unit to maximize attention, protection, and resources given to a few offspring instead of spreading oneself thin is a natural reaction to the consequences of living without self-control."

How has the ways of this society helped men or women in this regard? Women don't even feel the need to stay linked with a man due to being able to get resources from her real husband,better known as the European. And men still are willing to take the punishments of child support and losing family to get side p*ssy. Not sure what society your are looking at where you don't see shyt and piss all over the walls. Is there a natural level up that isn't polygamy?possibly,but I wouldn't say its monogomy and it definitely ain't what we have going on right now whatever this set up is. Calling it "monogomy" would be a big reach.

Also living among family and as a community would actually maximize resources. Everyone needing there own seperate 2000 sq foot space is not one maximizing resources,nor is it maximizing natures resources. Nothing about our trajectory points to us "evolving" if you look past the Matrix.

Monogamy isn’t analogous to slavery because there is still choice involved and ironically societies marked by polygamous unions have turned out quite disastrous for human rights and freedoms for women and children in many cases so, trying to use polygamy as a magic bullet while denigrating monogamy won’t work.

My overarching point is that people have an over-reliance on a nebulous definition of “natural” to justify a lack of self-control. Self-control itself is a natural evolutionary process as well. Thus society shifted to monogamous family structures millennia ago after observing the chaos polygamous unions rendered.
This isn’t brainwashing, it’s biological evolutionary trial and error and it happened before Europeans even had a name for smaller family units. Other alternative marriage models have occurred through history such as polyandry, communal sexual practices and child-rearing practices such as those amongst many indigenous peoples likr the Iroquois, and they worked out just fine for those peoples.
But monogamy emerged as the dominant form of marriage naturally but its flaws have given way to the need for an improved relationship model. I anticipate that it will be a more egalitarian type of monogamy as men and women learn to communicate their needs better.

In fact, many are finding this to be the case with most successful unions now:

Spoiler: Evidence for benefits of equality in marriage

Dr. David H. Olson, Professor Emeritus, Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, compiled a national survey based on 21,501 married couples using a comprehensive marital assessment tool called ENRICH. This national survey, published in the year 2000, represents one of the largest and most comprehensive analyses of martial strengths and stumbling blocks. Couples were asked to complete 30 background questions and 165 specific questions that focused on 20 significant marital issues. This survey identified the top ten strengths of happy marriages and the top ten stumbling blocks for married couples. This data is summarized in the attached Appendix. Using these top ten strengths, it is possible to discriminate between happy and unhappy marriages with 93% accuracy.

A significant discovery was made in relation to marital satisfaction and role relationships. It discovered that (81%) of equalitarian (egalitarian) couples were happily married, while (82%) of couples where both spouses perceived their relationship as traditional (hierarchical) were mainly unhappy.[17]

So it can be done.
Regardless of the evidence supporting these unions however, I encourage you to do what is best for you and wish you best of luck.