Men die more often than women, especially in war times. Isn't it natural for the more powerful men in society to have more wives/concubines than the commoners?
How have women and men been paired historically? Powerful men have concubines and such, so I guess there just being more women than men historically, or was it that the lowest dregs of the male gender received no wives while the upper levels got more?
Other urls found in this thread:
thepublicdiscourse.com
google.com
google.com
scienceagogo.com
mbe.oxfordjournals.org
webmd.com
twitter.com
>Men die more often than women
No, not really. Death rate for both men and women is in fact 100%.
>especially in war times.
For most of history, women usually died younger than men: Sure, there was the risk of war or workplace accident, but women had death in childbirth to deal with, and women boink out kids far more frequently than there are wars.
>Isn't it natural for the more powerful men in society to have more wives/concubines than the commoners?
The most powerful men usually aren't the ones at great risk of dying in a mining accident or on the front lines.
>How have women and men been paired historically?
Serial monogamy among the upper classes is probably the most common if you want to universalize something as widespread as worldwide history throughout literal millenia, but bear in mind there are numerous enormous exceptions.
Just you wait, the beta revolution is coming any day now
It's not immoral, just depressing for most. The girls would get less personal affection and there would be a lot of guys who aren't getting pussy but I don't see anything morally wrong with it.
>tfw you realize that the Mongol invasion was 100% caused by beta-Manlet cuck rage
2nd beta fuckfest when?
Sounds reasonable enough, powerful people will need good domestics to keep their home and attractive companion for entertainment/relaxation.
Soon brother, soon. The chads won't know what hit them.
>No, not really. Death rate for both men and women is in fact 100%.
Don't be pedantic, you know he meant they're more likely to be killed / die younger.
I'm not powerful so no.
>Don't be pedantic, you know he meant they're more likely to be killed / die younger.
Except this too, is not true. From as far back as the minoan skeletons they dug up from Phourni to 18th century Swedish graveyards, you usually have women dying sooner, not men.
Read Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin. One of his conclusion was that multiparternal societies lead to social decay and uprisings. Usually when there is not enough women, a hearty amount of the men would checkout of society, leading to a lack of soldiers, workers and population caring about the next generation's civilization standard.
Also, they have higher crime rates.
>Men seek wealth and prosperity to get more women and power.
>This creates a situation where the have-nots flip out and ruin society.
>Roman farmers gain more slaves because of successful wars, benefiting roman farm owners.
>A few roman farmers own all the land, forcing all the small-time farmers to move to the city. Ruining society.
>Industrialization of Britain brings lots of wealth to a few industrialists.
>unemployed people who can't compete flock to the cities, ruining society.
>commercialization brings great wealth to several families in America.
>Walmart BTFO mom and pop stores, peasants elect Trump in revenge.
The search for money and power is what leads to success. Success then leads to failure.
Well not getting any action generally makes a man disgruntled and a disgruntled man generally makes violenece
I honestly think the only reason we haven't seen a beta uprising is cause the traditional someone for everyone story is still prominent in public thought
Just you wait Chads you'll rue the day you slept with 30 different women
>Well not getting any action generally makes a man disgruntled and a disgruntled man generally makes violenece
Prostitutes exist, user.
But I'm still lonely :'(
>comparing economic success to social success
>being this retarded
>Polygamy leads to lower birthrate:
google.com
google.com
>Wanting your country's birthrate going to shit
By your logic, places like the Middle East should be far better off than Europe, North America and Asia.
There are a few places where its women who traditionally have multiple husbands. From what I recall I remember reading about one such place where all the sons of a family would share a wife. This was done because there was very little farmland and dividing it up between sons of different branches of a family would ruin the prosperity. This keeps lands consolidated AND each man can have a wife. It leads to an over-abundance of women though, who have to look for men outside of their society.
>not understanding the post.
Great job.
Oh shit, sorry, m8; I was trying to reply to a chat and handwaved your post in all honesty - sorry for the mix up.
Fuck you chad
Men who don't get a gf won't contribute to society in any meaningful way as it doesn't meet their basic needs.
Have you ever been? It's a huge disappointment.
>have to use condom
>disappointment of 3dpd
>have to make sure you get a good time so the girl isnt too tired or w/e to pretend to enjoy it or enjoy it
Buy an onahole instead desu
>Serial monogamy among the upper classes is probably the most common
You mean lower classes, right?
