Is polygamy simply more natural to humans than monogamy?

I just don´t know

>thinking all wives will be straight
>thinking all wives will only fuck the husband and never get with other guys

Big deal. I didn't say all pairs would be equal. I said open marriages and polygamy it would lower divorce rates. And overall women feel more secure knowing their competition than having to wonder constantly if their partner is sleeping with other women they haven't met.

the way that women sometimes act is really repulsive

>males only produce one sperm at a time

welcome to nature I guess

Example 1 for why forced monogamy makes people insecure and ruins more relationships than it keeps together.

so polygamy works when a group of women are living together and sync their menstrual cycles?

>being okay with your woman getting it from other dudes
If only we had a word for that...

Liberal logic
>being a fag is natural
>want to marry someome and ve with said person forever and only you are mental as monogamy is unnatural

REALLY BOY?

Realistic.

Kek, now you're just baiting me. Just because you and your numales m8s are fine with it, doesn't make the rest of us normal, virile males okay with your degeneracy.

humans are serial monogamist, not life long monogamist.
also women are hypergamous.

Mammals (which humans are) naturally want more than one partner in order to have better changes at add many healthy offspring as possible. This goes for men and women. Being gay is what keeps a species from over populating. We need homosexuals to exist. Although even then homosexuals van still choose to procreate.

Insecure monogamist is insecure.

>changes at add
*chances at as many

Yh its the reason why romantic relationships dont last long.

Polygamy makes sense on a practical point of view (one man can make several women pregnant at the same time)
Polyandry doesnt (one women can't get pregnant from several men at once)

>insecure
More like realistic

I see lifelong monogamy as a form of psychological torture. I also don't believe anyone who has been married more than ten years never cheated. You can't imagine yourself cheating on someone when the relationship is still new and fresh and you think your partner farts rainbows, but eventually their flaws will become evident and you will find people who will tempt you because they are better looking, have better personalities, and they also want you.

Realistic is more than half of marriages fall apart because husbands and wives believe that they can only sustain each other for the rest of their lives.

You know, people who get married then divorced multiple times drive up that statistic.

the average person cant sustain anything ,why is marriage any different

>be polygamous
>don't raise children

>be monogamous
>raise children

Huh

That only further proves my point.

And hell, some people only want monogamy and good for them, but make sure you marry someone who isn't likely to fall in love with someone else/fall out of love with you. There are far too many people on compulsory monogamous relationships who would be better suited to open relationships or polyamorous relationships. Which is why cheating is so prevalent. If you have to "force" someone to only have eyes for you, you're already doing it wrong.

>marriages fall apart because of reasons I say
>I have no proof to back my outlandish claims, either

Lack of commitment and infidelity are the highest cause of divorce. You'd have to be a retard to not know that.

How do you prevent concentration of wives at the top of the socioeconomic ladder? And how do you prevent men with power from ostracizing potential threats to their wives and casting out young males from the community like in Mormon communities out west?

The fact of the matter is the more wives one man has, the less other men will have. And for the most part those men aren't going to be happy about it.

except that's what females wants.
polygamy as long as is not forced, is the natural way for females to reproduce, same as males.

we don't need for betas to reproduce.

I don't see that being an issue in a world with 7billion people. Also gays are a thing, and asexuals, and herbivore males uninterested in marriage or commitment. And women who marry and become housewives really just want stability and a roof over their heads where they can raise their children. If the media weren't raising everyone to believe you must only have one partner forever, I don't see people having a problem with polygamy today. It really is the influence of the media.

sure and the betas can just kill the alpha and take its place, or take what they want by force.
It's all natural.

nope, because betas are weak and submissive.
they will simply rather let the alpha fuck his wife/gf is that means she will stay with him.

Not an arguement

Kek, get a load of this guy lads

>Realistic is more than half of marriages fall apart

That's a myth.

None of them are more "natural" than the other. We're humans, part of nature, make it natural. Besides, polygamy isn't good because it will make the sister wives fight each other.

google.com/search?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&ei=GvlGWKikNYSDmQG7p4qQCw&q=most common reasons for divorce&oq=most common reasons&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.1.0i20k1l2j0l3.12483.17978.0.19863.17.12.4.2.2.0.311.2150.2-6j2.8.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..5.12.1760.3..46j35i39k1j0i67k1j0i46k1j33i160k1j0i131k1.8TzCcOWD3hU#xxri=15

I'd be really interested to know how you came to this conclusion.

