Has the sexual openness gone too far?

>It's not something I "must" do

Who told you you must do it then?

it doesn't matter if it affects other people or not, people need to be taught manners and to follow properly
not doing so reveals the existence of a vulgar person, that should be banned from society

You're either autistic or completely unaware. Sure, you can technically do a lot of things. But many of those will close doors for you if they were to become public, especially in certain circles, circles you want to belong to.

>it doesn't matter if it affects other people or not
>should be banned from society regardless

hmmm

>circles you want to belong to.

Which circles do I want to belong to then?

>Who told you you must do it then?

Look here:
>Sex is something you must do with more than one person.

>Through obedience people become mindless and ruin society.
Society has been construct very much until this point on grounds on norms and obedience of these, even if these changed through the times.

Only in the last decades we have seen a mentality that based most of it's arguments on
>muh oppression
and not surprisingly, people are more trash than they used to be when they were taught how to behave properly

>Read a few books.
You should go back to high school kid.

How should I know? You're either misunderstanding on purpose or autistic. If there genuinely are no social groups you want to belong to, you're a hermit. Belonging to some social groups is very beneficial because it gives status and access to opportunities and favors, and all those groups have some kind of standards for behaviour.

Society is largely divided by social class, and class distinction is based not only on economical power but also on behavioural norms.
A group of people who "party hard" may be denied entry to a classical auditorium if they are not dressed properly, and if they are not in a proper condition.

>Society has been construct very much until this point on grounds on norms and obedience of these

False. You should really learn some history before posting on a board named "history".

>people are more trash than they used to be

I feel great. But I believe you picked the wrong board for this debate.

>a board named "history".
it should be renamed >>>/sjw/

>False. You should really learn some history

Please educate me on this

>False.
Alright. I'm convinced.

>Has the sexual openness gone too far?
>Are modesty, decency, and shame nothing but oppressive illusions?

Modesty, decency and shame are all primarily just ways for people to divert their own fears onto others. Fear of their own bodies, fear of their lack of self control, fear of intimacy, fear of their own sexuality etc.

Opposing this is sexual liberation, decadence and tolerance of different desires. These offer us the ability to enjoy more and deeper pleasure, and connect more intimately and fundamentally with other human beings.

In the most simplistic terms, modesty, decency and shame seem to be oppressive societal ideas, the purest form of an egoist 'spook'. However, they do hold some value, in my opinion, in our culture, because of their innate connection with self-restraint, and through that, stoicism. Stoicism has little to do with sexuality, but with how we express and discipline ourselves, and itself is a positive and constructive ideology, as most are. Because of sexuality's omnipresence, it is most people's prime window into the stoic way of thinking, and as such can be a great benefit to some.

Of course though, society as a whole is not, and will never be, ideologically homogeneous, so the problem comes when some people try to enforce their self-discipline on others, rather than being truly disciplined and stoically separating themselves from a passionate society, they succumb to zealotry and try to force their idea of order onto society as a whole. True self-discipline comes from living in spite of the world around you, rather than trying to change it to suit you.

In other words, choose your own answer, be a stoic or a hedonist or anything in between, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise, but don't tell anyone that they must live as you do.

It wasn't gone too far enough, if you ask me.

Someones clearly never had a threesome.

So you do agree that you can't prescribe any universal social norms? If so, you are merely stating that behavior affects life situation, but that's trivially true.

>Please educate me on this

Norms have changed drastically in the last 2000 years, read up on the different societies in Europe alone. If they had always been obeyed they could clearly not have changed.

>egoist 'spook'
Go back to reading Stirner, you simple-minded hippy.

>Stoicism has little to do with sexuality,
Tell that to the fucking Buddhists or those who have to go long periods without sexual indulgence.

> they succumb to zealotry and try to force their idea of order onto society as a whole.
Isn't that what you're doing? You sound like a brain-dead self-help manual. This is neither philosophy nor history related: it's just your obsession with sex, which doesn't belong here.

>True self-discipline comes from living in spite of the world around you, rather than trying to change it to suit you.
You're like a salesman who speaks with an agenda. You contradicted yourself in the first few sentences when you were slyly arguing for polyamory. Go shoot yourself, leftist fag>

>be a stoic or a hedonist or anything in between, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise, but don't tell anyone that they must live as you do.
Then please, shut the fuck up. You literally babbled about nothing, but one can easily see into your own biases or preferences, which frankly has no relevance to what is being discussed at all.

