Veeky Forums...

Veeky Forums, being a single mother with children who have different fathers is perhaps the modern definition of being "trashy". However, if we keep an open mind and challenge this idea - should it really be looked down upon?

Since history, the concept of keeping a nuclear family has failed. Divorce rates are through the roof, and yet we still cling to this idea that people should try to keep with one partner. It is in man's biology to want to spread his genes (i.e. fuck around), and it is in a woman's biology to want find the best mate at the moment (who she considers the best mate may change with time, thus, she too wants to fuck around).

From an evolutionary perspective, it is beneficial that genes are spread wide. Also, it would lead to a less hypocritical society. Rather than considering it trashy, maybe it should be considered as the woman keeping a precious collection of the best genes around. Each of her children the result of finding the best genes at the moment, not a result of a tired couple making more babies in a sad attempt to fix their marriage.

Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

businessinsider.com/average-number-of-sex-partners-2015-4
dadsdivorce.com/articles/examining-marriage-divorce-rates-throughout-u-s-history/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What goals do you want to advance through family structure?
What kinds of human characteristics do you want to nurture?
Does the structure you're describing advance those goals as well or better than nuclear families?

You completely missed the biggest problem here; fucked up children.

Nobody gives a fuck about muh whore women. Problem is the children and them growing up without a father and how that might affect them.

Well I could speak of my ideals, but in the end it's down to whatever each woman instinctively considers the best genes. This will not change either way. Rather, it just makes it possible for the women to do a more active choice of who has the best genes (at the moment).

Most children grow up with none to limited contact with their fathers in the modern world anyways. There is nothing behind a claim that children would need their fathers to grow up healthy. That's a social construction, not a biological fact.

Did you really mate for the purpose of spreading your genes?

It's usually just people wanting to have sex because it feels good (evolutionary influence) and then dealing with the consequences.

I think we also evolved with instincts for familial structure (lover's jealousy, etc)

I wouldn't be too worried with opinions of "trashy" as one persons trashy is not necessarily another's so it's not like it's a real phenomena.

If everyone came to a consensus of what was deemed despicable behavior, like it was immoral, that would be a different story.

> being a single mother with children who have different fathers is perhaps the modern definition of being "trashy".

I don't think its really trashy, but I do think that such a condition tells you a lot about a woman's intelligence and personality. How terrible a judge of character must you be to end up in that situation? How gullible and naive could you be? The women in these situations do not purposely get into them and want to be the single mothers of 4 children who all have different fathers. That happens by accident and leads to a terrible life she doesn't want. They still have ideal of finding the perfect guy and sticking with him and building a family. And it doesn't work out and she goes to another guy.

And it doesn't work out and goes to another guy.

And it doesn't work out and she goes to another guy.

At a certain point it just becomes an all-consuming fear of being lonely. And now she's stuck with all these children that has to raise herself because the kind of man that goes for that kind of women arent't the type to raise their kids beyond, at maximum, spending the occasional weekend with them.

If all we reduce ourselves to is genes and biochemistry then we're little more than animals with no sense of free will.
I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater because someone wants to rethink millenia of moral structures to suit them for one lifetime.
You can do your "genetic selection" before commiting to family life. Doesn't mean you won't get a retarded gene find it's way through.
If you want to do some kind of thorough gene analysis before conception then that is a different matter.
That said I don't think people should be self righteous towards you personally, or have a culture where you feel victimised, life is unpredictable and shit happens.
And some people have issues that prevent them from being able to select good partners.

Single mothers and absent fathers are instable domestic institutions which erode civilisational capital. Hence why longitudinally civilisations independently arrived at curbing adultery and promoting monogamy.

Source Sex and Culture by JD Unwin

So this is a cuck thread in a poor disguise. Got it. Enjoy, everyone.

