After getting rid of marriage and 'monogamy'...

thesis: primitive selective breeding
antithesis: religion
synthesis: monogamy
thesis: monogamy
antithesis: materialism
synthesis: advanced selective breeding

Attached: Hegel_portrait_by_Schlesinger_1831.jpg (452x572, 181K)

>synthesis
>hegel

thesis: didn't read Hegel
antithesis: replying nonsense
synthesis: you're a moron

go ficht yourself

I go where love takes me

A good phrase I've heard describing modern dating is "fear of intimacy disguised as empowerment."

I'm not a fan of /pol/, but we should show zero tolerance towards degeneracy.

Thank you.
I'm so pissed about these incels conservative retards, because they don't understand shit about this. So pissed. They think they'll come back to a conservative golden era. In reality they'll die alone, incels, browsing Yea Forums. Maybe we should just stop talking to them and go on with our life. Leave Yea Forums. Leave them dying alone.
It's selective breeding, but even average guys still got some sex, when women were bored or wanted some attention. Whether currently, average don't get any. I mean any at all.
Currently we are between monogamy and selective breeding. It's a shit era.

>tfw single moms are going to start demanding more money from the government because they can't both work and raise and an infant
>tfw after monogamy working men are going to be forced to subsidize the offspring of a minority of attractive men, effectively creating a legal system of enforced cuckoldry
can't see this ending well

Or the empirical evidence of today

>my boyfriend spending all of his time and resources on other women is totally fine and won't leave me emotionally and economically destitute when I want to have children
polyamory is supremely bourgeois

You have a slave mentality.

I have a realistic conception of how stable societies work. If everyone were a completely atomized individual attempting to maximize their own power, the aspects of society that require cooperation wouldn't function

Fuck society. That's the difference between you and me.

Cool, but the price of what the individual has to sacrifice to society is worth what one gets out of it, mainly safety, medicine, and 99% of the infrastructure that allows us to do what we do.

who is going to enforce the idea that women can choose their own partners if there isn't a bunch of soldiers who have wives?

In any case we won't need society for much longer now. This artificial construct.
This thing (society) was a cuck concept from the begining.

literally this. women will never be willing to die to protect their sexual freedom

What kind of maggot wants to live in a world with soldiers?

Require men to take custody?

Kek you’d be the first person to start crying and call the authorities when someone starts to push your shit in. Bitch

I'm just so dam horny

Women often don't want the genetic father of their child to play a proactive role in the child's life, especially if they're also seeing someone wealthier. In France and Germany paternity tests are illegal without court orders for this reason.

Um, I wasn't suggesting we ask the women. You don't ask a dog if it wants you to pick up it's shit.

The big problem with this is that it incentivizes people to always be on the lookout for someone "better". And by better i mean, closer to their delusional childish image of "the one" the perfect partner. Lots of projection, and not getting to actually know people results in broken homes. People just aren't willing to put in the work required for a relationship because they're afraid it'll kill that chance they'll find someone better.
Emotionally damaged parents cause emotionally damaged children, and the cycle repeats. Human interaction is (mostly) suffering.

>All this projection.
I'm sorry that your relationships are failures. But sometimes people develop meaningful friendships and decide to stick with them without having to tie each other into contracts.

>But sometimes people develop meaningful friendships and decide to stick with them without having to tie each other into contracts.
Not him but friendships do not require faithfulness and the exclusivity of other friendships.
I can have a great friend, get a little tired of him for w/e and go out with another group of friends for a couple of weeks and no one is going to be hurt by that.

Where exactly do you get off calling this half-baked representation of some distant idea "modernist" you obnoxious Catholic?

Attached: D6qLV78WsAE7ISo.jpg (1200x1055, 180K)

Well I'm glad my internet dads are here to harumph at the notion of guys that get pussy before settling down.

Attached: feakcwy015c31.jpg (1074x1061, 532K)

Contrary to you, i'm not in love with the police. Lackey.

Look no further user. Resist the devil and his wicked temptations.

Attached: 41D3+dvRL4L.jpg (347x500, 31K)

Stop thinking this way man. Seriously. it can happen, but not if you won’t let it

marriage and monogamy are natural, hence their consistent appearance in disparate populations before foreign contact. this in and of itself is evidence of the biological root of the practice. if you'd like more information about the transition from chimp-like polygamy to monogamy in human ancestors, you should look into the work of primatologist bernard chapais

You can't claim a biological imperative for monogamy w/o demonstrating the fact qua biology.

Not the previous user but you're actually retarded.

>We won't need society for much longer now
Ok, so you'd codemn the system that even allows you to live your gushy, soft-ass life. You post on this shitty Romanian ballet board using technology you could've never imagined, electrify you could've never harnessed, in a chair/bed/whatever the fuck you didn't build. You NEED society to function, and as the other user mentioned your ass would get pushed in; police or no police.