>Someones clearly never had a threesome.
And someone's never had a stable relationship. I bet you're on meds and were beat as a kid.

I think you should have been beat a bit more, honestly.

Very good post!

>Muh Degeneracy
Humanities was a mistake.

How can you possibly miss the point so badly? Obviously the issue is not the absoluteness of social norms, it's that there are and will always be social norms, it's completely inescapable when you live in a civilization. If you fail to adhere to the social norms of a group, you will be punished in the context of the group.

>Go back to reading Stirner

How about you read a few books too? It would definitely help you.

it's a shit post, what are you going on about, it's entire premise is based on projection

yes, user, that's trivial

but unless you can give me specific norms there is nothing I should obey a priori, which includes "modesty, decency, and shame"

...

>it's entire premise is based on projection

the opposite is true

I've probably read more than you, you stupid libertine sophist. I bet you got your degree in a shit field.

Go take your meds and continue discreetly mocking those who have conservative seuxal values. You'll obviously never have a stable relationship, pseudointellectual. You are talking in circles while slyly conveying your leftist self-righteousness.

> muh nofap is the only way to stoicism
Do people really sign up to stoicism because they are addicted to the porn, cucked by chad or some other reddit bullshit like that?

>I bet you got your degree in a shit field.

Computer Science, the other is Maths. I know CS is an unpopular STEM major, though I wouldn't call it a shit field.

>I've probably read more than you, you stupid libertine sophist.

Then you must have read Aurelius' Meditations and the Tao Te Ching! If you did, then clearly you couldn't have possibly written your previous posts. Read them again maybe?

Did you say that it was a problem that people are stoically inclined....and then immediately say we shouldn't tell people how to be inclined? Ya'see how that's a contradiction right?
What if the way I choose to live is one in which I dictate (either tyrannically or otherwise) to others how they should live?

It's interesting how this board debates.
"Read a few books."
Pathetic.

This board is really shit compared to Veeky Forums.
I'm glad all the crap has poured down to this place.

...*aren't* stoically inclined

>but unless you can give me specific norms there is nothing I should obey a priori

How much of a retard can you be? By your logic you can go sodomize children's anuses with a frying pan before forcing them to commit seppuku with it, there are no absolute norms against it. But the society around you will punish you. Oh wait, everything is relative so being jailed in psychiatric ward for life or a death sentence means nothing, after all it's not based on a priori established norms. Do whatever you want, but there will always be repercussions. Beyond that, everything is relative.

>Modesty, decency and shame are all primarily just ways for people to divert their own fears onto others

Never mind that those mores began in a time before contraception, meaning that getting unwantedly pregnant could be catastrophic. But he's so fucking blind to his 21th century suburb life and how suffused he is in its customs and context that he's utterly blind to basic shit like this

I've read multiple translations of the Tao Te Ching, and I've read Seneca instead of Aurelius .I've read more philosophy than these guys too.

Have you read Julius Evola? I find his arguments for how long periods of refraining from sex is good. There are advantages to it, but I am not arguing this ought to be what people do. Let me continue.

My issue with you is you slyly give off the impression that you are more free by engaging in sex with no attachments. My point is, while there may be certain strengths associated with polyamorous or swinging lifestyle, but it also precludes certain strengths with a strictly monogamous relationships. It's like a channel way where you block up one path and the other paths become more strengthened. I hate the saying "broaden your horizons" because it ignores the fact that sometimes darkening some areas of the horizon makes other areas more luminous. Those who engage in swinging relationships, typically bring in my disharmony to their family and cannot experience the silence that comes with simply joys, usually.

Furthermore, this is about society, not individual normative, you stupid piece of shit.

Societally, I say sex in all its forms is fine as long as it is consensually. That's it.

In general, I also believe there is enough evidence that the porn industry is bad for society. It attracts broken women, and I did read a journal article that said those with porn subscriptions tend to have broken up families. In order to assure a stable family, I think people need to invest their minds in other stuff besides wasting sexual energy and shit.

So yeah, you can be a swinger, I don't give a shit, but don't act like your holier than me, asshole.

>By your logic you can go sodomize children's anuses

But we already excluded that: You are not paying attention.

>holier than me
holier than me attitude*

>19th century
"I'm better than you, I don't whore around"
>21th century
"I'm better than you, I'm free of these stupid norms"

We are very good at going in circles

>Did you say that it was a problem that people are stoically inclined....and then immediately say we shouldn't tell people how to be inclined?

