Whats the origin of marriage?

Other than the social buy-in and beta male uprising scenarios an important factor for stricter long-term monogamy (as opposed to serial monogamy) which also emerged in some cultures is channelling efforts into productive pursuits not directly related to sexual competition. "Here's your husband/wife, that's it, now forget about the sexual market and focus on doing something else for the community (or just investing in your progeny*)"

*artificially limited for the male due to having access to only one female

You do realise that most societies have practiced polygamous marriages right?

You have to legally provide for your wife and children, and have a right to make decisions on their behalf. You cannot do this with a gf, there is no contract acting as the basis of that relationship.

The wealthy and powerful being polygamous doesn't take away from the bulk of society being monogamous.

>the woman's nature is to mate with the best male possible, and the man's nature is to mate with as many females as possible.
>Isnt this right?
No. Stop repeating /pol/ non sense

>Naturalistic Fallacy
The other modern primates are considerably more varied in their mating arrangements than we are, and we know nothing of the mating arrangements of common ancestor, which, presumably, could be just as radically different from ours as the others are from us and each other. Some chimps and apes mate for life, others do the alpha combat rigmarole (which actually results in omegas breeding more often than alphas, oddly), still others practice "free love" or form mating rotations - nature provides no "right way" on which to draw.

Marriage is convenient for us due to the concept of individual and family property and inheritance. One must know whose child belongs to who or that whole model falls apart.

There are a few tribes who practice communal child rearing, sometimes even rigged up in such a way that there is no way in which to tell which child belongs to which father, but they have considerably simpler economies and no inheritance. In such a case, even though the obvious solution would be to work things maternal fashion, that doesn't seem to be what happens, and rather you have a loose chaos with no inheritance at all. While some may find this concept pleasant, it isn't conducive to ambition or advancement, for reasons obvious beyond the primitive state of such tribes.

Monogamous marriage is the institution of civilization. Nomadic societies would often have group marriage etc.
The point is that, generally, monogamous marriage coincides with the rise of sedentary agricultural societies and private property, as a means for men to pass on their property through a male heir.

That's a very basic generalization. The point is that in nomadic/semi-nomadic societies there was not enough of a material surplus of goods to foster the kind of class-differentiations that are characteristic of civilized societies. There was nothing to be gained, no reason or means to be able to gain more of the surplus product than somebody else. The society did not produce much more than met their immediate conditions for their societies' reproduction.

Engels said that the first class division came about with the division of labour between men and women. Women were unable to stay on par because the material surplus generated by agricultural civilization tended to be gained and used by men. Women were relegated to the reproductive sphere, the household, child-rearing and so on.

Monogamous marriage was the expression of property relations that were in control of men at the expense of women. If, for example, we take Classical Greece, we are NOT talking about a 'love' marriage, we are talking about a marriage for political/economic consolidation of property for a certain family, with the woman playing the role of a mere piece of property to be offered for exchange, exchange between the two male heads oof the families. That's not to say that love marriages couldn't exist, but they were the exception rather than the rule.

So no OP, women do not 'mate with the best man possible', because that makes absolutely no sense considering they had utterly no say in the matter of their marriage. And at the same time no, men do not want to 'mate with as many women as possible'. Utterly ridiculous. SEXUALITY AND IT'S EXPRESSION CHANGES ACCORDINGLY WITH DIFFERENT SOCIAL EPOCHS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. SEXUALITY HAS NO 'ESSENTIAL' SUBSTANCE WHICH IS TRANS-HISTORICAL. THIS NOTION IS UTTERLY A-HISTORICAL AND JUVENILE.

Go deny basic biological principles somewhere else.

>basic biological principles
which ones are those?

There's no basic biological principles involved:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partible_paternity

Unlike sex, marriage is a social construct. It just happens to be the monogamous lifetime model has been one of the more effective ones.

>the inate biological differences between male and female do not dictate reproductive strategies and sexual behavior
Seriously just stop.

Yes, which ones are those?

The basic fact of men and women having a sex drive is a truism, it's obvious. What is NOT a truism is that this men and women express and conceive of this sexuality in the same way regardless of the particular historical circumstances they find themselves in.

Do you think that neolithic man longed for the sexual aroma of the strip club? Or that Bronze age woman could express her disgust at forced marriage through the burning of bras that was characteristic of second wave feminism? Do you, in short, think that sexuality as it currently exists in it's particular form is simply the standard by which previous societies simply fell short?

