Ethology 2

There's a great book, back in my time, in my world, which burned down centuries ago, called "Sperm Wars." Now, I think it's called "Bed Wars." Basically, it's all about the curious science of sex, including how one partner's sperm counters another's, if it's within a few hours, roughly. Incidentally, this is a fact. Read more about competition in polygamous species. It's crazy. What interests me most is the observation on social media that women prefer long sexual encounters, while men prefer short ones. Generally, long mating is a joke among polygamous species. Men lost their penis bone because of monogamy, etc. What's the joke? Well, obviously we're not mutants; it's just that the current meta (Most Effective Tactic Available) has evolved around reduced fertilization. Well, maybe a little like on farms, only not as strict. You can also Google videos about veterinary insemination. How does it work technically? The mechanics of sexual intercourse are built on cultural norms. Duration can vary widely, but since 1. it's embarrassing to fuck and 2. it's necessary, like in porn, the tendency toward short sexual encounters dominates. Longer sexual encounters are more likely with lovers, where the competition is the main draw. In general, women admit that monogamy isn't for them. Is this good? Yes. Honestly. Monogamy greatly ruins the quality of offspring. It's like a woman is forbidden from using her body as an alchemy lab to produce children with different partners (well, with degenerates, it's not forbidden, but that's not a lab anymore). But it also debuffs men, like they can't have multiple women and keep their average consumption low through competition. I don't have a position like "I'm for polygamy and sperm wars" or "I'm for monogamy and dividing women like spoils." People have the same opinion, though. In any era, everyone wants to hack the meta and push their offspring through both monogamy and polygamy. Again, the "there are plenty of fish in the ocean" mentality is a lie for both men and women. Women don't spawn, and men don't lay their eggs, and that's where they part ways. It's the subsequent division of resources that causes the most heated conflicts. Again, three checkpoints: 1. sex, 2. having children, 3. income from adult children—everyone checks them, and there's a healthy discussion going on. But they don't have much significance for the individual. The question is what I call mutagenic derivatives. That is, how relationships affect a person's personality and their position in society. A lot of those who expose bad women... are simply married to decent women and are hyping up the most dishonest women (they're a minority, but just as vocal). On the other hand, top women... have also simply been taken by top men for a long time. And the "market" only produces illiquid assets on both sides (those who aren't involved have simply gone off to farm). From SSC's post (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/theres-a-time-for-everyone): Maybe I'm not a success story here, exactly. I'm getting married at 37, a lot later than I would have liked. And my story involves parts that probably don't replicate well, like becoming a niche Internet microcelebrity whose readers sometimes invite him to things despite his many social inadequacies. Or as Lin Manuel-Miranda puts it: I may not live to see our glory But I've seen wonders great and small If Alexander can get married There's hope for our ass, after all! He then goes on to talk a lot about necroenergy (Moptyuk's concept), although he doesn't call it that. Like, marriage is a commitment, a mutual way to eliminate the risk of uncertainty through a contract. As a great lawyer, I love discussing contracts. Essentially, a contract is needed for a Pareto-better equilibrium, compared to a Pareto-worse state of the game where no contract exists (see game theory). Essentially, a willingness to fulfill mutual obligations is the healthy foundation of any relationship. Sure, Scott apparently found a wife at an orgy and managed to have two children in a polyamorous marriage, and that adds a certain spice to his case in terms of its uniqueness. But this fucked-up approach is much closer to optimality than the mating of irrational creatures. Think about it. Unsubscribe.