Except these are issues in actual polygamous communities that haven't been addressed and woupd only be made worse by applying it on a national scale.

You cant say you're trying to be realistic when you don't dont consider the effects of polygamy on the greater community or on the economy and hand wave actual concerns of polygamy as being a non-issue when they are actually issues.

>Is polygamy simply more natural to humans than monogamy?

Not exactly. You can actually predict with pretty good accuracy whether a species will be monogamous, polygamous, or polyamorous based on physical features (e.g. relative testicle size, sexual dimorphism, etc.). Humans are pretty much in the middle of the spectrum, which makes sense based on what we do. We want monogamy and lifelong bonding, but we also want to fuck around. We're doomed, basically.

So assume more than two of the sister wives/brother husbands had jobs while the rest stayed at home. Wouldn't that actually help the economy?

As for people fighting over mates, that's just human nature regardless of monogamous or poly relationships.

>I'd be really interested to know how you came to this conclusion.

I know how to use Google.

Let's say that I'm wrong that 50% of marriages ending in divorce is false. Does that disprove my belief that a majority of marriages have infidelity, and the ones that stay together are the people who are realistic about the reality that their partner can and probably will seek sexual or romantic partnerships with people other than themselves at some point? Marriages usually last due to wanting to maintain the economic benefits, avoiding social scrutiny and shame, and wanting to keep the family together. Meanwhile the side piece is (usually) kept in the shadows.

What sort of degenerate upbringing did you have, my dude?

Betas in nature often kill the Alpha and become the new Alpha, until someone kills them and it continues.

Why can't polygamy be legal? Governments thinking too much about tax benefits and other stuff?

As a developed civilization without the relief of surplus males going off to die in wars all of the time, we realized long ago that polygamy could not be sustained and keep society peaceful. Since humans have a roughly 1:1 male female-ratio, those extra makes who desire a mate but don't have one would resort to this

>men are triangles and women are circles

>Does that disprove my belief that a majority of marriages have infidelity, and the ones that stay together are the people who are realistic about the reality that their partner can and probably will seek sexual or romantic partnerships with people other than themselves at some point?

No, but I don't need to disprove it because you've offered no evidence for it whatsoever. However, I will anyway:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21667234/

>wife doesn't meet sexual needs of husband
>expects them to not look elsewhere

>husband doesn't meet sexual needs of wife
>expects them to not look elsewhere
Stop being an enabler. If you don't get what you want, divorce and look for someone else.

You okay with the other way around too?

this, I love to watch those fuckers
It´s tragic to see aging alphas trying to keep the gangs of betas away from his harem

This. Sort of. Except for the "doomed" part. Some people seem to be wired pretty well for monogamy and fidelity.

Absolutely not. Polygyny (one man, multiple wives) is natural, and was common in the ancestral environment, but so was lifelong monogamy, casual promiscuity, and above all, serial monogamy. There's tons and tons of evidence for this, from archaeology to anthropology to primatology to history.

What's not natural -- and this isn't a moral judgment, I'm not saying you shouldn't do it if you can make it work, but it's emphatically not a natural human behavior -- is polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands), and open marriages in the modern sense, which there's no term for. Group marriage (cenogamy) -- multiple wives, multiple husbands -- is also essentially unknown and immensely unlikely to be a natural human behavior.

Again, that's not an appeal to nature, natural doesn't mean good and you should do it if it works for you, but if you do, please don't justify it with "but it's natural!" It's not. And if it's an extremely uncommon behavior, which it is, that does suggest that it might not work for *most people* as well as it works for you.

Not necessarily

Men are polygamous

That is, we want as many women as possible

Women are hypergamus

That is, they want the best man possible even if they must share

It gets tricky when you realize that men want monogamous women for LTRs and can even get violent when she betrays them

And women need a loyal wimpy beta to care for her and her children when she's no longer attractive enough for the dominant male

Cheating is only a problem because women are animals, once they latch on a penis they treat other dicks like complete shit even if they are your husband meanwhile a husband can fuck another woman yet still care deeply about his wife.

so are u

psmag.com/8-000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one-man-6d41445ae73d

8000 years ago we didn't have anything that resembled stable society. Forced monogamy is what enabled humanity as a whole to advance as a civilization.

