helga von porno

Tales of my fortunes in London involving philosophy time travel heroin addicted granny, prophesy, prostitution, murder, global conspiracy, friends, and personal finances. I am from east germany and fled to england when my parents where murdered and have been living here unofficially since.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Polygyny and Polyandry

Here's the kind of self serving pseudo science these swaggering struckoff psychiatrists put forward: Human beings are polygynous, meaning that men get to fuck around while women are naturally faithful. These pompous dim wits also mix up the discriptive claim with the normative one, concluding that women should be faithful to one man while he should cheat on her. The evidence is that men have a slightly more muscular upper body than women, which is ideally evolved for shouldering jealous husbands out of the way. The other argument is that men can impregnate thousands of women a year, whereas an unfaithful woman can only get pregnant once, so a woman may as well stick to one man, and in all fairness shouldn't complain if he is fucking half of slovenia in maraud, since she has got her teaspoon full of hairy chested aggressive genes, and that's all she needs.

The other conceit, (Miller 2000, Dawkins 2004) is that the human mind evolved through mate choice, and essentially this means that Genghis Kahn managed to impregnate every other Turkish woman because they loved his vocabulary size and his ability to make disperate logical connections. This would predict that men are much cleverer than women, and evidence to the contrary is explained by the hypothesis that women's brains grew parallel so that they would be able to work out which men were cleverer, and know when to laugh at their jokes and nod appreciatively at their astounding metaphysics, and thereby decide who should impregnate them so that they can give birth to the next generation of Woody Alans and Einsteins.

But here is where I present my argument for Polyandry: the theory that it is men who are faithful and women who have many mates, a male harem.
The idea is to look at the best strategy for an evolving woman.
1. Be faithful to some big swank who is also fucking hundreds of other women. Result: Have 12 bastard children all with the same absent Father and all inheriting the same genetic weakness of that one man. Prediction: Many of the children will die before reaching maturity, since 1. They don't have the protection of the Father. 2. they are likely to have near identical immune systems, so a single virus could wipe out the whole batch
2. Have 12 babies by 12 successive men, all chosen for their romantic hearts and their faithfulness and loyalty, (and hell, why not thrown in cock size, bank account and sense of humour). Result: 12 off spring who are much more likely to reach maturity as each have the protection of a good father, and each are likely to have different immune systems so a greater joint resistence.
Therefore there will be a strong evolutionary pressure for men to be kind, romantic and faithful, with big cocks and senses of humour, while women should fuck around as much as possible. In conclusion, human beings are polyandrous.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Also it means womens minds will have evolved to keep their Harem sweet, and keep each of the men faithful. Evidence, many husbands think they are the fathers of other men's children.


  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Zen Wizard said…

    Okay, now I think you are a chick again. I DO think you should still try out for that, "So You Think You Can Be a Pussycat Doll"-thing, however.

    Back to the matter at hand: You have certainly provided food for thought.

    My question is this: You seem to advocate making a rational choice for mate selection. But can one really RATIONALLY deny thousands of years of operant conditioning?

    In other words, if I am programmed by 50,000 years of hunter/gatherer conditioning to like large breasts, can I really make the "rational choice" that Betty Lou across the street--though small breasted--has a 190 IQ, a doctorate degree, and a $100k per annum earning potential; so therefore she is "better" than Mary Jane, who has 44 Double D's and is dumb as a stick, and has a work ethic similar to a sea slug?

    Clearly, the "logical" choice is Betty Lou. But am I "happy" when I deny the millenia of conditioning, and am I even CAPABLE of thinking with something other than my Johnson, is my question to you.

    (On the latter, I am not sure if I have ever even DONE it, so it is a Brave New World we are talking about, here.)

  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger Annie said…

    "there will be a strong evolutionary pressure for men to be kind, romantic and faithful, with big cocks and senses of humour, while women should fuck around as much as possible..." I'm convinced. In fact, I think you should send it to the Postcard Manifesto, Helga.

    I love that old cod-scientific argument, about men being unfaithful because they are programmed to scatter their seed, (as it were.) If getting knocked up were so easy, the IVF clinics would be out of business, right... Psst, old school scientists, it's actually easier to get someone pregnant if you have sex with the same person many times, than if you have a random shag.

    Sorry, a bit ranty. I'll go away now...

  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger Violet said…

    hmmm... definitely something to think about. seems logical enough.

