What do you think about Polygamy ? Do you support it ?

What do you think about Polygamy ? Do you support it ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=c8L8NopVwdg&t=2m35s
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I'm a communist, so no, outside of extraordinary circumstances.

youtube.com/watch?v=c8L8NopVwdg&t=2m35s

>What do you think about Polygamy ?
Can cause social problems if it becomes too common, but as long as it's uncommon I'm cool with people doing it. I'd consider it myself if I was rich enough to support that big a family.

Probably not that much worse than serial monogamy

I don't care about who other people choose to live with.

2 wifes that work and 5 kids you could be rich without being rich

you would have to be a idiot to two girls that want you

Since the ratio of men to women is about the same you're gonna end up with a lot of lonely, frustrated, violent men with little to live for.
Not a recipe for stability.

Dunno the term for it, but reverse polygamy is cool too

Literal cuckold

People should be able to do it sure, we shouldn't ban it.
But I myself would never, it's a recipe for disaster.

Yes. In most circumstances, no womb should be wasted, but men should have to compete more intensely for those wombs.

Female reproduction is a right.
Male reproduction should be a Priveledge.
Groups of women should form and decide who they want as the sperm donor and provider for their group. Inferior men must have their seed removed from the gene pool.

GOOD FUCKING GOD

ONE IS MORE THAN MOST MEN CAN HANDLE

WHY DO MEN WANT MORE

t. Lewis Black.

kek this fucking false flag opinion

>Reproduction is a right

No

No. I really believe that a large number of men must be removed from the gene pool. Men are the problem. Lesbian communes with limited male providers is the solution.

Not Veeky Forums related. GTFO /pol/

In some very specific conditions

>you may not have more than two wives, three wives always leads to having a "head wife" which is unfair
>each wife needs her own house, this is essential for both to feel equal and free to use their homes as expression
>both women need to be close friends, preferably best friends, this is essential for them to figure out specifics between them
>they will choose where you sleep each night, this is essential to avoid sexual abuse from yourself
>children from both families will retain both names, this is essential to maintain their autonomy and individuality
>you must be earning twice (preferably thrice) the average salary of men on your country, this is essential to ensure you can maintain two households
>you must not compare wives, your official line should always be "I love you both incomparably and in very different ways"
If this doesn't sound very advantageous to men, gold fucking star because it's not meant to. It's about supporting more people and raising more children, especially in societies of man droughts, high financial inequality and in general collapsing societies.

In short, it's not about you, it's about your wives and their children.

I have two women in mind that I'd love to group marry, basically how I worked out (or rather fantasized) these rules. They love each other, work well with each other, have two very different personalities (ones more playful and almost innocent, the other is more mature/responsible) and both of them have indicated that they're somewhat attracted to me. I'd rather have them both then have them compete for me and fracture their relationship.

What's most likely is I'll end up with neither and have a single trophy wife who'll marry me for my inevitable wealth. She'll be prettier, it'll make one or both of them regretful, but as for the current status quo they're the ones responsible.

Consenting adults sure.
Like if they want to do it they'll still do it.

To proprely enslave the woman, you have make sure she is the second class citizen of her own household.

The most efficient way to accomplish this is reinstating polygamy, because in polygamy she not only is the second class citizen, she does not even have a claim over the household, the household isn't "hers", she lives in her master's, for as long as he is pleased with her.

Of course, the enslavement is most evident and effective when there is a hierarchy of wives in place, and she's at the very bottom, the most disposable and most frequently subject to divorce. She can be a third, fourth, fifth class citizen, then.

The goal is to convince her that being one out of many wives is liberation, and being the only possible wife until death or divorce is oppression, so she can become the advocate of her own enslavement, no longer THE wife but A SECOND wife.

Such tactics rely on the assumption that women are fundamentally stupid, and cannot perceive there might be a trap in restoring or introducing a third world country practice in Latin-alphabet-using ones - countries that forsook it, and that are significantly ahead in the field of women's rights.

>One guy
>Two girls

Inferior branch of polygamy.

Poliandry

There is nothing bas with it. I believe virgin losers would oppose polygamy anyway because of that feel when no girlfriend or something.

Isn't that already happening?

It's natural selection, even lionesses seek the best male lion.

>general collapsing societies

Spotted the historicist

The cringe. It's so strong I feel proxy shame.

I've studied a number of prechristian tribal societies and Islam to help come to those conclusions, I've also researched a number of feminist opposition to polygamy and I know my fantasy is pretty cringeworthy, but I assure you it was necessary to help formulate what could go wrong, why and what would help it work.

Anyway
>NOT
>AN
>ARGUMENT
If you don't wish to contribute to the conversation and just want to snipe meaningless comments, Veeky Forums is quite inappropriate for you. You have Redditch and tumbler for that.

Time to fuck off now.

ok

>Do you support it ?

I support free people making free choices.

Nobody should forced into polygamy by religious indoctrination, but if people prefer it, then they should be free to practice it.

How would you keep the tfwnowomen masses contributing to society and not violently revolting.