Because high status males have had access to multiple women throughout history, be they slaves, concubines, mistresses, the maid or simply having the money for prostitutes and it’s only fairly recently that high status males have been expected to remain exclusively tied to one wife.
Meanwhile for the lower class peasantry, it was common for a boy and girl to have a roll in the hay when nobody is looking, whereupon she’d get pregnant, name him as the father and they’d be married for life and odds are, he’d never fuck anyone else.
Not only that, most men rarely have sex at all, let alone reproduce.
>Not only that, most men rarely have sex at all, let alone reproduce.
I'd agree that men nowadays get FAR less sex then their ancestors (high or low status) but back in the day, almost all men and women got married and had kids.
>You mean lower classes, right?
No, I mean upper classes. You're forgetting that until really the 19th century, the population of men over the age of 20 was dramatically higher than the population of women of equal age, due to the enormous prevalence of maternal mortality.
Serial monogamy for the upper classes, and very little access to women at all for the lower classes.
>I'd agree that men nowadays get FAR less sex then their ancestors (high or low status) but back in the day, almost all men and women got married and had kids.
Not at all.
>but back in the day, almost all men and women got married and had kids.
Wrong. Genetic research has pretty much demonstrated that all currently living humans have twice as much female genetic material as male, which means just 30% of men ever reproduced historically.
[citation needed]
Read 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State' by Engels. It's a really interesting read. It's also a major source of inspiration for the 'feminist-Marxist' sophists. So read with a grain of salt.
Wilder, J. A., Mobasher, Z., & Hammer, M. F. (2004). "Genetic evidence for unequal effective population sizes of human females and males".
For some reason this makes shit a little more comforting
it's always been the top males competing for the rest of the females and the middle males getting scraps
says who
>it's always been the top males competing for the rest of the females and the middle males getting scraps
Yes, but remember, in olden days, there were far more men of the adult age brackets than women. Nowadays, not so much.
Which makes perfect sense, because women outsource competition over access to their vaginas to men.
This makes sure that the man who will actually get to reproduce is a man who has sufficient social and economic status.
Humans are pretty sophisticated actually. It's not enough for human females that a man has big muscles or is aggressive, he also has to be seen as a superhero by strangers.
>sample of 25 Khoisan, 24 Mongolians, and 24 Papua New Guineans
>10% of Veeky Forums posters have a monopoly on having a gf
>90% are kissless virgins
I see nothing wrong
I consider myself a normie, and have fucked 9 women. I guess if that's a lot, I'm okay with me having more and others less.
One wonders what the other 53% do.
Mr. Farage I presume?
>This makes sure that the man who will actually get to reproduce is a man who has sufficient social and economic status.
no it does not make sure. sufficient social and economic status is good to raise a child and entertain the woman, but it has nothing to do with impregnating a woman, that part is called sex.
It doesn't bother me. If women want to be whores for Chad and I don't want people who want to be Chad's whores, then it's good that it's out on the table.
I think it actually makes society worse off for men. I'm sure it can suck for women (having to share a home with a bitchy sister wife, lacking affection etc). But I think it sucks more for the guys who are unable to marry at all because the female population is being hoarded. That must be depressing, you can be a great guy, handsome and capable of supporting a family but some rich douche and his rich douche family keeps snapping up the women and stirring up shit so you die in a dumb war.
i'm willing to bet it was mostly serial monogamy coupled with mistresses everywhere
>Is there anything wrong with a minority of men having more of the women?
There's nothing 'wrong' with that per se, but it doesn't work as well because the majority of men become frustrated are more susceptible to religious extremism, etc.
Isn't this actually better for our species? Why should just any person with shit genes get to pass down their genetic code?
Only if I'm included in that minority.
This
lack of pussy leads to instability and ultimately social collapse
That's why there needs to be a middle ground.
Upper level males get multiple women.
Middle level males get one women each.
Lowest 10% of males get nobody.
That's 90% of men with a women. It works. Heck, just 80% of men with women works too.
>Is there anything wrong with a minority of men having more of the women?
Nope. I'd say it's even admirable for a wealthy man to take care of so many women and their families.
This. Face it, if you can't get a woman, you're a failure no matter the system. Men saying they're 'dropping out' of society as a some sort of statement are full of it.