That's not true there's been a lot of research on this , girls who grow up without fathers mature much sooner than girls with fathers meaning they will start having sex earlier and in all liklihood repeat the cycle of getting knocked up and raising a child without a father, (((not to mention the impact normalization of single motherhood has on the welfare state))), boys who grow up without a father are way more likely to commit crime and go to jail at some point in there lifetime, that could explain why a disproportionate number of black youth commit more crime than every other group, single motherhood among blacks is extremely prevalent and look how well their doing

>meaning they will start having sex earlier and in all liklihood repeat the cycle of getting knocked up and raising a child without a father,
and this is bad, because....
argue in terms of biology, not your own morality

>some people have issues that prevent them from being able to select good partner's

Yea it's called having a low IQ and women do it all the time.

There's also the phenomenon of women who grow up with abusive fathers seeking out abusive partners themselves, it's a vicious cycle that reinforces itself every generation when the same mistakes are made, just like single motherhood

>Since history, the concept of keeping a nuclear family has failed. Divorce rates are through the roof,
Because government policy made it happen.

And the people without a nuclear family are worse off.

History has proven that the nuclear family is ideal.

Because they become dependent on the state to raise their kids and everyone else has to pay the price for their irresponsibility

>From an evolutionary perspective, it is beneficial that genes are spread wide.
Therefore you'd be against single mothers with children who have different fathers.

>Divorce rates are through the roof, and yet we still cling to this idea that people should try to keep with one partner.


PLEASE STOP PUSHING THIS FUCKING MEME, IT IS USED AS A JUSTIFICATION BUT ITS UNDERLYING PREMISE IS WRONG.

THE DIVORCE RATE IS NOT 50%.

THE REASON PEOPLE THINK THE DIVORCE RATE IS 50% IS BASED ON A CONFUSION OF STATISTICS. THEY TAKE THE NUMBER OF MARRIAGES IN A YEAR AND COMPARE THEM TO THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES BUT THIS IS STUPID BECAUSE DIVORCES COULD BE A RESULT OF PEOPLE WHO WERE MARRIED FOR DECADES AND THIS IS NOT AN ACCURATE MEASUREMENT.

PLEASE STOP PUSHING THIS SOCIETAL MYTH.

What? Having a "goal" for biology implies a moral framework. Biology itself doesn't have "good" and "bad". It's not the "goal" of the planet to orbit the sun, or the "goal" of an asteroid to disintegrate in orbit. Just like it's not the "goal" of organisms to reproduce. That's just a description.

If you want to talk about "good" and "bad" you have to start with a moral framework.

STOP PUSHING THIS FUCKING MYTH.

You don't really need a father or mother though.

Who cares how long the marriage lasts before divorce? Statistic is still relevant

The nuclear family didn't even exist until recently moron.

>what is r/K theory

This

>since history

This is one time the Helen Lovejoy argument is valid.

refer to this, retard

>does not change my argument

kek wills it

we Post Truth now

>nobody knows who their father was
>inbreeding rates skyrocket because half siblings who share a common father

really makes you think

that's hot

It sure fucking helps

A father or mother figure will do or just any adult figure that the child respects and adore and said person returns those feelings.

Doesn't apply to humans ffs and it fell into irrelevance after several empirical studies poking wholes in it.

>You don't need a father or a mother
>You just need someone who acts as a father or mother

I recall reading a while ago that the high divorce rate is partially because of repeat divorces.
Think about how many people talk about their "ex's", plural. The divorce rate is not assuming repeats.
There are plenty of people who get married and stay married. Single motherhood is fucking awful, do not try to excuse it. The black community is a prime example. Lack of fathers leads to increase in poverty and crime. Look up feminization of poverty.
Thats what "muh independent women" feminist horeshit and hypersexuality has created.

>he thinks IQ matters THIS much
low IQ shitter detected

Yes? How does a father or mother act?

Not him - but link to whole poking studies in humans?

How come the "traditional" idea of a family has been an ideal since the beginning of recorded history and is generally associated with stability?

also: do you think because the upward spike in divorce rate and sexual liberation movement are in the same time period, there's a correlation?

A provider of emotional and material support who also is there to integrate the child into cultural standards and to also develop them as a human through education, exposure to hobbies and to punish them for transgression?

It stands to reason that perhaps the most suitable person to be a parent might be the parent, except where the family is fucked up. Do you think any random adult would have the same love for a child that the biological father would?

Suggesting substitutes just creates complications and problems

A large population becomes a strain on the economy.

