>Wow, so much spin it’s making me dizzy. I’ll refrain from ad hominem attacks other than to say that you are just intelligent enough to make a mockery of yourself. Firstly, I absolutely did not define best in purely aesthetic terms. I did not define best, Merriam-Webster defines it as “better than all others in quality or value,” I concur with this definition, I have no interest in operationalizing it. Of course sperm have “battle tactics,” they are always in competition among one another, this has absolutely nothing to do with the sperm of other men. Also having nothing to do with multiple partners is the fact of female multiple orgasm. Orgasm serves as in incentive to reproduce. Men reproduce through sperm. Women reproduce through ovulation. Understood? Good, let’s continue. Men produce sperm to fill inventory. When they ejaculate, they empty inventory. It takes approximately 24 hours to refill inventory. When inventory is empty, there is no biological incentive to ejaculate, hence the lack of male multiple orgasm. Women ovulate approximately once every 28 days but they do not consciously perceive the occurrence. Thus, they have a constant, low incentive to engage in intercourse. It may be subconsciously elevated during ovulation, but that is besides the point. It is low, but that is besides the point. It is constant, that is why women have the capacity for multiple orgasm.

>Women have an incentive to cheat too, but the stakes are much higher.

>Men can theoretically have multiple children a day from the age that they reach puberty (first ejaculate), to the day that they die or become impotent. Note that the former is more common, while men’s ability to reproduce declines with age, it nowhere near takes the nosedive that women’s does after 35. Women can theoretically have a maximum of one child every nine months from the day that they first ovulate until about 35. Note that from about the age of 30 to 45 the risk of complications and birth defects dramatically rises. Therefore, women have a MUCH greater interest in the success of each offspring. Men can have plenty so they don’t need to worry about any one of them. All your misguided logic about tribes aside, having two parents gives a huge advantage to any offspring, women need their offspring to have that advantage, men don’t.

>Now to your misguided logic about tribes. Understanding that you have a biological interest in the offspring of your relatives requires a high degree of intelligence, which early human did not possess. Instead, they intuitively understood the advantage of numbers and evolved as social beings for that reason. But that is a tenuous alliance, there can be no trust among animals, self-interest rules. I have a certain interest in being a member of the group, but I also have an interest in opportunistically taking out any members of the group at the first sign of weakness, strengthening the group and elevating my level within it. Early humans lived in tribes, but it was not the utopia you think of it as. Side note; agriculture was the advent of civilization, the transition from nomadic tribes living off large swaths of land to stable agricultural communities enabled the subsequent copper age, bronze age, iron age, industrial revolution, electrification, and finally the information age we are in today.
Back to the point. Regardless of whatever other assistance may be available, a child benefits from having a father assisting, the father has little biological incentive to do so, the mother has a tremendous interest in the father doing so, hence the tendency for women to bond-pair.

>The empirical existence of men’s tendency to bond pair may be explained in a number of way. Firstly, betas. Knowing that women value bond-pairing so much leads many modern men to myopically focus on showing their provider qualities and declaring their undying devotion to women, at the expense of demonstrating their genetic superiority. Notice how I didn’t define superior, how the fuck am I supposed to know, I’m smart, but hardly pretend to be smarter than evolution, “best” or “superior” can only be determined after the fact, based on history, what ended up being supreme. Secondly, men are semi-intelligent, semi-rational beings, they know how much effort can be involved in finding a nice hole to dump your daily load, especially if they are not all that genetically superior. So they purposefully bank on being the devoted provider, in the pursuit of pleasure, at the expense of sometimes being cheated on or cuckolded when their lack of genetic superiority fails to make their woman’s vagina tingle and she decides to look elsewhere.

>So there you have it, why you were wrong. I wasn’t approaching this from a RedPill mentality, but what do you guys think, was this amused mastery or did I fail this cum dumpster’s shit test by even engaging it? I definitely amused myself rubbing this out on the train home. And I guess that’s all that I really care about anyway. Reddit, the mental fap factory.

And then, two comments down

>Hamstering? Leah honey. I’m a man. I don’t hamster. I’ll leave that to you ladies. It should be evident from my response that I am well versed in psychology, biology, and anthropology. Now run along little girl, men are talking here.


Source: http://np.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/25z6s3/why_is_it_bad_if_females_have_a_large_volume_of/chnn1zb?context=3