People are forced into monogamy by religious indoctrination. Shouldn't we outlaw monogamy?

...

Legalize prostitution of course.

monogomy has been invented by betas who whined that women were better at life than betas, in being provided by men, while men knew that they were commodities to women.

monogomy was thus invented where now men think they are the leading people, and take pride in this. OF course, the situation has not changed : women are sill better at life, being provided for and men taking pride in providing for women .
The situation has not changed, but the discourse has changed.
Men forget that they are a commodity and women still have the easy life.

the problem is that the best life for women is not achieved under monogomy (plus hidden lovers on the side), but under a stable, reliable provider for the daily life and daily expenses, plus a few explicit lovers on the side. they have the best of both worlds.
The task of women is now to sell this to men. The good news is that men would do anything to fulfill their desire of pride and relevance (they switch to this desire, because they cannot compete with women on direct hedonism) and it is not bad today that a man allows a few women to get emancipated.

monogomy is pure nihilism, the philosophy of betas.

>forced by religion
Religion is shaped by and reflects the social values of its people, you fucking idiot.

> I want more headaches! I can't get enough!

Polygamy benefits only a small cadre of wealthy men. The remaining ~90% of men and 100% of women get dicked over and become property (metaphorically and literally) for the elite cadre to use as they see fit.

We got rid of it in the fucking bronze age, why would we go back?

We arent cats user.

So you're saying polygamy is okay if its religious?

No it's not

There is no reverse polygamy.

But most polygamy is polygeny (several women for one man). The reverse of that is polyandry (several men for one women), which is rarer. I remember one society that included both. Jungle people.

It should be permitted for strong, tall, intelligent white men only so they can spread their masterrace seed.

>even lionesses seek the best male lion
No they don't. Lions fight each other for reproductive rights, lionesses just roll with it, trying to keep their cubs from being killed by their current males' competitor.

Lions might cooperate if they are siblings, though. Then they usually end up sharing an harem.

1% of the country owns more than 40% of all the wealth in America. You're crying about 2-3 women marrying each a single men or 2-3 men marrying 1 women?

>you're gonna end up with a lot of lonely, frustrated, violent men with little to live for.

Daily reminder that that has been the condition of the West the last 40 years.

So, not you

monogamy seems the most loving and dedicated form of relationship desu

only under hereditary class systems

don't want your royal line just dying off

>Daily reminder that that has been the condition of the West the last 40 years.
Reminder that the sex and dating market has functioned like this since the industrial revolution, probably before that even.

das rite bro

Only makes sense if arranged marriage becomes socially accepted again. So I'm totally against it.

...

>Reminder that the sex and dating market has functioned like this since the industrial revolution

I don't think so, pal. Women's rights is a fairly new thing and there is drag to these things. The average healthy human can live to 80+ years so even a generation of 30 isn't long enough to completely overturn all stuck traditions.

In the 1950s a girl admitting to using something like tinder would make her a social pariah. Even as recent as the 90s you can see in popular media like the Simpsons people still take the idea of a virginal wedding semi-seriously.

You guys are limiting polygamy to just having multiple wives. It refers to multiple spouses

...

rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/367/1589/657.full.pdf

In short, Polygamy increases crime, degrades women's rights, and promotes child abuse and murder.

Some quotes:
[Wealthy men had more wives than poor men.] While wealthy men had more total off- spring and longer reproductive careers (33 years for wealthy men compared to 22 for poor men), the chil- dren of poor men had better survival rates for their children to age 15. For poor men, 6.9 of their offspring(per wife) survived on average to age 15, while for wealthy men only 5.5 of their offspring (per wife) sur- vived to age 15. This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men
[...]
The reduced supply of unmarried women, who are absorbed into polygynous marriages, causes men of all ages to pursue younger and younger women. The competition also motivates men to use whatever connections, advantages or alliances they have in order to obtain wives, including striking financial and recipro- cal bargains with the fathers and brothers of unmarried females [...] More competition also motivates men to seek to control their female relatives (e.g. sisters), as demand for wives increases. This results in suppressing women’s freedoms, increasing gender inequality and stimulating domestic violence.
[...]
(i) creates competition among co-wives, (ii) expands the spousal age gap, (iii) decreases the relatedness within households, and (iv) reduces paternity certainty (which increases male sexual jealousy). Allocations of household resources to another wife’s children mean fewer resources for one’s own children. [...] Polygynous marriages also create elevated risks of intra-household abuse, neglect and homicide

somebody likes the wiener

What does Veeky Forums advocate in the case of Islamic polygamy in the West?

A mans secondary wife/wives can claim exorbitant welfare for themselves and their children, because, since their marriages are not recognized by the state they are legally single mothers.

>having wives that work
For what purpose

As an evolutionist I like the idea of Men with godly genetics improving humanity. As a pervert the idea of harems arouse me. As normie straight male the idea of multiple wives scares me. As a moralist well, harems can get pretty fucked up especially for women.

>I'd consider it myself if I was rich enough to support that big a family.

