Why did monogamous relationships take precedence over polygamy in western society even though it is not as progressive?

>polygamy
>progressive

Monogamy has been one of the greatest forces for egalitarianism in all of history. It promotes equality both between the sexes and also within each sex.

These anons know what they're talking about.

No polygamy means a man that has to deal with harpies screaming every fucking second.

>muh Christianity

I'll let you in on a little secret. Not all of western civilizations cultural features originate from Semitic cult. Christianity as we know is monogamous because it got that quirk from the Romans.

Greeks were monogamous too.

>even though it is not as progressive?

I lol'd, well done.

Monogamy benefits men. Women are all bisexual and shit anyways, and with polygamy only the most successful men get wives.

Since we're all posting on Veeky Forums, none of us are "the most successful men".

>he believes that alpha maymay
Alphas got cucked all the time in polygamous relationships, infact women suggest polygamy because they WANT MULTIPLE DICKS not to share one man with other women.

I dont know of any examples in history, except for maybe some tribal peoples, of polygamous women.

Paganism: A Very Short Introduction
By Owen Davies

"in the use of reason and in their intelligence and gentleness of [their] customs. All of them obey one chief, they have a great horror of eating human flesh, they are satisfied with only one wife, and they carefully protect their virgin daughters ... Only one thing appears to be worthy of rebuke among them, [which] is that, they sometimes kill captives in war and keep their heads as trophies"

King James Bible

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"

Mate deprived males are a liability for society, monogamy prevents beta uprisings. The example of Islam is one that weaponizes the beta uprising as jihad.
Sexual socialism when.

>with polygamy only the most successful men get wives.

Not really.

It's like everyone assumes everyone woman has the same tastes or targets the exact same men.

If one man marries 4 women, that means there are 3 men without wives.

"Romantic love" doesn't really come into play with polygamist systems.

polygamy is for backwards savages

>polygamy
>progressive
wew

If one man marries 3 women, that means there are 3 dead men.

you're assuming that the numbers of men and women are equal. War makes peace and the orgies associated that much sweeter when all of the jealous manlets are dead.

>lots of dead men
That's a brilliant plan if you want to decimate your labor force.

What about a set up like this? Instead of families with 1 man, 1 woman and ~2 kids , marriage could consist of 2 men and 2 women where each man has one kid with each of the women for a total of 4 children who are each half siblings with each other. It seems like for all the reasons 2 parents are better than 1 that 4 would be better than 2. It will always be cheaper to have one household of 8 than 2 households of 4. If one parent wanted to stay home with the kids the family would only lose ~25% of its income rather than ~50%. There would be less potential for familial abuse because the multiple partners provide a system of check and balances on each other. If one of the parents died or wanted a divorce the children would still have a role model around of each sex. Dead bedrooms and relationship boredom would be less of a problem because there would already be more variety built into the relationship itself. The kids would also have a much larger extended family so they would have more resources and opportunities to draw on and it would also lead to greater community/social integration. A system like this seems like it would be better than traditional marriage for the kids, the parents and the broader community.

People are very uncreative in the sexual organization of society but I think there a lot of potential very good strategies that no one is ever considering.

Sounds retarded because it still amounts to the same amount of children as 2 nuclear families, and uses the same number of adults. Only thing that has changed is an increase of uncertainty over paternity for both males. Which would probably cause more friction.

Generally speaking, one man one woman almost guarantees the man the assurance the children he raises are his own, it almost guarantees the woman the man will be more committed to the task and it almost guarantees the children both parents will have an obvious stake in their upbringing. By breaking down the primitive extensive family model to their bare components, you ensure all parties are getting their "share" so to speak. And since we now live in a fully urbanand industrialised society where the risk of parents/caregivers dying in the wilderness or fears over lack of basic substinence are basically irrelevant, larger family models just don't make sense since they cannot provide anything positives other than confusion.

Also in the most crudest term, setting up a system where every male has an equal chance to get a female lessens the chances of aggressive competition/ outright conflict between them by starting to fight over access to females. It might suck having to curb in some natural impulses but it is a manageable compromise that leads to a more cohesive society.

Because not EVERY woman wants to marry one man. How do you not get this lol.

Also what makes you think that every man should get a woman or that every man and woman will pair up neatly?

>Generally speaking, one man one woman almost guarantees the man the assurance the children he raises are his own

What is cheating lol.

>one man having more than one woman when birth rates are roughly equal across the two sexes
>wanting societies where many young men are totally unable to find a mate and pass on their genes

Recipe for complete instability and/or constant warfare with surrounding societies.

It's basically if Veeky Forums men were the majority.

Learn how to read dumbass, it doesn't imply increased uncertainty at all. Ever heard of a paternity test?

> larger family models just don't make sense since they cannot provide anything positives other than confusion.

What about all of those things I listed like lower average expenses, greater community integration, less individual risk for parents, greater security for kids, etc. What if you got married to someone who turned out to be infertile? In a situation like this you would still be able to pass on your genes. Men would still have an equal chance to get a female, but instead of just having to have a bunch of kids with one woman they could have 1 kid each with multiple different women, which gets rid of a lot of the risk associated with centralization and is probably better for their genes survival in the long run. Redundancy is a huge part of building robust systems. The fact that it uses the same number of kids and adults, but mixed in a different way is a good thing that give everyone more incentive to work to help each other.

I've talked to numerous imams about polygamy in Islam and they've all cited the high male death rates from warfare as a major reason for its implementation in the first place.

It's probably why Islam engendered so many martial states in history.

Because any society where the elite practices polygamy to that degree requires a steady stream of men going into battle and a constant supply of foreign women being brought into the country. Otherwise, the gender imbalance will inevitably lead to popular uprisings from sexually frustrated young men (although no rebellion would overtly be about the lack of women).

The term you are looking is polyandric

Because this way the top alphas (socially or whatever) take 80% of the women. This way there's a lot of disgruntled men around that are A) Mad B)Sexually Frustrated C) Unwilling To participate to society

This, ISIS only exists because of sexually frustrated beta Muslim men

>implying Western society isn't moving towards polygamy anyways

Assuming males and females are literally equal in numbers

That's why I said generally speaking. You cant ever design a foolproof system. You can still have cheating in the extended family model, it's not really a solid counter-argument.

>ever heard of paternity tests
And it sounds like an extra bother really.

>muh other reasons
And I already explained that in advanced societies with welfare and family subsidies it's pretty much unneeded and superfluous. Literally law of diminishing returns in effect. Only with the added questions over paternity issue.

>infertility
That one is indeed a bummer but it's such a rarity than I don't particularly see the point of designing a convoluted system that barely affects a couple of % of the population just to tackle that one issue.

Another aspect that's getting completely overlooked is the emotional and stable development of strong family ties. The fathers, children and mothers do not have to split time with members to which they may be only partly related (or maybe not even at all). Pragmatically speaking why would someone want to waste time and effort raising and educating children that maybe their own? Unless we're in that infertility scenario where adoption might become desirable, otherwise it's just counterproductive to one's self interests. Another big bonus is it also makes legislating inheritance laws a lot more straightforward and limits the risks of disputes/dillution of wealth from one generation to the next.

I just don't see the point of your system. Sounds like it invites in more problems than it fixes.