No, the only 'problem' is when force their beliefs on others.

Whether you are a stoic or a hedonist or entirely apathetic, that doesn't matter, and my personal opinions are irrelevant, so long as you don't force others to live the way you choose.

>What if the way I choose to live is one in which I dictate (either tyrannically or otherwise) to others how they should live?

Then you, like the Islamists or the Bolsheviks, become a problem for society.

> The only thing that stops us from raping children is the morality of the absolute norms against that!
How much of a retard can you be? For any sane human even relative norms would be enough and any insane wouldn't be stopped even by most of the absolute ones, anyway.

*Sigh*

The point was that flagrantly breaking the norms of the whatever society you belong to will always result in some sort of punishment. Go tell people how Time Lord Qwakabarak speaks to you in your dreams and when you're taking a shit, telling you to piss in your cereals before eating it, and you'll notice that a lot of opportunities, doors and other stuff will close themselves from you. You're a truly insufferable person to discuss anything with your kindergarten yard-tier of smartassery.

>Societally, I say sex in all its forms is fine as long as it is consensually. That's it.

Wait arent you saying exactly the same as this guy themn? The guy you were talking mad shit to?

The whole "be yourself but keep it to yourself" stuff?

It should be illegal for women to wear pants of skirts that are too far from the knees, seriously women dress like wild animals in the heat nowadays advertising their goods like fucking monkeys no civilized behavior at all.

Thesis-Antithesis

Synthesis soon?
No. This retardation will last quite awhile I'm afraid.

No, you missed my point. I agree with him near the end, but in the beginning, I totally disagreed with him because he gives off the impression he is more free due to abandoning social norms relating to sexuality. Modesty and decency have far more value than just "diverting one's fear onto others", like this Stirnerite argues. I am arguing that is wrong, but I agreed him with him that sex which is consensual is fine and should not be punished.

Consider how he began this conversation by literally encouraging everyone to try out a threesome and that "it's the only way to have sex", in his own words. I am disagreeing with such a retarded sentiment.

He's basically one step away from a Marquis de Sade -- but at least he keeps it consensual while being a sleazy scumbag.

>t. Marx

>Have you read Julius Evola?

No, unfortunately not. Have yet to get to 20th century philosophers.

>My issue with you is you slyly give off the impression that you are more free by engaging in sex with no attachments.

I don't believe he said that. He said forcing values on others makes (them and) you unfree. You are right, there are advantages and disadvantages to everything - but we all agree on this. I think we just had a misunderstanding.

>I also believe there is enough evidence that the porn industry is bad for society.

The thing with studies is that you can "prove" just about anything - even more so if you ignore the ones that disagree with you. This mode of arguing really holds no water.

>Has the sexual openness gone too far?
>Has gone

Ancient Greece and Pagan Rome was more sex open than today.

>No, you missed my point. I agree with him near the end, but in the beginning, I totally disagreed with him because he gives off the impression he is more free due to abandoning social norms relating to sexuality. Modesty and decency have far more value than just "diverting one's fear onto others", like this Stirnerite argues. I am arguing that is wrong, but I agreed him with him that sex which is consensual is fine and should not be punished.
>Consider how he began this conversation by literally encouraging everyone to try out a threesome and that "it's the only way to have sex", in his own words. I am disagreeing with such a retarded sentiment.
>He's basically one step away from a Marquis de Sade -- but at least he keeps it consensual while being a sleazy scumbag.

Hi.

I am this poster: I have not made any other posts in this thread. I think you might be confusing me with someone else, and you seem to be rather annoyed at him. I am not a Stinerist or an Egoist at all really. If you disagree with something I said in my original post, please by all means lets have a debate, but I'm not one to trade insults or memes on a topic such as this.

I don't consider myself well read, I'm not a philosopher, I don't have any higher education to speak of, and everything I say is purely personal opinion and conjecture.

If all this was was you mistaking me for someone else, but agreeing with my post (while disagreeing with the other user you were arguing with), then that's cool, if you think I'm wrong, I'd love to hear why.

/thread

What's valid and invalid expression of sexuality is almost completely determined by society.
In our current society monogamy is the norm (even if many people deviate, it's seen as desirable).
Our current society is not nearly as sexually "open" as some people believe,
we're actually pretty prude compared to our ancestors.

In past society polyamory was normal and there are still societies in which polyamory is the norm.
There is no reason why monogamy and conservative sexual values should be better in any way.
Except that's the way things currently work.
Doing something else is presently not really a good option, because it's not widely accepted.