That's Engels take, iirc. It's flawed because of unequal propensities towards sexuality and the resultant unequal distribution of sexual intercourse

Aria Alexander btw

Another cuck that think a human society needs police in order to function.
I never asked for this. It was built on the blood and sweat of the working class. We'll keep it, but contrary to you, i'll never glorify the harsh process needed to come this far.
Every time there is a post like this, you validate the first man who decided to own something privately, and the others who let him do so. Because they were weak and afraid.
For what it's worth, i don't (validate this).

>the portraits on the wall
;p;

It's wrong, it doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny. Are you stupid? lol

>t. white woman who crosses the street when she sees a black person

He just gave you the scientist working on the theory, brainlet.

No one gives a shit about your dumb ass "validating" things, you're not valuable or special and your validation and opinions don't matter.

>empowerment
I hear women using this word all the time

get the chads on board and we're set.

Fuck you Capitalist lackey. Subhuman knee bender to your sacred exchange value, private property of the means of production and wage labor.

i directed you to the source, retard. but since i have a minute, i'll give you the gist. to start, keep in mind that male chimpanzees exist in small bands, are polygamous, and extremely territorial.

the head male chimp, and a couple of cohorts mate with all their female chimps. for the chimp, this makes the male uncertain as to whether or not a juvenile male is or is not his offspring. this serves to make him less likely to murder it.

males do not involve themselves in raising these offspring, that is left entirely to females. males patrol the perimeter of their territory, occasionally venturing into another band's space to attack and steal mates.

unlike most apes, chimps are patrilocal, meaning that males stay in their birth region, and females leave at puberty to avoid inbreeding.

the divergence in evolution between humans and chimpanzees appears to have occurred between 5-6.5 million years ago, when africa was facing intense drought.

this drought caused the loss of a portion of the chimp-like common ancestor's habitat, forcing some of them to descend to the ground. this descent was the impetus for the changes that resulted inhumanity.

first came bipedal walking, which was more efficient than knuckle-walking in their new environment. hands now are constantly free for manipulation of tools (read:weapons).

on the ground, there is far less shelter from predators, reinforcing the existing ape practice of mate-guarding. male proto-humans now protect females with more consistency. this newfound constant male presence allows them to assist in child-rearing, which does not occur in chimps.

chimps and chimp-like ancestors have harems of females, but life on the ground had far reaching effects on the developing proto-humans. as the result of bipedalism, the use of crude weapons practically eliminated strength as the single determinant factor in the outcome of violent disputes. the cost of hoarding many mates was inviting death, and thus most were pressured to take one. this gave rise to pair-bonding, or monogamy as we call it.

our biological inclination is actually literally visible in that the discrepancy between the sizes of the human males and females is relatively small. in other creatures, such as gorillas, much larger males suggest competition and a harem structure.

where chimps previously only knew their mothers, they now know their fathers and also their father's parents, too. males now recognize their daughters and as a result, when they venture into a neighboring territory, they come to recognize her mate and his parents.

neighboring bands, once viewed as enemies, now are recognized as extended family with a shared interest in the well-being of paired offspring.

this is the origin of larger tribal structure and human society as a result.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (332x499, 27K)

Why do Whites have such pretty hair and eyes and skin? Because the most successful man takes the most beautiful woman and has lots of kids.
Chinese women stay beautiful well past 30 when White women hit the wall because they need to keep their master's attention to get resources for their child, but they're less beautiful, and Chinamen are less cooperative, because Chinamen will take whatever they can get for their second and third wives.
Negresses traditionally do all the parenting themselves and just have to be hot enough to get a sperm donation. The men are very status-conscious and aggressive to try to be in position to be chosen.

>partner
This isn't tennis or bridge, hombre. Lives are literally at stake.

>the divergence in evolution between humans and chimpanzees appears to have occurred between 5-6.5 million years ago, when africa was facing intense drought.
God I love all these just-so stories, Kipling had nothing on this shit.

That's not a demonstration of monogamy. Human in primitive tribe have a gens type family.

for me, its penis in the vagina and spooning after a nut

based and Hegelpilled

Women primarily seek male partners to show off to and out-status compete their female peer group. The Omega female of the group is the girl without a boyfriend (cum husband as they age), necessity of equal birth rates means they have to select male partners of some sort.

Think of monogamy as going against nature to produce better offspring and promote family ties. Just like when someone pisses one off, we decided that we won't bash that person's brain in either. Lots of things humans do is against their nature. Being human is about controlling one's impulses for a greater value. I know you may want to fuck multiple women but realize that you won't have the best family. These are imperatives.

Before civilization people were married in groups. Monogamy happened when individuals began to own cattle. So Cattle was exchange against women.
Monogamy began when inheritance became to pass from the father to the children, and not from the father to the uncles and nephews.

Monogamy is a consequence of exchange value.

Not that i'm for gang bang and stuff like that, but what kind of sane man wants to live all his life with the same women, without even having an affair here and there?
The answer: Yea Forums cuckservatives loosers.
Thinking monogamy is the answer to their virginity, sexless life and absence of emotional bonding with a women they view as their mommy replacement.

> women are cattle
> therefore marriage is horse trading
trash argument from likely sodomite trash. Marriage is the most important thing. It is almost certain that the most important thing every individual will do is choose who to reproduce with and how to raise their offspring. Very rare exceptions.

