What is the purpose of monogamy?


Originally published January 2018.

Richard B Riddick

What is the purpose of monogamy?

Let us put aside what it means from a romantic and personal perspective and ask what is the purpose of this practice in a societal context. My view is that monogamy is desirable from a civilisation perspective as it effectively reigns in the natural polygamous desires of men (or at least the vast majority – kings and billionaires will do what kings and billionaires wish to do).

This is crucial because the natural man, unmodified by civilisation’s norms or morals, will always seek to maximise his sexual and breeding opportunities. Unrestrained by morality, kidnapping and raping would be arguably the most effective way to go about this. Obviously, if fighting for opportunities to kidnap and rape and kidnapping and raping themselves are the primary activities of men (being 50% of the population and physically dominant), there is not going to be a lot of family formation, above replacement fertility, stable living or agriculture. It probably took a few thousand years of selection pressure (in the form of killing rapists and adulterers) before the naturally predisposed rapists and adulterers were sufficiently oppressed by society into monogamy, in order for our ancestors to cease being disorganised foragers, and form the more organized and hierarchical hunter gatherer tribes that would eventually continue the ascent of mankind.

Effectively, monogamy allows the possibility of men to work together. In essence, instead of seeing every other man as a direct physical threat and sexual competitor like certain animals do, men were able to look at other men and conceive of opportunities by which, through their co-operation, they could all benefit. This includes organized hunting & fishing, larger communities, trade etc., safe in the knowledge that their success would afford them breeding opportunities with a particular female, exclusively. Juxtapose this behavior with the victorious lion, whom after winning control of a pride will literally kill all the cubs of the previous male lion he has supplanted. It is natural, for males (and human men are no exception) to seek to maximise resources for themselves and their own direct genetic descendants. If that means killing the infant children of another man, “so be it” grunts the primitive natural polygamous man.

Monogamy also had the flow-on benefit of assuring fathers of their paternity of a particular child. It cannot be overstated how crucial this is. This is what creates in a man the desire to be altruistic and invest his own resources and efforts in protecting and providing for a child. It is these family ties that form the literal bedrock of our society.

The various forces in this world that seek to upend and fundamentally change said world, know the importance of monogamy.

This is why they (consciously or unconsciously) seek to undermine monogamy in the West. They know that if a critical mass of men disengage from the work & family formation process, that the bedrock will collapse. Undermining monogamy and the incentives it provides men is but one of the ways they achieve this.

Sadly, I don’t believe that many otherwise “woke” people realise how rapidly our society has changed. Mainly because the cultural vanguard of these forces is in control of the government departments and academia who could compile this sort of data, and they certainly make no attempt to disseminate it out to broader society.

Below is a graph from Norway showing the rates of childlessness for men and women by age 45. The gap between the lines tell us that that in 1985, approx 6% of women had children to men who had fathered children to a different woman or to multiple women. This means that this 6% of women were as breeding opportunities not being “paired” off so to speak, but were via marriage or child support, effectively sharing a male provider, and if said provider was not sufficient, being supported by the state. As the graph progresses, you can see that by 2012, this gap has literally doubled. Meaning now, more than one in ten women is not being paired off with a male, but are now sharing a male provider via child support, or are dependent on the state.

Obviously, some of these women who have borne a child of Man A, will pair off or be married to some other person, namely Man B. However, even with almost a century of programming, being Man B is decried as being a “white knight” or “captain save a ho” by nearly all male sub cultures and seen as an admission that one cannot obtain a higher value female.

So to the extent that there isn’t a Man B, you have the single mother phenomenon, and the rise of the single mother voting bloc is why government and taxes must keep getting bigger, because the replacement provider role that government has taken on is not just huge, but is rapidly growing due to subsidization. That is to say, funding measures designed to ease the plight of single mothers will result in more single mothers. This cycle of destruction is particularly dangerous because any attempts to address the actual root problem are no longer socially palatable, measures such as societal endorsement of monogamy, shame as a tool of compliance, endorsing gender roles etc.

Further, increased taxes on net tax payers (the majority of which are men) make it even harder for them to provide for their own families, de-incentivising men who are still participating in the work/family-formation/provider process, and any would be entrants. Even more disastrously, a whole generation of men observe this process and know that their ability to procure resources (as hard as it is) isn’t even enough to attract and retain a female, because consumerism and feminism has fully activated the natural state of women, which is hypergamy.

The unwinding of the societal institution of monogamy is but one of the ways by which these forces of “disorder” seek to remove the mechanisms that suppress the polygamous and hypergamous natures of men and women respectively. It is not an exaggeration to say that if a sufficient critical mass of men or women are allowed to let their unrestrained natural high-time-preference natures out, it will literally be the end of our economic system and society. Therefore we have to return to rule by reason, not the psuedo-democratic rule by feelz, we have now.

I know that in our current moral paradigm it is too harsh to cut welfare or say that single mothers should receive no government benefits for instance, or that it is considered sexist to be anti “no-fault divorce”. But my riposte is that it doesn’t matter how any of this makes anyone feel, our present system is unsustainable and rapidly heading to a point of no return. If the collapse of the ponzi social welfare state brings down society, there won’t be any welfare for single mothers, there won’t even be any marriages for anyone to get divorced from!