I remember years back seeing an episode of 20/20 or something that interviewed a polygamist Mormon family, where the guy had half a dozen wives and each had her own job and her own apartment or house and all the guy owned, was his pick-up truck, tools and some clothes.

He’d live with one wife for a few days until they got on each other’s nerves, then go live with another and so on.

The women said they liked the arrangement, as they had a guy around when needed but not all the time and could rely on their “sister wives” to help out baby sitting and so on.

You can't have secondary wifes in Islam, they're all equal.

I think that it's only good when it's a black male that is doing it, and wives must be of Germanic descent.

>For poor men, 6.9 of their offspring(per wife) survived on average to age 15, while for wealthy men only 5.5 of their offspring (per wife) sur- vived to age 15. This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men

How?

Isn't it obvious?

I'm also a communist, and I think it absolutely should be legal, as long as women and men are both free to have multiple spouses

...but I don't agree with polygamy, because it fucks up family dynamics and leads to lots of unmarried angry men. That's not good.

The problem with that is allowing Islamic law to be formally recognized by the state (which would incite rabblr rousers like Trump)

Each wife is considered equal in Islamic law and you're bound to only have as many as you can responsibly support up to a maximum of 4. That being said you can imagine a woman not being too happy with the idea of having to share split her children's financial inheritance with the children of another women?

That's where the Islamic marriage contract comes in,the niqah, a woman can state that in order to be married to her the man must not take other wives. This leads to polygomous marriages being very uncommon and practiced only by a fee willing parties. Overall a more sensible approach than say early Mormons or even biblical figures like David and if it wasn't for the first problem that I mentioned I don't think it should be a big deal if three consenting parties enter into a marriage agreement with each other

Not really. It was worse before the industrial revolution, because hard agrarian living and more devastating wars killed many young men before they could marry.

Wealthy men in late medieval Italy, for instance, would marry in their mid twenties but spend most of their life having free sexual access to poor women.

Sexual dynamics have been offered as a possible explanation for the Ciompi riots in Florence.

>[Wealthy men had more wives than poor men.] While wealthy men had more total off- spring and longer reproductive careers (33 years for wealthy men compared to 22 for poor men), the chil- dren of poor men had better survival rates for their children to age 15. For poor men, 6.9 of their offspring(per wife) survived on average to age 15, while for wealthy men only 5.5 of their offspring (per wife) sur- vived to age 15. This is amazing, given that the poor men had less than 10 per cent of the wealth of the rich men

Sounds like feminist bullshit to me. How are they pinning the blame for this on polygamy and not other reasons?

>implying the solution to lonely angry beta virgins isn't already here

let the NEETS have their waifus while they slave for the godly Alphas. And the godly Alphas are fucking their sisters.

never though I'd ever get a boner for a SFW and relative innocent image before.

...

...

Perception isn't reality. American promiscuity peaked in the eighties and has been in decline ever since. While women and men both had fewer partners before extramarital sex was openly accepted, it was normal since around the time of WW1. The Simpsons line about wearing white was just a joke -- the amount of virgin brides in the late 80s was trivial.

In continental Europe, most relationships between unmarried men and women would have been sexual. The rate of illegitimate birth in European cities in 1900 was as high as it is today, if not higher; pic related.

Western society has essentially always included a large amount of men not able to participate in mainstream sexual dynamics. Traditionally, prostitution was tolerated or even supported by the clergy because it gave these men an outlet, and supposedly prevented more socially dangerous expressions of sexuality.

Marriages performed elsewhere should be recognized as legal, but not officiated within this country. Loopholes like that must be closed through better regulation and cooperative policing with Muslim communities.

Any Muslims who want to make the effort to fly back to Pakistan to marry their girlfriend should be able to.

>implying I can't be a trap instead an join the Alphas harem and fulfill my sissy fantasies
>implying I won't comfort his other wives when he's busy fucking his other wives
>implying I wouldn't tap that sisterwife ass
>implying the Alpha would even care his offspring barely looks like him
>implying my genes would die off

The west in a nutshell.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's somebody's creation myth, actually.

that's pretty hot

>The reverse of that is polyandry (several men for one women), which is rarer.

It's rarer because it's full retard biologically speaking

One male and several females = several kids made at the same time and clear parents for each of them
One female and several males = only one kid at once and no clear father

>giving one man control over the means of production of babies
Eat shit ancoms. Ancom literally the only people worse than ancaps

>implying I won't enjoy blowing his long thick hard cock
>implying he won't blow his load in my soft sissy ass
>implying he won't be a gentle lover
>implying I wouldn't like him 'cause he's actually a decent guy
>implying I won't fall in love with him 'cause he cares about me and actually sees me as a human being
>implying I won't live with guilt when I impregnate one of his wives
>implying his heart wouldn't break when he finds out
>implying I woundn't do everything I can in my power just to see his beautiful smile again

I think polygamy would reduce the diversity in the gene pool, not a good thing in long term.

As for legitimacy, I don't care as long as participants are fine with it.