It's not biology, but it's the truth.

Children of the Trough is the final solution

>How come the "traditional" idea of a family has been an ideal since the beginning of recorded history and is generally associated with stability?
The "nuclear family" is a modern invention designed to get lower middle income people to buy houses.

For most of human history it was the "clan", not the nuclear family, which was the most important.

As in it wasn't considered weird or unusual for mulitple generations of family members to be living together and men weren't ridiculed for living in the house of their parents into their 20's and beyond.

I don't have the stats on hand, but I know for a fact that there was a graph that suggested a correlation between the two.

It only makes sense that that would happen. If you absolve any person of responsibilities such as chasity and faithfulness, they're going to exploit that fact.

Blame the selfish nature of humanity for that.

>Do you think any random adult would have the same love for a child that the biological father would?

Adoptive parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts.
Many cultures have uncles develop immense bonds with their sisters kids.

We aren't a tribal society anymore and stats show across the board that children raised by single mothers in non-nuclear homes perform significantly worse than their two-parent peers. It is societal cancer. End of discussion.

Unless you're ready to tear down all of modern civilization we've built and let warlord tribes roam about again.

>feminization of poverty.

That is not due to single mothers AT ALL though. Stop trying to make your cursory knowledge of terms seem more then just cursory

Hell pretty much blaming it on single women is pretty much the most basic example of the "blame it all on women" school of explaining social problems.

>Unless you're ready to tear down all of modern civilization we've built and let warlord tribes roam about again.

perferable to a society of emotionally and socially crippled single parent children.

but having unwed mother is the easiest way to make child poverty a thing. The people who advocate on their behalf will even offer these statistics.

Its not about ethics. Liberating the sex market means sex get concentrated: a couple of rich/attractive/powerful men fuck a lot whenever they want with different women while the vast majorty of men remain sexless.

Such a system can only lead to resentment by the sexless men and eventually, revolution (and rape)

Monogamy ensures more or less at least one woman per man, i.e, peace.

not really you sheltered faggot

The sex market is already free, and lots of ugly people are getting fucked.
This whole "B-BUT MUH REVOLUTION FOR PUSSY" is pathetic.
Have you tried blaming it on the man who flees his responsability with his child?

It's perfectly possible to adopt a child and love it just as much as a biological one. Helps if you raised it from birth.

sexual marxism when?

>he wants government regulation of the waifu market

But user, it's 2016. Women can get abortions. They wanted their right, now they have it, and they can't be absolved of making the conscious choice of selfishly carrying a child to term while single.

>socialists are FOR sexual monopolies
really makes you think

you've been watching too much cuck porn
businessinsider.com/average-number-of-sex-partners-2015-4

>The sex market is already free
It's not. Monogamy is highly prevalent and the classical nuclea family as well. People do get divorced but most of them eventually form a new monogamous couple, so it evens out.

Even among youth where promiscuity is thought to be more prevalent (its not) people usually look for monogamous relationships.

> Advocating shitty baby mamma culture
>accompany it with a picture of a slut with condoms hung on the wall to show how much meaningless sex shes had
> "lets all be living fleshlights! :D"
>people take this seriously
If the men who fought in ww2 to protect the future saw this as the outcome they probably would have switched sides or pulled "Kurt Cobain"s en-mass
Fuck sake.

But that shows exactly what I was talking about. Notice how hypersexuality is much more common in men? And this is an society where promiscuity is looked down upon and the nuclear family is enforced.

>Your stupid and wrong, but I won't explain why

How is blaming single women blamig all women? I'm only blaming single women, the women who fucked up and couldn't keep their legs shut.

Meant single mothers. It is there mistake. Plenty of women are responsible and don't male that mistake.

>Who cares how long the marriage lasts before divorce? Statistic is still relevant

Well the people that insist a stable marriage is vital for raising kids should. If the person getting the divorce has already raised their kids, what the fuck does it matter that they got divorced?

social ownership of the means of production not social ownership of the means of reproduction okay :DDDD praise lenin

NEETs of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your virginities!