  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger Helga von porno said…

    Thankyou for your comment Mr Wizard, and I can only excuse myself by saying its hard to cover everything. When I said that polyandry was a better strategy than polygymy, I didn't mean that therefore it would be rational to choose it. I am saying that because it is the best strategy we MUST have evolved to behave that way. The attractive of large breasts to men, to use your example, is explained by evolutionary psychologists as a fitness symbol evolved through mate choice. Large breasts are "expensive" to maintain, therefore women with large breasts which are pert and smooth are extra fit. Therefore men who mate with them are more likely to have more descendants since a large breasted women will be more likely to be 1. healthy, 2. give healthy kids. 3. bare daughters with large breasts. This is not to suggest that any dumb fuck man is ever going to go through this strategic thinking. Like you say, they are driven by their balls with a minimum of input from their free will. Likewise, women will be likely to pretend to be faithful an loving and loyal while trying to get a second child by the visiting rock star behind hubbys back. this is not to say that they have thought through the best plan to maximise their happiness.

    Annie. Yup, yup, nothing to add. Concealed ovulation means a man should invest a year in order to guarantee a pup, which means about the same as a woman.

    Violet. Thanks, I love to seem logical

  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Sam, Problem-Child-Bride said…

    'lo Helga, it is 4.13pm in the Californian afteroon and i am drunk. How very jolly cool! The children are being babysat but aren't endangered in any way and I have had a lovely long lingering lunch. I stopped by earlier an tried to leave a thoghtful, pertinent and witty comment but bloody blogger wasplaying silly buggers. Please be assured though it was a tremendous comment, a comment to end all comments, indeed it was a Comment. (spooky percussive moment)

    I think I love you by the way whoever you are. you're paarticular arrangement of synaptic firings thrill and fascinate me. God i hopr/wish you ARE/WERE a man because unfortunatly girls don't do it for me. But if they did....you'd be my dreamboat Helga.

    Please don't hold this comment against me.

  • At 1:51 AM, Blogger Ant said…

    Beautifully logical. The feminist movement just took a giant leap forward with this post...

  • At 4:31 AM, Blogger Ultra Toast Mosha God said…

    I think it's high time you were on Question Time or Trisha.

    The world is crying out for this kind of logic.

    Thank heavens I meet all the necesary criteria.

  • At 4:35 AM, Blogger Ultra Toast Mosha God said…

    Oh, Annie:

    I recently read evidence to indicate that a woman is in fact more likely to get repeatedly pregnant by sleeping around.

    Apparently, eggs become resistant to sperm, so if a woman has been with a man for some time, then takes on a new lover, she is more likely to get pregnant.

    I don't pretend to claim this as truth and I would appreciate further musings.

  • At 8:19 AM, Blogger Helga von porno said…

    Golly, Ultra, that seems to be confirmatory evidence of my model! Just to get it straight, you are claiming that a woman becomes resistent to pregnancy from the same man, but this resistence doesn't apply to new men?

  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Ultra Toast Mosha God said…

    Yes, I think this is what I read.

    I think it was within a three month period that a woman is statistically much more likely to become pregnant with a new partner than with an old one.

    There seems to be some potentially dubious morality in this.

    You may need to research it further but, if this is the case, it seems reasonable that the same rule aplies to both genders:

    We are genetically programmed to sleep around. It is a combination of love and morality that binds us to a single partner.

  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Annie said…

    Ultra Toast Mosha God -

    Sperm: Let us in!
    Egg: No! Bugger off! You bore me!

  • At 4:08 PM, Anonymous HzC said…

    titter, titter. Well done Annie, very funny indeed...

  • At 7:55 PM, Blogger Ari said…

    I'm starting a "Need/Want" list of who I want joining my harem. Capital idea.

  • At 12:33 AM, Blogger Latigo Flint said…

    I have nothing to say except that I've spent too many years being kind and sweet and courteous, and all I've made for my trouble are female pals who whisper to their friends that there's just something missing, and then promptly find an asshole to date.
    (That's why I sneer and shoot people now, and the gals queue up outside my door.)

  • At 8:20 AM, Anonymous emma said…

    I fully support your theory that women should have many mates, but I fear the evolution for that is many years away. Never mind big cocks and a sense of humor, what about spectacular cunnilingus skills and the ability to rub a clitoris without causing the woman pain? Yes, some men have already evolved these skills, but at a rough estimate, I'd say that their number currently stands at 25% of all males under 85, and consequently, the large brained female cannot be expected to waste her precious time with substandard neantherthals.

    Just my two cents!

  • At 2:46 PM, Blogger benjibopper said…

    my problem with all of the theses put forward (and in some cases subsequently slaughtered) here, is that all of them assume a certain heterogeneity of humanity that i'm not convinced exists. for example, the admiration of large breasts is not universal. it is a personal and cultural preference. same goes for other physical, emtional, intellectual, etc. features. can any account be given to this diversity?

  • At 1:20 AM, Blogger Helga von porno said…

    Tosh: I don't follow the logic how it applies to both. Women can choose to a certain extent to get pregnant. Inventions such as the pill make this more difficult.

    annie Hee hee hee
    Hzc and me

    Ari: go for it, but use your head and both faces.

    Latigo. You raise an interesting point. There is a fine line between kind sweet and courteous, and being a wimp and cringing coward. I think the best man is always kind to women children puppies and kittens, but savage and mean to wrong doers and authority figures.