In theory, a real society based on polyamory would actually have many benefits.
Jealousy and sexual possessiveness are feelings caused by social conditioning.
Those negative feelings would not even exist in an ideal polyamorous society, removing all of the conflicts caused by them.

>You are right, there are advantages and disadvantages to everything
We agree then.

However, there is also the question of those in power encouraging deviant behavior during periods of economic turmoil to lower crime rate. I had a very good paper I read, by a senator, who discussed this technique, and I have to find it again (wish I didn't lose it). Encouraging deviant behavior during economic downturns, devalues people's values in nuclear family, therefore they are more likely to live with another family in a household and engage in less crime. The social engineering of today seems to indicate the people in power realize America's economy is weakening, so we see a movement of media in encouraging a flexibility or abandonment of social norms (such as bringing the personal nature of sex into political fore).

In general, I'd argue, freedom does not exist in the way we think, since society takes precedence and we are always being "pushed" in certain directions by media in accordance with economic states. I agree with you that we should never impose our views on others, but society exists prior to us and needs some imposition in order to maintain its cohesion. In general, during periods of economic prosperity, I believe deviancy is discouraged and placing more value on the cogency and health of familial units is more important.

If I can find that article, I will give it.

Also, like I've said, I am okay with amateur porn videos, but I am against the growth of porn industry. I do not believe porn industries are good for families or the general well-being of a society's communal stability.

>nearly everyone should be told what to do by someone
t. cuckold

>In our current society monogamy is the norm
Monogamy is no longer the norm. I'd argue, polyamory has been the norm since awhile. It's because most Americans cannot afford to pay a mortgage and have loans anymore, so those in power discreetly use social engineering to encourage deviancy, as a way to make people more accepting of living in multiple family households. If I can find that article, I'd give it. There is a lot of research in deviancy being use for social control.

Social control is an inevitability in all societies, even with those who attempt to eschew preceding social norms.

nice theory, except those polyamorous societies don't exist

>afford to pay a mortgage and have loans anymore
afford to pay a mortgage and loans anymore*

Pretty much. Most ordered civilizations are either monogamous or polygamous.

>Are we? As far as I'm concerned you can do anything you like as long as it doesn't affect other people.
Could you show up to work in a pink dress as a man?

Could masturbate in park?

Could you walk around the city naked?

Could you call someone nigger IRL?

I don't know about the US, I can only speak for my experience in germany.
Where I live, monogamy is certainly still the norm.
Although people start to engage in open relationships and friends with benefits more often.
So the trend might be starting here too.

They do, even though not that many.
There's a book called "Dawn of Sex" which gives some interesting examples as well as
pretty convincing arguments about early human societies being polygamous and
also some arguments that humans are inherently polygamous.
If that's true, monogamy goes against our nature as humans, which would explain why it is so difficult for many.

>"Dawn of Sex"
correction: it's called "Sex at Dawn"

Sex at Dawn made the argument humans are inherently polyamorous, not polygamous. Also, it is poorly argued and uses half-assed evolutionary biology to bridge the is-ought gap.

this is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read lol

>Stirner
>hippy

>buddhist celibacy
>stoic

>specifically states that sexuality is not the main issue
>"your obsessed with sex"

>Accuse him of having an agenda
>While making a straight out of alt-right meme tier post

>accuses him of advocating polyamory
>and of being a leftist
>despite nothing in his post indicating that
stop jumping at shadows

>You literally babbled about nothing, but one can easily see into your own biases or preferences, which frankly has no relevance to what is being discussed at all.
He made a fairly reasonable post, you just posted unintelligible ranting.

>Synthesis soon?
People in the real world have a perfectly working synthesis, but ideological autists on Veeky Forums are offended by anything more compromising than whichever flavour of extremism they fancy.

>Christopher Ryan is an American author best known for co-authoring the book Sex at Dawn. He received a B.A. in English and American literature in 1984 and an M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology[citation needed] from Saybrook University, an accredited hybrid low-residency/online learning program based in San Francisco twenty years later.[1] His masters thesis examined difference in specific personality measures between working fashion models and the general public.[2] His doctoral dissertation analyzed the prehistoric roots of human sexuality, and was guided by the psychologist, Stanley Krippner,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner

seems legit

>it is poorly argued
Well, it's not a scientific paper. It's just a book offering a different perspective on human sexuality with some arguments and examples to make it believable.
I'm not saying the arguments are sound or the examples valid, just that they gave us some, so we could think about them and question monogamy.

