PATREON EXCLUSIVE: Is it natural for men to want to provide for women?

I’d really have liked to see you continue the polygamy discussion! Like Alex I think monogamous pair bonding is best, especially for women, but there is a lot of data showing that we have quite a polygamous past (& ofc not only the men are always promiscuous, thus concealed ovulation etc, & as Matt said, are awkwardly in the middle. Maybe those highly promiscuous people who never settle down couldn’t (or are miserable if they do), even if they’d been raised ideally & are well-adjusted. But I have yet to meet a slut of either gender who doesn’t have some serious issues. I would fund that study on polygamous men’s mental health!

RhodiumMaiden

Polyamorous polycules look very non conformist and degenerate physically and mentally, if health is criteria.

Just as an addendum to this it appears the question 'is polyamory rational' was translated by Matt as 'is polyamory <i>ever</i> rational'. That is are there any males for which polyamory is likely to lead to more happiness than monogamy. Alexander on the other hand prefers to answer the question from the vantage point of the typical man. So in this sense both Matt and Alexander are right. It seems that Matt is more open to recognizing differences between men whereas Alexander leans towards identifying differences between men and women and then treating all men as having pretty much the same desires and instincts. Even if all men are alike the environment can change so it is possible what is rational in one setting is different from what is rational in a different setting if a different set of options become available.

Andy

Interesting conversation particularly on unconditional love and the transactional nature of relationships and also monogamy vs polyamory. On topic my instinct seems to be to give to my partner and children but not so much to others. On the first I think Alexander is dead on. With the second one Alexander seems to be performing a backwards rationalization along the lines of saying 'monogamy is best therefore polyamory will not be a beneficial evolutionary strategy'. This appears to be committing two fallacies in one. Getting it backwards (affirming the consequent) and believing that what happens naturally is best (naturalistic fallacy). Rape is potentially advantageous as an evolutionally strategy in situations where monogamy is not possible and you won't get caught even in today's world. That does not make it morally right. Sometimes Alexander correctly rejects the noble savage (the idea we are born inherently good) while at the same time thinking it is best in general to act in a way that is compatible with our evolutionary instincts. I'm inclined to agree with this approach as a general principle but care must be taken to call out when this is not desirable for moral reasons. Incidentally it was Pinker in the The Blank Slate who reminds us that we do not literally act in a way to maximize the replication of our genes otherwise 'men would line up outside sperm banks and women would pay to have their eggs harvested and given away to infertile couples'.

Andy