Li

I think you're missing anons point.

She's quite healthy.

I imagine that the primary repercussion would be the return of quest threads to Veeky Forums.

What point?

Assuming family values are still important, there's a group in Mongolia, I think it is, that some inspiration could be taken from. The women have affairs with whichever men they want, have children if they want, and the men always end up raising children that they know are related to them.

This is your daily reminder to jerk off before coming to Veeky Forums

I think it would be more like a handmaid's tale. Powerful men get a woman, nobody else does. Women would either be treated very well (but with little control over their lives) or like garbage. Probably a mix, desu.

No poors are getting a woman in this situation.

That literally makes no sense

Polyandry exist in Asia, Middle-East, Africa and parts of Eastern Europe.

one man can make kids with one woman as well and fast as several

That's kinda pointless, unless OP's nation is afraid of severe inbreeding or something

>What are the social and economic repercussions of this? Can it "work" well enough?
Not sure about the economic repercussions beyond households having, on average, a much higher income. Social repercussions depend greatly on how people feel about the current one woman several men situation. People who want a return to 1 man 1 woman may very well seek to push for increasing the population before lowering the age of consent/marriage (assuming it is not already set at postpubertal).

>Can it "work" well enough?
It will work in the sense that humans would continue to exist but that is hardly a satisfying answer... See

She can't get pregnant more than once at a time, and what girl would want to spend her life as a breeding sow? Do you actually think women would enjoy this? There are absolutely zero benefits for a woman having multiple husband's. I'm sorry if that bothers you but it's just biology.

Yea that sounds like a great time, be pregnant for three years straight. Everyone woman's dream

Men are way too fucking pathetic and insecure for this to work.

Hope she likes Osteoporosis.
So let us flip the scenario around to multiple women and one man. Are women secure enough for such a living situation or would they just express their discontent with it differently?

Shit, let me ask my mormon friend

So, I asked my mormon friend (he’s one of those radical guys with three “wives”) about this. Apparently, they gang-up on him when they’ve decided he did something wrong, but they’re bitchy to each-other in abscence of a central dick to focus on.

It wouldn't affect you, because you'd still have plenty of dick to suck

In the long run It's gonna make it real hard not to date your cousin, also why are fetish threads always disguised under pretences of economic and or social exploration?.
Pls kys, regards user.

Get this shit out of my face you degenerate

Historically it's usually happened where life is difficult and resources scarce, so both expansion and supporting a big family are difficult and there's more benefit to having multiple males supporting children. Sometimes the husbands would be brothers or relatives themselves, I suppose to foster a sense of shared paternity.

Woman can carry children of different men at the same time if that's what you ask. It's rare but it happens. Hercules had a twin brother like that who was a son of mortal father.

I don't want my resources going to children that aren't mine, that isn't insecurity that's basic intelligence, you big smelly retard.

...looking this up and yeah. The Inuit and Aleut. Tibet. Himalayan India. The Canary Islands. The Amazon rainforest. The New Hebrides. Basically places where it was hard to live, because doing this slows population growth and provides greater security for offspring.

Why would a shortage of women lead to polyandry? A woman can only be impregnated once so what purpose would the other husband serve?

A more likely scenario is that women become highly prized status symbols that the men compete over with the losers simply going without.

Assuming you mean "take modern Western culture and add polyandry," it's not going to work at all. We can't even keep traditional monogamous relationships intact; there's absolutely no way that men would buy into an even worse deal in significant numbers.
There are plenty of women throughout the developed world that have carried 3+ pregnancies to term.
>shitposts in misandric

Humanity is doom because no sane man would want to share.

Either resources are low enough that a single man can't support a family on his own or multiple men decide that having to share a woman outweighs never getting one ever.

That's been done before without the sharing a wife and it's called a family, one man can't do it all but he can with the help of his brothers and his father plus it's in the best interest for the wife's family to be a part of it too so you have her brothers and father

Yeah except the brothers have no chances of having a wife and will resent you for it.

It has also been done before with the sharing of a wife.

...

The only rational response a country could have to a shortage of women and an overabundance of men is to apply eugenics and wage war against its weakest neighbor to dispose of genetically inferior males.

>everyone acts like this is an outrageous impossible shitpost
>polyandry is both a historical fact and features in some of the most important cultural works of humankind e.g. the Mahabharata
What did they mean by this?

>polyandry is both a historical fact
In resource poor matrairchal tribes, and it really isn't "polyandry", people aren't married at all
>some of the most important cultural works
You mean in literally one story

It's simply abhorrent to any civilized man, only a male of exceedingly low capability would tolerate it.