Yes, but depends on your social status. Socially upstanding males are for polygamy, since they have the resources and the status to support their offspring. But this leaves the socially bummed males without potential mates and are left without the means to pass on their genetic material. This is one of the reason monogamy is institutionalized, to prevent these males from socially unacceptable behavior and potential revolting.

But it's the exact opposite for females though. Socially privileged females are all for monogamy, so their mates can devote all their resources and attention to their own child instead of other children by other females. On the other hand, lower status females support polygamy because they "want a slice of 100" instead of "everything of 2". In other words, they would rather see a wealthy male take a little care of their child instead of a poor man.

Robert Wright goes on in detail regarding this in The Moral Animal. Quite interesting book, would recommend.

Yes. In both cases husband/wife can't be shitty partners to eachother either. If one person has told the other repeatedly their sexual needs aren't being met, the other shouldn't be surprised when their partner look elsewhere.

Monogamy is against the free market, at least life long monogamy.

Propably.
But it would be more like with Gorillas. If you see the dismorphism between male and female gorillas it reminds of those of humans. So I guess naturally also strong human males would just monopolize all females in the group and prevent all the weaker males from mating with them or if still happened just kill of the offspring that is unsure.

Genetical investigations also show that we are all descendents from many women but only a few man what correlates with the view mentioned above.

I am an atheist

Debate me, OP, I have the most expansive arguments and points

If god, who made the force and god was made through ashes of pits(''force'')

And if so how reality/existence came from nothing; more importantly, how god came from nothing.

The same existence always was there, the same goes to god

existence/reality might be=infinity

god eternality=inifinity

god=/=reality

More accurate for existence=inifinity

space and time

infinity energy

without bringing too much science.

religion and theists. Debunked.

Wrong thread lead

Also Religion is not only the mythological part. Also logic is an invention by men and you don't seem get Logic at all.

debunked, boddyguy

you cant overcome my arguments

>If god, who made the force and god was made through ashes of pits(''force'')

What force? How can ashes exist before anything else. Do you even physics?

>And if so how reality/existence came from nothing; more importantly, how god came from nothing.
Nothing comes from nothing. Look up causality, one of the most basic things all science is grounted on. No causality no science, therefore nobody can asume anything comes from nothing.

>The same existence always was there, the same goes to god
The same what? Who says this?

>existence/reality might be=infinity
Using an equation mark doesn't make this an equation in specially is there no argument to suppert a equality between existence and eternity.

>god eternality=inifinity
Infinity = infinity
But nothing is infinit and if yes we will not now until eternity.

god=/=reality
Reailty what? What can be sad about reality?

>More accurate for existence=inifinity
Also here wild asumptions without any argument that supports such an equalization.

>space and time

infinity energy

without bringing too much science.

religion and theists. Debunked.

Wild unconected words without sense and a seemingly following conclusion based on nothing.

Gratulation, you are dumb and showed everyone how dumb.

lol do you even know how quote?

not an argument

You got completly ass raped, devastated, ultimatly destroyed, erased from surface, beat to bonkers, anihilated etc.

And
you
know
it.

:)

Is shitting in the street more natural to humans than shitting in a toilet?

no i raped yo mama last night

rekt

Only if you squat while doing it,

>Women aren't jealous bitches
you almost got me user!

>Except for the "doomed" part. Some people seem to be wired pretty well for monogamy and fidelity.

Yeah, I was kind of joking. Plenty of people have happy lifelong marriages, and I'm sure plenty of people are happily single. What I meant was that there is never going to be some social arrangement that works for everyone and eliminates conflict.

Origami?

>women act horrible
>Having more than 1 woman would solve this instead of multiplying the crazy. As another user said
wife 1 "Do you think wife 2 is prettier than me user?"
user "No"
wife 1 "Then why do you look at her that way?"
women are jealous creatures.