For the men who are aware of the issues there are two schools of thought on this topic, the Enjoy the Decline crowd (Men going their own way, “lay down and rot”-ers and Red pill slayers) and those that want to secure a future for Western people and Western civilization. I can’t offer any guarantees. It is possible that our civilization and people are doomed to suffer the fate of the Romans, hence the enjoy the decline crowd. But if they believe that, then they have despaired, and given up the hope of victory, of survival itself.

I haven’t, and neither should you.

Our civilization carved itself from the chaos of nature by grim determined hand. That potential for righteous order and greatness remains within us.

Photo by John Pavelka

  • Repeal fake marriage

    I’ll answer before I read this article. Monogamy is security for your children and the basis for a wonderful life long relationship with your wife or husband. It is a vital requirement for a healthy functioning society that is that way because of traditional families values. This is what is still holding our society together despite the best efforts of Mao Tse Wong and her posse of perverts.

  • Kevin Burke

    I Love this story, but sadly it’s not a story it is Fact, well said, it is exactly how I see society today…I personally believe the battle is lost, in relationship to Marriage or just Monogamy in general…I have watched in absolute amazement, at the decline of the commitment to any real form of committed relationship, mostly by Women up until 40yr. then the swing around after 50yr. by Men.
    The spotlight freeze of Men in their 20’s, as they struggle to know what or how to go about a committed relationship, as told to them by their single Mothers, as to how to, treat a Woman. But that not lining up with what single Young Women want, so it seems.
    Their really is no incentive for a Young Male to be in a Committed Relationship & certainly no desire from Young Women to be in a Committed Relationship until they are in their late 30’s…they are really polls apart & rarely line up now days… Now I’m not saying this is the norm, their is still relationships happening, but not as many …just a observation.

  • sadsak

    Why? It means you only have to fight on one front.

  • belt fed 7.62mm

    No more feminism. No more being a tranny or a fag because it’s “progressive”. No more more “identifying as” . No more gender equality. No more welfare. No more screwing around. Get your shit together because (((they))) won’t stop.

  • Equinsu

    The purpose of monogamy is to ensure that beta males get pussy. If beta males don’t get pussy, then it becomes impossible to sustain a civilised society.

  • Ron Mortimer

    Another factor is the hypergamous instinct in a certain proportion of women. This means that they are biologically programmed to share the resources of a rich and/or powerful man for their offspring rather than have a poor man to themselves. This results in large numbers of poor men not having wives and offspring which results in other social knock-on effects. Monogamy results in all or most members of a society having a real and non coerced stake in that society. This results in a high standard of living for all.

  • Jeremy

    This comes down to voting rights.
    Up until the universal franchise in the late 1800s and votes for women in the early twentieth century, voting in all Anglo societies was restricted to property owners. This essentially meant to major taxpayers. The logic is simple fairness and common sense:
    “If you haven’t contributed to the pot , why should you have a say in how it is shared?” and
    “If you are unable to acquire and preserve enough property to look after yourself, your opinion on the conduct of society is unlikely to contribute to survival.”
    The more that people who aren’t contributing get to vote, the more bad decisions are made about how to run things and how to allocate resources.
    Reducing the franchise to nett taxpayers only is the only long term answer.

    • Philip

      Spot on Jeremy and well said.
      No-one should be able to vote for a living or for a handout from those who create society’s wealth.

    • Paul Thompson

      Well said!

  • Maryanne

    Governments make lousy husbands and even worse fathers. Catholic priest Father Brian Lucas said decades ago that he thought modern couples were incapable of contracting a valid marriage as they have no understanding of the meaning of a solemn vow.

    It astonishes me to see people divorcing after a few years of marriage, and especially with babies and little children involved. And yes, it’s totally unjust that other taxpayers have to foot the bill for people who divorce while trying to support their own families.

    The choice is between a prosperous society with stable marriages – or a ghetto of single mothers, aimless men, and lots of feral children.

  • John Sheppard

    This might seem a bit out of the blue, however I think society needs to move towards the Starship Troopers type society. That of citizenship, which entitles people to vote and other privileges. The goal of the people is then to acquire citizenship, and by making it challenging, it becomes a significant life goal, giving people purpose.

    Those who do not like the game don’t have to play, and can cruise along under the radar with little say over the direction of society. Given they have no motivation to improve their own position, they are unlikely to contribute if given access to vote.

    Also providing a pathway to citizenship through service (i.e. military) means no-one has an excuse that it is too hard. Just they can’t be bothered doing anything for their country.

    • LadyMoonlight

      Like the (male) Spartans (Spartiates) who could not become citizens until they were 30. They could not become citizens until they had completed the agoge (state education system – vicious and brutal), could not vote, could marry but could not live with their wife until they became a citizen.

  • Wide Awake

    Only those that pay taxes should vote!! I don’t know if marxists et al deliberately try to destroy society or if in fact they do it because life is simply too easy and they have nothing else to struggle for.