And from what I see, arguing that humans are inherently monogamous seems hopeless.

If he studied the brain more, he'd realize his thesis is dumb. Humans are not inherently anything, and they do not have predilection to x or y due to experience-dependent plasticity (which is another way of saying 'conditioning').

His first two sentences were obscenely retarded, for reasons I gave elsewhere, and made me think he was someone else. Also, egoist "spook" is used by Stirnerites, idiot.

>arguing that humans are inherently monogamous seems hopeless.

well if given the chance, every male would inherently go and fuck every girl above 6/10. I'll leave to your imaginations whether that would actually work(or whether the women would consent to any except the most desirable men..)

People have been questioning monogamy all the time. My point is, claims that either are superior to others in terms of "broadening horizons" or "freedom" are illegitimate. Do what works best for you, but don't slyly propound it as more legitimate than other approaches.

Also, my point was experience-dependent plasticity is more important in shaping one's future preferences.

>Also, egoist "spook" is used by Stirnerites, idiot.
What has that got to do with anything? Stirner was not a hippy, calling someone a stirnerite and a hippy in the same sentence is practically an oxymoron. You'd know this if you read half as much as you claim to.

>Modesty, decency and shame are all primarily just ways for people to divert their own fears onto others.
Defend this bullshit assertion. Modesty, decency, and shame have functions for social cohesion. It also helps people develop more awareness, empathy, and so forth.

>Fear of their own bodies, fear of their lack of self control, fear of intimacy, fear of their own sexuality etc.
Do you write self-help books?

>Opposing this is sexual liberation, decadence and tolerance of different desires.
I can already see your bias as clear as day. You began by giving two undefended assertions. Good job.

>These offer us the ability to enjoy more and deeper pleasure, and connect more intimately and fundamentally with other human beings.
More stupid generalizations.

Your post becomes all right near the end.

>Stirner was not a hippy
My property is mine, bitch. I am not going to let people take it away. It is rightfully mine, and he can shove it up his ass.

>calling someone a stirnerite and a hippy in the same sentence is practically an oxymoron
Stirnerites and Deleuzians are practically retarded Machiavellian hippies. I hope they're gassed.

>You'd know this if you read half as much as you claim to
I honestly wish I never got involved in this shit. Figures like Deleuze and Stirner are to blame, partly, for the breakdown of your social fabric. Whatever, it's your loss.

>If he studied the brain more, he'd realize his thesis is dumb. Humans are not inherently anything, and they do not have predilection to x or y due to experience-dependent plasticity (which is another way of saying 'conditioning').

You might be able to take a population of polygamous apes and teach them monogamy,
but their inherently natural behavior would still be polygamy.
And they'd probably fail at monogamy often. Like humans for example.

>Also, my point was experience-dependent plasticity is more important in shaping one's future preferences.

Yes, and that's why monogamy is currently the norm.
That doesn't change that it might go against our inherent polygamous nature.

Those are some horny deer

>That doesn't change that it might go against our inherent polygamous nature.
If you keep a rat dark-reared during a specific post-natal day, it will remain blind its whole life. If you play anxiolytic music during a specific post-natal day, it will come to prefer that music over others in the future.

Likewise, human beings have specific critical periods whereby specific preferences can be conditioned.

>My property is mine, bitch. I am not going to let people take it away. It is rightfully mine, and he can shove it up his ass.
again, you're impotently ranting and not making any sense. Nobody's talking about property user.

>Stirnerites and Deleuzians are practically retarded Machiavellian hippies. I hope they're gassed.
You either know nothing about Stirner or nothing about the hippy movement. Probably both actually. And I don't know where you pulled DeLeuze out of.

>Figures like Deleuze and Stirner are to blame, partly, for the breakdown of your social fabric.
The social fabric of my country is probably stronger than any other on earth. From a social perspective I live in paradise. If you think (I assume you're a yank) that your social fabric is being broken down by Egoism you're wrong, it's being broken down because Americans hate themselves and each other.

>And I don't know where you pulled DeLeuze out of.
Both Deleuze and Stirner abandon normative ethics altogether and adopt an egotist approach to life. I know about Stirner's crap argument for property, and I dislike all of those memes where he takes people's property.

>You either know nothing about Stirner or nothing about the hippy movement.
I know more than you, most likely. I don't need your shit accusations of me lacking expertise and knowledge,

I'm currently 2 years into one nigga, nice projecting. Wrong again, seems you were the one who was beaten. Someone have daddy issues?

