Is it safe to say that monogamous societies are more stable than non-monogamous ones?

Islamic countries, and many African countries and extreme liberal degenerates in the West who are "polyamorous" and eschew marriage altogether.

>The children of polygamous relationships are also exponentially more likely to suffer from developmental disorders.

This is because of the vile Islamic doctrine of cousin marriage, which keeps the whole MENA inbred as fuck and costs them as much as 10 IQ on average.

>Islamic countries
>Eschew marriage
What are you smoking?

We're talking about real life, not the fever dreams of anarchist retards in the 1930's.

Reading is hard, huh?

>Polygamous societies suffer terrible social unrest from the large numbers of young males with few or no sexual prospects

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sexual frustration amongst young Muslims or Indians without wife is on entirely different degree than those few vocal omega-males from /pol/ who at least have constant access to pornography.

Is it safe to say that knife and fork societies are more stable than chopstick ones?

The real impact that monogamy does or does not have on societal stability is minor to the point that it is barely even a factor. Not to mention that monogamy is in itself the result of other societal/cultural factors such as religions and native ethical systems, and that to presuppose that it is monogamy that affects societal stability, rather than the factors that cause monogamy in that society, is confusing correlation with causation at its worse.

On the contrary it is obvious you have no idea what you're on about. An Omega has a far greater prospect of marriage in a strictly monogamous society, since women (in general) are more anxious to marry than men are, creating a demand for even the most useless males.

Monogamy has obvious real world consequences that are fairly easy to analyse, such as the large number of unmarried young men, a demographic known to be highly prone to violent and anti-social behavior. Polygamy alone is not responsible for the pathetic state of the Muslims, but it is a key factor in the militant and bellicose character of their societies.

>viorence and women yada yada
What say you of divorce rates and marital satisfaction tho?

Divorce rates are lowest among arranged monogamous marriages. It's hard to tell what the "natural" divorce rate for polygamists is, since divorce is extremely difficult or impossible in many Muslim countries, particularly when initiated by the woman.

>Le angry virgin argument.
Fuck off.

>facts don't matter

Moron. Opinion disregarded.

>On the contrary it is obvious you have no idea what you're on about
I don't have an idea about your feelings that's correct, but I sure as hell know how angry are young sandpeople and how they calm down once they get a wife.

The bottom 2% of spouseless omegas (who btw often could get gf, if they dropped their standards) pacified by porn don't really have prospect of causing social unrest, except for the internet of course.The situation is different in orient, where almost everyone is pumped up with testosteron and aggresive.

He put "le" in front of it, tho, your opinion is wrong now

Only saudi arabia has it and they are pretty stable.

All you've been doing is spouting a statement.

People and /pol/ in particular don't seem to realise that marriage rates and so fertility have been lower in western europe since the black death, leading to higher living standards and lead to the industrial revolution in the first place. So even in your wild fantasies of going back to the middle ages to get a qt wife, you would actually just end up the same bitter virgins you are today.

that over generalization and strawman makes me believe you are the bitter one

Love is a spook :^)

Not necessarily

While the research does show that kids from nuclear families do better the kids from single-parent households, what's also true is that children from multi generational households, even ones with the father is not in the picture, do better than children raised in a nuclear family.

Also, socially compulsory monogamy only leads to houses where two people who hate each other are unable to escape the loveless trap that society forces them to observe, and this has an overall more negative affect on children then if their parents were allowed to divorce.

A society where a successful men gets to marry more wives is more eugenic in the long run.

what is divorce?

then why have muslims lower IQ?

inbreeding

Massive rates of cousin inbreeding. Polygamy is still shit nevertheless.

There are other factors. The Chinese have been polygamous in the past and have higher IQs.

Catholics have a society where the smartest men don't breed, this explains the advantage that protestants countries have.

If the west had practiced polygamy today they might have higher IQ then Chinese.

The social equivalent of declaring bankruptcy. Divorce actually strengthens the institution of monogamy for the same reason bankruptcy protection strengthens lending markets.

I wonder if a society based on bisexual trios instead of couples could work
Ecomically I see no reason why not since 3 people earn more income than one. Only thing needed is a new religion or a reformed one

Actually, Catholic society separates the smartest men from the drudgery of working to support a woman and three or four little mouths to feed, they still get their genes passed on in the form of nieces and nephews, while leaving the smart ones to focus exclusively on the pursuit of knowledge
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_cleric-scientists

> threesome marriages
good luck with religions accepting that

Two is company, three is a crowd.

Eventually a couple will emerge which expels the third wheel. They'll start scapegoating the third wheel, fairly or not, and it will become the activity that (temporarily) brings the couple closer together.

Even gays and lesbians hate bisexuals. They think they're attention-whores even by the standards of a culture which embraces attention-whoring

>Yes, studies have shown
post source or it never happened.

>degenerates

the problem with polygamy is that its generally only wealthy men who can afford to support multiple wives, this creates a large underclass of poor men who become unmarryable and have no hope of ever starting a family. We've seen the kind of havoc that situation can cause in India with all the sexual violence a gender imbalance has created.

There is the undeniable limitation that each person has only one genital. Sure, you can throw in oral and anal, but I think there's too much room for potential jealousy to arise when even in threesomes, only two people at a time can be having genital to genital sex.

In which case I suppose perhaps a society based around sets of 4 would be more ideal.

>While the research does show
link to this research or shut the fuck up

polygamy has been outlawed in China for over a century, you can't use it to explain the modern success of asians.

>Also, socially compulsory monogamy only leads to houses where two people who hate each other are unable to escape the loveless trap that society forces them to observe, and this has an overall more negative affect on children then if their parents were allowed to divorce.

Not everyone makes poor decisions as it comes to marriage.

