Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman...

The harem system is an emergency measure at best, given the potential for inbreeding. An interesting thing about humans is that in poor living conditions, people will give birth to around the same number of girls as boys, while in conditions of plenty couples are actually more likely to give birth to a boy than a girl. The idea is that boys are far more likely to end up dying before they can reproduce, so a 50/50 split at birth would turn into a female majority by the time people have kids. In famine conditions or similar, it's better to have more girls than boys because of the harem strategy, but in times of plenty, there are more boys born so that 50/50 parity can be achieved later in life.

This means that, biologically, the default standard of human reproduction is monogamy. Multiple female partners are essentially a last-ditch survival strategy to get numbers up.

He's not entirely wrong, but monogamy is not inherently oppressive, either. Present day western marriages are considered equal partnerships, and that seems to work fine.

USA marriages have a 50% divorce rate. I wouldn't call that 'working fine'

Yeah. Marriages nowadays are just not that great.

People go with the wrong expectations and priorities and end up hurting themselves because of it.

They think that marriage is about romantic love and sexual pleasure. Then, when romantic love cools down, they ended up thinking that there is no reason to keeping married (since for them, it is all about romance and sex) and they divorce.

I wonder when people started having this idiotic idea about what marriage is for.

[spoiler]hollywood[/spoiler]

It's Engels trying to justify his affair using dialectical materialism.

>USA marriages have a 50% divorce rate. I wouldn't call that 'working fine'

I would. The ability to end bad marriages makes the average marriage better. And the divorce rate is steadily declining, btw, as marriages become more equal.

Also, keep in mind that stat doesn't mean 50% of married people get divorced - most do not, but a small minority get several divorces.

If 50% of marriages are working bad enough that people divorce, they are not working fine.

That's a misleading statistic though
It's mostly just the same few people getting divorced multiple times
Most marriages do fine in the US

I already said why that's not true.

That 50% is made up of people who have already divorced that later remarried. That group of people tend to not only marry multiple times, but consequently divorce multiple times.

Reminder that the divorce rate in the U.S. peaked in 1980 and has been getting lower ever since. Only about 1/3 of marriages that began in the 2000s are expected to end in divorce. And if you take out serial divorcers and people who get married as teenagers, it's far lower than that.

You're disregarding certain factors.
>A society has 10,000 males and 10,000 females.
>It enforces monogamy.
>Every man who wants a wife, will thus have one available for him to take.
>Now, assume the society allows polygamy.
>The top 10 men will take 15 wives each. The 100 next best men will take 5 wives each. The 1000 next next best men will take 2 wives each, etc.
>Thus there will be a large group of low-status men in society, who want a wife, but can't have one, because there simply aren't any available.
>Those men will cause massive civil unrest, possibly scheme and plot together to kill the high status men.
>The high status men will realize this and seek to kill the low status men
>Queue massive war, until someone decides that enough is enough, and that we should instate monogamy.

historical examples? you're praxxing here.

praxxing? I'm just using logic. A polygamous society has to be fine with having a large amount of men who don't take wives. It's simple math, because in any society there are roughly 50% males 50% females (slightly more females i believe).

tell me when in history where a harem system was overthrown by upset 'betas'. I agree with your logic but I feel we're missing something here.

Isn't that the Middle East?

Well, the nation with the harem system in place could also go conquer some other nation i guess, and take their wives. Maybe that would explain a correlation between Islam's violent occupational tendencies, and their polygamy.

I don't think there's ever been a harem society that wasn't fuelled by slaves and captives so I think his speculation is allowed, given the lack of historical examples.

so you're telling me it could work.

In the modern global society? user, just look at any place in the world right now that has polygamy. Are they places you want to live in?

Up to 4 in Sweden. In UK only first marriage is legally recognized but you can still add more.

...

I think there might be a misunderstanding in the terms here.

Monogamy means being married to one person.
It implies, and that was obvious for a long period of time In Europe, that you can't divorce when you want and marry another person.
When you can, it's no longer monogamy, it's serial polygamy.

So monogamy in this sense was not a common practice before the development of society, and it is not a common practice now : as people, even if they end up not using it (and that's a minority), are assuming that they have the right not to wait till death do them part.