>Since history, the concept of keeping a nuclear family has failed.
All of the most successful and developed nations today were founded on monogamy and the nuclear family. Compare to the nations and groups that still practice polygyny. Compare to the odd Himalayan group that practices polyandry or female promiscuity. Compare to the Soviet Union when they tried to abolish the nuclear family.
>Divorce rates are through the roof
Divorce rates are at their lowest today since their peak in the 70s and 80s and are projected to continue to decline. The "50%" statistic is completely false. It comes from taking the gross number of divorces and marriages within the same year. These aren't even the same people or generation. They don't account for people on their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. marriage. The divorce rate has never reached 50% even in the 70s and 80s.
>It is in man's biology to want to spread his genes (i.e. fuck around), and it is in a woman's biology to want find the best mate at the moment (who she considers the best mate may change with time, thus, she too wants to fuck around). From an evolutionary perspective, it is beneficial that genes are spread wide.
While promiscuity, polygyny, and even extra-dyadic sex are valid mating strategies within humans backed up by evolutionary evidence, so too is monogamy. Monogamy is just as arguably "natural" for humans looking at our biological structure and history.
(1/2)

(2/2)
As early as 4 million years ago, Australopithecus, a predecessor to modern humans, already displayed less sexual dimorphism than modern chimpanzees. We know that this means that they had less intrasexual (male-male) completion. This means there was already a trend away from promiscuity and towards pair bonding. The rapidly changing environment at the time was selecting for this change. It was selecting for intelligence. Offspring with greater capacity to learn have much longer developmental periods and childhoods. They require much more investment and care. Therefor, individuals who were drawn to staying with one mate and raising the child together had better success than those who were drawn to promiscuity. This trend of growing intelligence and decreasing sexual dimorphism only increased all the way up until modern humans. Not to mention the neurological pathways for hormones like oxytocin and
vasopressin that are responsible for pair bonding at the chemical level.

With the biological basis down, then look at the cultural one. Single motherhood is one of the single greatest predictors for poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, behavioral problems, suicide, dropping out of high school, going to prison, and more.

But it also shows that the vast majority of people have less than 10 partners in their entire lifetime, including 90% of women. Hardly a civilization-threatening social malaise, hardly the sign that social order is breaking down. Divorce rates aren't, in fact, at record highs
dadsdivorce.com/articles/examining-marriage-divorce-rates-throughout-u-s-history/

As for those players who couldn't figure out how to put on a condom on, eventually they come to learn the joys of child support payments.

Reminder that a stable, nuclear family is the best way to counter shitty childhoods and unstable lifestyles, especially in the inner cities

>70% of black people in the USA are born to single mothers
>african americans - the group with the highest crime rate in america
>coincidence

I don't think anyone is disputing that a stable family household is probably going to result in more successful adults (though a nuclear family that's got other disruptive factors such as abuse, alcoholism, drugs, etc. is probably going to fall short of a single parent household that does not).

Personally I contend that anyone campaigning for a nuclear household instead of a multi-generational household is an idiot, however.

This is almost correct. The condition of the children is the prime factor in determining "trashiness". But I would argue that simply the presence of the father does not per se cause concern about the children.

A poor, single woman with three children would be considered trashy. A wealthy, single woman with the same children would not, because it is assumed that she has the ability to provide for them.

Similarly one would not consider a single woman with three children trashy if they saw her to be responsible and her children also to be hardworking, high-achieving, etc.

Marital status is really secondary to economic status and family achievement in determining "trashiness". There is correlation between the two though.

But it's still fucking noticeably dropped in the last 20 years.

>you don't really need to eat food, you can just inject glucose and take dietary supplements

Not sure if you're quoting me wrong or just don't understand statistics.

My point (simplified) is that a completely liberated sex market turns into a sexual monopoly of some men.

Your first graph supports this hypothesis showing that hypersexuality is much more prevalent in men than in women, meaning that even in our highly monogamous society there still are "elite" men who have much more sex.

Percentage of women having sex doesn't really matters but if my theorisized society it would be pretty much the same for all women since they would all be having sex with these hypersexual guys meaning that their "partner" count wouldn't be high actually.