    Emma : Thanks for your two cents, worth their weight in gold in my currency. I've not had much experience in the band department, but always thought bass players must be good.

    Benji, yes of course. If you read the literature, any sexually selected trait will function as a fitness indicator and is of necessity highly varied in the population. Human beings are wonderful, and to order breasts low down on your favourite fitness indicator top ten is not to say you still prefer a little bit of breast to no breast in the right woman, though you may rank piano playing skills as more important (sexier) or long golden hair, or oval eyes, or a certain wreckless abandon, or a flexible back, or a way with cutlery, or tennis.

  • At 3:15 AM, Blogger Ultra Toast Mosha God said…

    I mean that on a purely genetic, non-moral, un-birth controlled basis, both male and female bodies appear to be better programmed to function as reproductive entities when they are combined with multiple partners rather than being confined to a single partner, IF this statistic I read about is true.

    So, Men tend to be drawn towards infidelity more than women through some monstrous drive.

    Women's eggs are less resiliant to sperm when the sperm donor is changed regularly.

    I see a pattern emerging..

  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger benjibopper said…

    yes but it's not just a matter of choosing intellectual features v. physical ones...while some cultures lean toward slim physiques in women others prefer a little rubinism. perhaps this has a global neutralizing effect on longterm weight gain.

  • At 11:46 PM, Anonymous The Fat Police said…

    '...a global neutralising effect on longterm weight gain.' Why is everyone so bloody fat then?!

  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger razboynik said…

    There is a strong argument that 'quality' is more important than 'quantity'.

  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Amandarama said…

    The only place where I have a problem with polyandry is that I hate kids. Ergo, I don't want 12 guys knocking me up. Hell, I won't let Mr. Scoop knock me up. Fortunately he loathes children as well. Plus, having 12 mates would mean having to be social and that's entirely too much effort for me. I like your theory otherwise, though.

  • At 1:20 AM, Blogger Arthur Quiller Couch said…

    To sum up - we all need to screw around. The kids are a downer. Big tits are optional.

    Right. Now, any recommended reading for the next class?

  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Helga von porno said…

    Ultra, "Monstrous drive"? Is that what it is like to be a man?

    Benjihopper, wealth is a ftiness indicator, and therefore wealth indicators are fitness indicators. You do not have to be wealthy to be fat in america, so fat doesn't indicate fitness. Where fat is sexy, the poor will be thin.

    The fat police, models aren't fat.

    Razboynik, yes, but hold quality constant, then the more the better.

    Amandarama, do you hate other peoples kids, or your own?

    Mr Couch: Das Kapital.

  • At 1:49 AM, Blogger Ultra Toast Mosha God said…


    It is horrible, but beautiful.

    Especially when your driving is as bad as me. My sense of direction in such matters is compromised by a scant knowledge of the social highway code.

  • At 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    My theory is that women choose men based on being as idiotic as possible,a nd men choose based on breast size. It's no wonder the world is full of boobs.

    Actually societes that have polyandry are usually soieties that have the most inclimant conditions; it is very hard to survive so it takes many men to help support a family. On the other hand, when there is plenty the reverse tends to be true, and one rich man might have severl wives or mistresses and the guys who are poor lose out. Sadly, it usually comes down to economics more than anything else. One more data point that the human race should probably just be wiped out, to make more room for some kind of intelligent crickets....

  • At 12:59 PM, Anonymous elusiveshadow said…

    I agree with Ultra. If it is true that women get pregnant more efficiently with frequent changing of sperm then it makes sense for men to sleep around, just as well as it does for women.

    It makes no sense, from a reproductive standpoint to keep a man around. If you want to get knocked up by 12 guys, what do the other 11 do while you are knocked up? They should be out spreading their seed with women who can still get pregnant, right? Your harem is useless, sitting around while you are pregnant.

    Modern feminism likes to take (pseudo?)scientific facts and twist them to suit their agenda. I understand you're trying to combat sexist views towards women but simply turning it around to be sexist towards men doesn't accomplish anything more noble. Besides, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

  • At 1:08 PM, Anonymous lots in Costa Rica said…

    Hello I want to congratulate to them by its site of the Web of the excellent looks like entertained and very good very to me it elaborated. I invite them to that they explore a little on my Web site. Lots in Costa Rica Costa Rica Cheap Land for Sale

  • At 3:49 AM, Blogger bukboy said…

    Helga - if you were right then these kind of societies would be flourishing everywhere just through normal maths.
    So why aren't they? You must have overlooked something.

  • At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Viagra said…

    I don't think I will ever understand why it is okay for men to have this behavior, but for women it is wrong.

  • At 4:07 AM, Blogger mike said…

    I agree women such have harem of sub,faithful men


Post a Comment

<< Home