That and socially imposed monogamy doesn't always preclude mistresses, concubines, slaves, servants, and prostitutes.

so if harems practically in all but name existed for powerful men where is the beta uprising the other user is praxxing about?

I wouldn't know. Sexual inequality seem to me to be a consequence of social inequality, and it's usually social inequality that gets attacked which then leads into less sexual inequality. I'm thinking of early Greek kingdoms which seemed very economically stratified versus their collapse and restructuring into the later polis, where serial monogamy seems to have taken hold.

Monogamy vs. polygamy to me doesn't have much to do with the subjugation of women by men. Both systems are capable of it, Rather it seems the issue was inequality between men, likely during a period of low prosperity.

Once economic prosperity, and disparity, returned to Greece of course, polygamy returns in a roundabout way to circumvent established monogamy laws: foreign slave concubinage

You know, announcing to the world that you let other men fuck your girlfriend in response to being called a cuck isn't actually a defense against being called a cuck.

>>beta
You're no better then the people who throw terms like cuck around like it's going out of style or some shit.

>Up to 4 in Sweden
Only if you were married abroad. You can't marry a second wife in Sweden.

Because for most of our history we've had prostitutes regularly available for the average man.

>believing the alpha/beta meme
>using "virgin" as an insult

But that's kinda wrong. Monogamous marriage throughout history has benefit women by making them more valuable, and in Christian society especially because getting a divorce was not that simple. In a male dominated society, monogamous marriage has no benefits for men.

Funny, it's almost as if there is a correlation between the practice of polygamy and how developed a nations is.

He is a cuck and wants his gf(or rather his faggot lover) to cheat on him

Why do all failed cultures and societies have non-monogamy in common. The correlation is literally a causation.

How do you cucks explain this?

Your view on evolution is simplistic. There is no singular 'best', evolutionary speaking. It depends on context, both the natural and cultural. A male that is strong and violent might still die before reproducing offspring due to some genetic defect resulting in a rare disease. A physically weak but smart male might aquire wealth and status over time and attract women that way. There is no single tactic to find a mate.

A good man that gives all his resources to one women and gifts her with multiple children, might be a better bet evolutionary speaking for a women. Powerful leaders have a certain appeal, but powerful leaders also have the chance to be erradicated by revolt. Very often the wife and children will be killed too. Look at Saddam and his children.

Physical strenghts is outcompeted by the invention of guns. Intelligence will flourish better in a cultural context that is reasonably stable and safe.

Also, evolutionary success doesn't equal a just society or even a good life for the evolutionary fit individual. Some drugdealer that impregnates 10 different teenagers before he gets gunned down by the competition or a cop at the ripe age of 19 has a high fitness evolutionary speaking, but he had a shit life according to most. Some good looking rich guy that had a life most of humanity could only dream off that dies childless has a fitness of zero.

Evolution has no purpose, it's like a river streaming towards the sea. It just happens.

why do you assume that it would be males having several females and not the other way around you male chauvinistc pig

Except that this is literally how hunter-gatherers evolved from poly to monogamous relationships and thus evolved and established civilization itself. Because the members of the tribe were sick of the chief getting all the women while they didn't get shit, and raiding other tribes could only get you so much.

When you say, "bad marriages," do you mean stuff like abuse? Okay. If you mean "irreconcilable differences", that's really shoddy grounds for breaking up a family.

No. They weren't available when the average man was a slave, neither when he was a serf. They only became available to the "average man" when the average man started to have a significant disposable income.

But this is wrong. There are no examples of hunter-gatherer or nomadic tribes whose members revolted against polygamy and instituted monogamy. What happened was that agriculture was more sustainable with a monogamous work force, and so free-choice polygamy where women flocked to men with the most resources was then done away with by early agrarian kings and nobility (who still maintained harems), in order to sustain a working agricultural population. Later on these kings were overthrown and a more equal citizen-polity was set up, finally doing away with free-choice polygamy but now promoting concubine slavery for the upper classes.

It means Engels thought men could bear children obviously

Wasn't one man having multiple wives the norm in places that didn't (and some still don't) enforce monogamy, though? I'm having trouble understanding how that's less oppressive to women than monogamy.

protip: neither marx nor engels were historians or anthropologists

they were full of shit

Anthropology is a junk discipline. Marx and Engels historical writings conform to Ranke's criteria.