Do you now understand?

everyone i present to you """""""the clan""""""""":
a collection of "nuclear" families

your only opposing definition of a clan is a collection of male and females that dont give a shit and fuck each other like youre proposing. APES DO THAT. i think humanity has evolved way past that phase.

are you proposing disevolution?

>My point (simplified) is that a completely liberated sex market turns into a sexual monopoly of some men.
but the statistics prove that that is pure hyperbole.

3% of men are virgins. That's a minority.
17% of men are total players who have had 20 or more partners
That leaves 80% of men have had between 1 - 20 partners
For women it's 96%

Hardly a monopoly

>your only opposing definition of a clan is a collection of male and females that dont give a shit and fuck each other like youre proposing. APES DO THAT. i think humanity has evolved way past that phase.
>are you proposing disevolution?
Don't be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that for most of human history, multiple generations of the same extended family lived in close or near close proximity to each other. What happened when they got married depended on the culture, but either the man left to go live with the woman's family (like the ancient Romans) or the woman left to go live with the man and his family. But it wasn't strange for daughter, mom, grandmom, and aunties to all be living under the same roof.

It wasn't until the 20th century when we began to think of nuclear families living detached from each other in their own quiet corner of suburbia as being a thing.

When people can afford to they have a tendency to move away from their in laws and get their geriatric parents out of their hair.

Really makes you think.

>Since history, the concept of keeping a nuclear family has failed.
I worked PRETTY well for me

>your theorized society isn't like today's society!
Well duh. I said so myself in my very first post, where I said this tendency can be observed even in western society where monogamy and the nuclear family are the model.

Which is why I was replying to OP when he said why should we abolish those very structures.

I feel like im going circles here, have you even read what you were replying to?

>I feel like im going circles here,
Since you're having trouble, let's start from the beginning
>Its not about ethics. Liberating the sex market means sex get concentrated: a couple of rich/attractive/powerful men fuck a lot whenever they want with different women while the vast majorty of men remain sexless.
This the post and the point which I responded to, suggesting that you're exaggerating nothingburgers like "the vast majority of sexless men" which simply isn't supported by the numbers. The vast majority of males aren't "sexless", they're in the bell curve of average.

>>Such a system can only lead to resentment by the sexless men and eventually, revolution (and rape)
Maybe this was true in the Bronze age where the rich horded wives by the hundreds.
>Monogamy ensures more or less at least one woman per man, i.e, peace.
And divorce lets people dissolve unhappy marriages and find a better partner with which to enter into a committed, monogamous relationship. People aren't leaving their marriage to go join hippie free love communes, they're getting remarried.

>i think humanity has evolved way past that phase.

Relationships aren't things that evolve or dissolve you spook.

Not an argument.

Because becoming a single mother has various reasons.

You simply don't understand.

>OP: why don't we abolish nuclear family and stop trashing promiscuity?
>Me: that would lead to liberation of the sex market and that in turn leads to monopoly of sex which in turn leads to resentment
>You: people dont fuck around that much see (graphic)!
>Me: graphic shows men tendency to hypersexualization even in our nuclear family society
>You: divorce rates havent changed much
>Me: i didnt talk about divorce, i talked about how a free sex market society would lead to monopoly
>You: numbers dont show that (numbers of today, aka, a nuclear family society)
>Me: well duh its because its a nuclear family society, hence why I talked against abolishing it
>You: more unrelated things

If you still don't see the problem here its because
A) You don't understand the difference between a longitudinal study and a trasversal study and what kind of conclusions you can draw from each
B)You think I'm trying to prove you wrong when you're simply talking about something else and that angers you
C)You're stupid

Either way there's no point in extending this conversation

Because many men flee at the last moment or deny their own children. Also abandonment at post birth down the line.

He's right you know there is no such thing as a pussy monopoly.

i agree, user. what im focusing on is the male-female-child dynamic of a family. thats not just the nuclear family: that was around since the Romans and way before.

OP is saying fuck it, we dont need families and healthy sex. lets push this sexual liberation idea even further: how about commitment isnt the norm and we just act on testosterone and estrogen.

I never said there was.
I said it could happen if.

of course not they´re trashy if they´re poor or at least that´s what society says...