Think you need to get laid mate.

Not all of our behavior is based on conditioning though. Basic animal reactions and desires are not.
Like hunger, thirst and simple behavior such as fight or flight reactions and most probably sexuality.
Most people in monogamous societies have sexual desire for more than one person, even during their monogamous relationships.
Conditioning makes us not give in to these desires.
But the existence of these desires indicates that polygamy might be more natural to us than monogamy.

>it's being broken down because Americans hate themselves and each other.
It's being broken down by neoliberalism, which makes global economy be valued more than communal stability. People have also become more nihilistic and egoist, so they don't care about fighting for communal stability anymore.

Also, you are far from wrong about what I am. I will not unveil what I am because it is detrimental to the argument.

>2 years into one nigga,
That is nothing.

>most probably sexuality.
Look at how China, Persia, India, Europe, etc. have approached sexuality throughout time. There is a lot of diversity there. I'd argue our social sexual practices are conditioned during critical periods.

That's not to say there isn't more sexual drive in some people, that's rooted in genetics, but when it comes to looking at society on larger-scale, I think it is conditioned and cultural values that are more important.

>Most people in monogamous societies have sexual desire for more than one person, even during their monogamous relationships.
Dumb claim, and even if that were so, it does not establish the reason why.

>Conditioning makes us not give in to these (non-monogamous) desires. But the existence of these desires indicates that polygamy might be more natural to us than monogamy.
You do realize I could say the same thing for murder and spite, right? "Conditioning makes us not give in to murderous desires. But the existence of these desires indicates that murderous desires might more natural to us than compassion."

Ethical naturalism is retarded. It's more about potentialities and genes tilting someone in one directions versus another. Experience dependent plasticity brings out the conditioning more.

For example, there was this neuroscientis who had the genes associated with increased aggression (MAO-A variant gene) and a history of serial killers. He looked at a PET scan, which showed he had the brain of a psychopath on a macroscopic level, but he never turned out as a psychopath due to proper upbringing.

On a mesoscopic level, his brain was most likely fine.

"Fallon's being tongue-in-cheek — sort of. He doesn't believe his fate or anyone else's is entirely determined by genes. They merely tip you in one direction or another." npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

My point is, human beings are inherently potentialities. Since we have culture, we cannot argue what potentialities are more "natural" because of the "is-ought gap". That is my position.

All lifestyles we have seen in every culture of the past is a potentiality for every man.

>inherently potentialities
inherently a field of potentials*

If your lifes goal is fuifling and animalistic urge you should reconsider your life

>That's not to say there isn't more sexual drive in some people, that's rooted in genetics, but when it comes to looking at society on larger-scale, I think it is conditioned and cultural values that are more important.
That's what I'm saying.

>Dumb claim, and even if that were so, it does not establish the reason why.
How's that dumb? It's something that some people won't admit, but it's obviously true.
If someone is in a relationship for more than a decade and claims that he or she has only desired sex with their current partner in that time period, it's a lie.

>You do realize I could say the same thing for murder and spite, right?
Except that this desire isn't nearly as wide spread, so that comparison is dumb.
Desiring to murder is a deviation from the norm.
Desiring to have sex with more than just one person is the norm.

It seems you're also bringing an ethical component into this, which I didn't intend.
I'm not saying polygamy is better, just that it's easier because it's more natural to us.
If murder was a common desire, giving in to it would also be easier and more natural.
That doesn't mean it would be good and I'm not talking about something being good or bad.

>For example, there was this neuroscientis who had the genes associated with increased aggression (MAO-A variant gene) and a history of serial killers. He looked at a PET scan, which showed he had the brain of a psychopath on a macroscopic level, but he never turned out as a psychopath due to proper upbringing.
I'm not disagreeing with this. I've said before, that this is the reason why monogamy is the norm.
Our biology makes us inclined towards polygamy, but the conditioning is overpowering that, so we currently live mostly monogamous.

Would you say it's more natural for humans to eat and not starve themselves?
There have been humans who chose to starve themselves, but eating enough to survive if you can is more natural.
Because that's how we're biologically wired.
My argument is that we might also be biologically wired for polygamy.
There is no "Is-ought" gap here, because I'm not speaking of any "oughts" at all.

If you think life has a goal at all you should reconsider your life.

>Has the sexual openness gone too far?
Far enough for me to fap to that pic