You take your sexuality so much for granted that you cannot actually conceive of a time when this was not so. This is basic biological reductionism and it should have no place in a history discussion

it just werks

So I guess all those Greeks and Turks fucking boi-pussy throughout the ages were born that way? It wasn't that they lived in a culture where pederasty was normalized?

Your greentext doesn't accurately represent what he said, though.

not him but gays have always existed in some form

>in some form
So we are agreed that sexuality reflects culture and changes over time

Grasp all you want cataloging every instance of maladative sexual behavior you can find through the annals of history, the fact remains that males and females do not and cannot practice the same reproductive strategies. The difference in selection strategies is intrinsic. Men are barely selective. Women have to be extremely selective. It's baked into the pie. End of.

Sexuality is constructed. One learns to be straight just as one learns to be gay. And I don't mean that someone actually instructs you with a chalkboard and shit, This stuff happens at a largely subconscious level, sexuality resides at this subconscious level and is extremely important. Sexuality relates to the way in which we reproduce the existing society at the level of our actual thought, even at a subconscious level.

As Freud said, we are all born bisexual. That is, we are born invested with a sexuality which looks for an outlet, but this looking is almost boundless in its potential variation. I mean, it's just so complicated and I'm not saying I have it all worked out. But it is absolutely not reducible to some king of genetic predisposition.

>Women have to be extremely selective. It's baked into the pie.
At what point do you think women began to be selective? They've only had to power to select for about 50 years, and only in the west. Do you think some peasant chick in Pakistan is selecting her mate? Or do you think she's marrying the man her family tells her to. End of

Women were selective even when arranged marriages were a thing.

>Freud
Yeah just put a trip on so we can filter you.

>
Seriously just shut the fuck up. 'Baked in the pie', honestly stop me vomiting.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU, YES YOU, ACCOUNT FOR HOMOSEXUALITY, LESBIANISM, ASEXUALITY, EVEN HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES WHO DECIDE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN ETC. YOU CANNOT, BECAUSE FOR YOU SEXUALITY IS REGULATED AT A GENETIC LEVEL AND ANY INSTANCES WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO REPRODUCTION ARE CONSIDERED 'MAL-ADAPTIVE'.
Honestly just shut the fuck up, you have no fucking idea about history.

>Men are barely selective.
that isn't true. in highly stratified societies a man and his family choose a mate according to what will further the family's fortunes

Well, beyond "Tab A goes into Slot B", obviously not, if you bothered following the link.

Polygamy, monogamy, promiscuity, chastity, and everything else is fair game. Nearly every model under the sun has existed in one form or another over time, and many variations continue to exist today.

Not that some models aren't more effective than others, as demonstrated by those that have had the most success, but there is no biological imperative to arrange relationships in a specific way. So long as offspring happen, and the tribe survives, biology doesn't give a shit.

>reeeeeeeeee
You are losing your composure. It's okay. You're a fudge packer. You don't have to justify your perversions any more. It's 2017.

>Men are barely selective. Women have to be extremely selective. It's baked into the pie. End of.

This seems like a stunningly bad argument when claiming monogamous marriage is biologically based. I don't know many attractive, intelligent males that would happily settle down for a monogamous sexual relationship for life with the first annoying, thick, ugly wench they could stick their dick into.

It's cute that you see this as 'justifying my perversions'. But it's ok, we know you are a fascist, you don't have to qualify it, this is 2017 after all.

>that guy in this thread who has obviously never had a relationship with a real women and is taking all his ideas about human sexuality and selectivity from online pick-up artist snake oil marketed at losers

nah, diddlers and gays have always been around.

>All this hypergamy denial
His is infiltrated with damn roasties.

Women is socialist in the streets, capitalist in the sheets

...

Not an argument.

Incidentally, using a guy who looks like that to insinuate that he's a virgin only reaffirms what that poster is saying.

Makes you think.

>What made people start getting married?

life

>the woman's nature is to mate with the best male possible, and the man's nature is to mate with as many females as possible. Isnt this right?
Nope.

Look up genetic bottlenecks based by sex. The overwhelming majority of women throughout history reproduced. Men not so much.

The difference isn't that drastic and can be explained without resorting to /r9k/ logic.

1 in 17 men passed their genetic material while 1 in 4 women DID NOT. Honestly this fits the level of math literacy expected here.

Male/female reproductive strategies have nothing to do with "/r9k/ logic".

Do you people understand that there is minimal consequence for men who fucked and fucked and fucked anything that moved prior the establishment of legal marriage institutions?

...

Thing is the chads are just as misogynistic yet have the traits to be better at courting.