LINE OF THE DAY, part XVI

I've been reading the comment section for this article in i09 and stumbled upon this comment by ilos: 

i realised in my mid teens polygamy without the marriage or probably procreation part is pretty much the social norm regardless of what people admit in studies

constantly men walking around single yet few women ever single at any given time

your circle of friends will consist of men half of whom are single at any given time and women maybe 1 of whom is single, the men will stay single for months or years but women will have a man within weeks or days

the traditional bs with men having to make the first move still very much the case yet you will only know one or two guys who can actually bona fide pull that off with strangers or new acquaintances as opposed to utilising work relationships or social circles to drift into relationships

and everyone knows their one buddy who is always swimming in ladies throwing themselves at him

led me to conclude that given there are equal numbers of men and women, the majority of women are seeing a minority of men. in other words, somewhere out there are a handful of guys banging all the girls.

they dont know their mans doing it, but until they marry up and get their hooks in how could they really. every workplace ive ever attended the same pattern plays out, every group of people ive ever known, and the people theyve known. a swarm of single guys, no single women, and one guy with a new girl whenever he wants.

ive sold countless friends on this theory down the years over drinks (often post infidelity breakup). its all subjective evidence of course, but i do get consistent peer based verification.

fortunately for the sake of gene dispersion, i think that handful of guys head for the hills whenever procreation is raised 

      I wonder if it has any merit? It's an interesting idea and as he points out, subjectively, it makes sense. Stuff like this makes me wonder if the origin of human intelligence was not about survival skills in the sense of hunting, but rather, it was about survival skills in the sense of procreation. As a decidedly non-alpha male, I will admit to feeling extreme levels of jealousy towards the obvious-alpha males in my local peer groups. I want to do something about this: I want to eliminate my competition. I have the intelligence to devise weapons and traps that would be able to overcome a man who's stronger than me but society keeps me from acting upon it...now. But what about then? Back before history, before laws (written or oral)? Would that be the reason for the ascendance of the human race? Other species related to humans still use the dominant alpha-male hierarchy. He gets all the chicks, so to speak whereas the other males have to content themselves with nothing, rape, or waiting for the alpha to get weak. So did the non-alphas of primitive man devise the ultimate strategy of killing the more attractive (in the sense of worthy of procreation from the female point of view) males forcing the females to consider them instead? I get the impression we as humans are still very primal in that wanting an alpha. Men still want to be ruled by kings, we have this fascination with charisma, and women are still primally attracted to guys they will complain about to their girlfriends while remaining preternaturally unattracted to the so-called nice guys, or non-alpha male types.

      So our newfound intelligence has not overcome the old order, but I wonder if this intelligence that our species has used to attain all these glories and wonders was ultimately based in murdering sexual rivals? I'm restrained by social pressures, but absent them, what would necessarily stop me from psychopathically murdering males who don't have to compete for the attention of the females I am attracted to? You don't win in the game of life by placing second. So if you're second, you have to be vicious because only by being vicious can the beta males hope to overcome the natural advantages of the alphas, right?

ADDENDUM: Another commenter actually mentioned in his comment, quoting from this article, that: "What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women.
...
So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives."

So there's that I guess...