>implying you're not on the bottom rung to women

>unironically wanting to live in Sweden

Engel's work on private property and the family is lifted almost verbatim from Lewis H. Morgan, one of the most influential Victorian anthropologists.

Then why isn't Korea, the most patriarchal society historically, the most succesful one?

Neither are you.

>wealthiest males have harems along with 'official' wives and families
>general population is monogamous
>abject losers can't find partners and die alone

Best of both worlds. Top-tier genetics pass into the general population via bastard offspring, country has a strong foundation of nuclear families, deficient germ lines are removed.

>tell me when in history where a harem system was overthrown by upset 'betas'.

It wouldn't be, because the harems would be only for the people in power, i.e the monopoly of violence, who had both the power and resources to stamp out any contenders or mischief makers.

I think people just need to realize that sex, reproduction and relationship function EXACTLY the capitalist economy.

Some people will have 5000 casual sex partners over the course of their lives, some will have 100, and some will have 15, and others will have zero, exactly like some people rich like Donald Trump, and many people are destitute Untouchables in India.

Evolutionary speaking, I want to pass on my genes weather I'm at the top of the pyramid or not.

That's a very bold claim.

By the way are we including the concept of Mistresses or Concubines as an act of Polygamy?

>I am basing my views on none historical assumptions which themselves are based on my own personal abstractions - but I am going to frame these views in a historical manner

Fuck off - I can't stand 'social architects' of this sort.

This wouldn't actually happen, because the relationships would be A) be temporary, and B) 'le worlds oldest profession' would arise.

In reality desperate men don't mind being Cucks, as shown by OP's pic.

the orthodox conversion of the slavic pagans.

beta monks convinced pagans with huge harems to give up said harems in favour of monogamy in favour of christianity

>rulers would rather fuck one posh princess than a hundred hot slaves

that said, getting rid of harems also gets rid of succession disputes and wars if you have a decent succession system that everyone buys into. latifundia is more efficient than minifundia.

>>neither when he was a serf
You're forgetting something about middle age society, everyone got married when they were reasonably young.

>>They only became available to the "average man" when the average man started to have a significant disposable income.
You realize that depending on how you define this it can cover a stupidly long frame of time and a large number of places yeah?

>abject losers can't find partners and die alone

So betas who want to murder higer status men and then enslave/rape their wives have nothing to lose?

test.

>abject losers can't find partners and die alone

No. Excess males usually fall into prostitution, pedophilia, homosexual and rape sub-cultures. They also usually become more violent both in competition for women and display. Polymogamous society always have excess males with little interest in the status quo who easily fall into violent sub-cultures whether it be banditry, piracy, mercenary work, extremist sect, etc.

The western monogamy model made everyone have some invested interest in the status quo. It was very efficient but only workable with per-industrial economic models. Its been collapsing for decades now.

>So betas who want to murder higer status men and then enslave/rape their wives have nothing to lose?

they're betas. protip: they can't.

He meant he was a commie kike that should be completely ignored.

Get out. Go back to tumblr.

>So betas who want to murder higer status men and then enslave/rape their wives have nothing to lose?

they're betas. protip: they can't.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. We live in an era with plenty of simple and effective means at killing people readily at hand for most people.

This is interesting, personally I would suggest legalizing prostitution here myself. It's better then rape or child rape.

Most muslims are monogamous. It's only less than one percent and usually arab muslims with multiple wives. You're supposed to be able to treat all your wives equally(which obviously even Muhammad couldn't do, as he favoured Aisha)

T. Ex muslim

Aren't you allowed only three wives anyways unless you're royalty or a preacher or some such loophole?

>What did he mean by this?
Leftists are insane.

My Islam/Quran teacher(back when I was like 11) told us that only Muhammad was worthy of having 8 wives. You can have up to 4 if you can treat them all EQUALLY. Otherwise you can only have 1.

We cab assume that even in medieval times women had a word to say in the household.
When you jave to work with your wife together with only your kids as helping hands in order not to starve you may part your roles but will in the end not treat her as a slave due to the mutual dependence.

I once heard that while greek rural dwellers agree on a very patriarchial system were women do most of the work at home and generally act as a houseservant they are in charge of the finances which is a big concession of power.