We have that on the West now, all reasonable qts want to jump on Tyrone's and Chad's cock while many betas are diving into fantasy world.

protestants still mad

> Even gays and lesbians hate bisexuals
That´s the big problem I see for LGBT
Bisexual people are their only hope of raising real families and wealth.

Faggots worldwide don't breed, not just the Catholic faggots.

sounds like the first step back to tribalism

>Eventually a couple will emerge which expels the third wheel. They'll start scapegoating the third wheel, fairly or not

Not really though thays just a thing people assume.

>Bisexual people are their only hope of raising real families and wealth.

You know how gays are compared to the pop financially? They only have themself to care for and even in a couple both have the benefit of dual MALE income and most likely shared interests and that just for ones with a decent job.

Many of them want to create real biological families, so why not include a woman?

Oh yeah add a woman to the mix. You think that will make it seem "normal" Cuz a vag us in it? People will just sperged about it.

>correlation = causation
t. Brainlet

no big deal
one of them inseminates the female and that´s it
she stays home and raises the kid
problem solved

you need a legal and religious frame for that though

>be Poos
>have oldest continuous societies
>divorce rates double
>still only 1%
Thinking intensifies

...

me on the right

>S-See guys? B-Being a cuck is n-normal!
>C-Cmon guy, quit calling me a cuck

Lol sorry, I had to

kill it with fire

non monogamous societies don't really exist

where polygamy is practiced it usually done by an elite few while the majority of society remains monogamous

we are unironically living in one of the very first non monogamous societies and the effects are yet to be truly known but the number of incels with low value on the sexual free market continue to grow immensely

I don't agree with most of you but i agree with op's premise.

In a pre society setup, the supposed alpha male that hoards all the women and fucks them to spread his seed while the betas don't pass their genes is a recent creation of the ones who wan't to destroy the west.
It's clear that in this hypothetical scenario the "beta" males would rise up together and club the alpha to death, sharing the pussy and making a non animalistic society.

Therefore monogamy is the only natural and sensible choice. The norm

The "alphas" of modernity are a mere creation of a system that should not be, an artificial one, the natural cicle will repeat again when resources are scarce and wellfare is crushed

Polygamy and polygamous acts (cuckoldery, cheating, being a "player", etc.) is one of the most disgraceful acts and should be punished with a horrible death.

We had marriage before most religions of the world

>the number of incels with low value on the sexual free market continue to grow immensely

Completely false

>the wealth will trickle down
not legit
>the promiscuity will trickle down
legit
can't wait for the uprising of the sexual proletarian to seize the means of reproduction

...

Facts don't exist, retard

Only problem I can see is that polygamous society examples are dominated by Muslim ones. You'd need more data from non-muslim societies to see if there is any discretion. I have a feeling they will be more unstable though, just not as much as muslim ones because muslims are inbred subhumans.

>Catholics have a society where the smartest men don't breed
You don't think it's because the church affords young men schooling and a learning environment that they would have otherwise not gotten?

He's talking about people in Western Countries.

Muslims manage their harem but sending their sexually frustrated into battle, 72 virgins has never been a stronger sales pitch. This massive dying off has been the Islamic institution of polygamy, besides the typical " cult leader seeks to exceed roastie quota angle.

...

>Divorce actually strengthens the institution of monogamy
?

>undermine the basis of civilization
What kind of mongs have access to the internet?

What the fuck is wrong with people?

>they still get their genes passed on in the form of nieces and nephews

They arent whilst their family genes might continue, if they have any new or unique combinations that will die out with them.

>while leaving the smart ones to focus exclusively on the pursuit of knowledge

Not true the overwhelming amount of monastics and clerics - including those who were pressured into the role - had a very large amount of administrative, logistical and clerical work to do it wasnt just a life of pure contemplation - Saint Anselm is a good example of that .

Is that what happened in Mormon societies?

It does when you have a society that bars sex before marriage

yes

10 IQ is not a significant deviation. It's interesting all you race theory peddling morons don't even understand IQ.

You clearly have no idea how normal distributions work. Small differences in the mean result in large differences at the upper scale, e.g. a population with an IQ of 110 would have orders of magnitude larger numbers of people with IQs of 150 compared to a population with IQs of 100

muh racists

>Is it safe to say that monogamous societies are more stable than non-monogamous ones?
In what way?
Which societies have lasted that can prove this?
China did not have a monogamous society (Imperial Chinese Harems) and it lasted for 3000 years. Quite a lot of empires had the same thing throughout history.

What do you mean by monogamous?
What do you mean by society?
What do you mean by stable?

Monogamy as a religious/societal doctrine did not start occurring in Europe until the 1200s IIRC. Even after that happened, Europe was not some kind of stable society if we took stability by it's face value definition.

polygamy creates an underclass of unmarriable men that tend to become violent

That technically is not a bad thing if you're trying to make an expansionist state, which a lot of civilizations did in the past. You just had to learn how to direct that violence. It's how the Romans ended up creating a hundreds year old republic and empire.

See, the thing here is that by "polygamous" you understand "polygeny".

Societies where polyandry is practiced have lower death rates for children and men tend to cooperate more. It's just that these are piss-poor illiterates that mostly live in jungles and what-not.

Ruthlessness was usually selected for over kindness throughout history.

Sleeping outside the marriage bed is grounds for divorce. Before, men were free to be practice polygamy outside matrimony.

Polygamy may be a thing is muslim countries but its far far from being the norm, its actually something unusual outside of gulf countries especially these days
Your average muslim doesnt have a harem

>safe
What proof or logic do you have that says so? Reading human history, it doesn't seem like that assertion has much support.

yes

what historical proof do you have that makes your implied statement true? Monogamous societies only started getting actual promotion/official doctrine 800 years ago.

What do you mean by "free love" societies?

yes