Another slave of the exchange value.

> slave of the truth
- t. satan

Got any sources for this claim?

>bro if you live in society you can't criticize it lmao

When will this retarded argument stop being used?

In fact, Satan is the exchange value.
But whatever. Believe what you want to believe. Of course sweetie.
Sexual life of primitive people (1921, Hans Fehlinger)
Chronicles of the Guyaki indians (1972, Pierre Clastres)
The origin of the family, private property and the State (1884, Friedrich Engels).

Idiot. Noone is special, everyone matters.

She's so cute

Attached: 1557425174369.jpg (1080x768, 117K)

If you knew Christ you wouldn’t be in this altered dreary state of mind.

> 20th century perverts
> 19th century gommies

Attached: 1565619342302m.jpg (1024x784, 248K)

Oh yeah. Christ is for the exchange value. "you can have this, but only if you give me that in exchange". :s
Christ and Karl Marx would have been buddies. But then again, cognitive dissonance would prevent you from even considering something like this.

What a dubious disclaimer.

If degeneracy means to you just sex before marriage or sex outside long term relationships, then go back to /pol.

>Christ and Karl Marx would have been buddies

You didn't read either, or you would know that isn't even remotely true. And I am not Christian. Your understanding of both is probably from pop culture.

.

Attached: works do matter.jpg (1920x1080, 736K)

I think you are projecting.
I just finished Das Kapital vol. 1, and an association of free men, producing for the needs of everybody, sharing the production, without the exploitation of the majority by a tiny minority of owners of the means of production, seems pretty related to Christ teachings. Christ hated money.

"Jesus taught that we should not use the power of money to lord it over others, either through arrogance or coercive manipulation (Matthew 18:23-34; Luke 7:40-43; 20:9-16)."
" Jesus taught that, since we are merely stewards, we should invest ourselves into the lives of others, not hoard our resources to ourselves (Matthew 25:34-40; Luke 6:30-38; 10:25-37; 12:15-21)."

In short, Jesus told us not to be Capitalists.

>quoting what someone says that Jesus said
I knew it, you didn't read both. It really shows why you think something so retarded is possible.

Render unto the Caesar what is Caesar's.

My kingdom is not of the flesh.

Where envy exists, confusion and evil is out there.

... Not to mention Marx was an atheist materialist. (Thus the Soviet Union persecution of Christians)

Yeah but Jesus wouldnt approve of trying to seize the means of production, he would approve of some people just living in a commune together. He definitely would not like all the calls for violent revolution. His attitude was more passive about that and since you shouldnt care if youre poor it doesnt really matter if youre being exploited by the wealthy.

I guess this is why nietzsche called it slave morality, htough ive always thought he misunderstood what Jesus was saying, because youre not supposed to hate the rich(or anyone) in Christianity.

its the difference between charity and welfare.

>My kingdom is not the flesh.
So that is supposed to justify that we should have miserable living conditions?
>. Not to mention Marx was an atheist materialist.
Yes, but i'm pretty sure Jesus would have said that it's your actions that defines you the most, not what you believe or not.
What is better an owner of the means of production, going to the church every Sunday, but exploiting the workers? Or an atheist materialist (Karl Marx), who is for the abolition of a class based society?

>Yeah but Jesus wouldnt approve of trying to seize the means of production, he would approve of some people just living in a commune together. He definitely would not like all the calls for violent revolution.

Didn't Jesus expelled the merchants from the temple with some violence?

I've done my holy communion and confirmation, and i was an altar boy for almost 10 years.
By the way, Jesus wouldn't like you for calling someone "retarded". I'm pretty sure Jesus had compassion for people suffering from retardation.
And you are supposed to be a good Christian.

He did but that was about not perverting religion, not about envying wealth. or so i see it

Jesus multiplied breads. And changed water into wine. He made sure everyone was well fed, and not miserable.
He gave to everybody.
Sounds like sharing and abundance ideals to me.

why should any decend looking man resent to faithful sex-love relationships? if monogamy and marriage are non existent?

>I'm so pissed about these incels conservative retards, because they don't understand shit about this. So pissed. They think they'll come back to a conservative golden era. In reality they'll die alone, incels, browsing Yea Forums.

It is women who need that conservative era more than men do. Without it they can't form families of their own, because men aren't interested in having families with women who can't or won't commit to them.

Conservative family is a thing of the past. It is not compatible with women wage labor in the tertiary sector. Women are currently becoming the working class of late stage Capitalism. These whores work and are financially independant. You cannot go back to conservative ideology, because the whole society is based on women wage labor in tertiary sector. If tomorrow, 100% go back to being housewife, society will collapse.
Superior communism coupled to sexual freedom seem the less painful way. Mostly for the kids, the cost of their living will be taken in charge by society, and they won't be torn up between their mother and father, since both would take care of them, even if they don't live together.

That's not just modern dating.

Thanks buddy

Attached: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1566803068726.jpg (873x974, 161K)