Why is polygamy illegal?
>>75579383
because of christfags
Because the government wanted the land of deseret for themselves so the began passing federal law which affected the structure of the pre-utahn government.
Blame the Mormons
Swap the male with pic related and it's okay.
Positive eugenics...
>>75579383
We don't want whites to breed or have the numbers to defend their property
Because then all women will just marry the richest guy, and there wouldn't be a woman for everyone else.
>>75579583
but the Bible doesn't condemn polygamy :^)
>>75579383
because it's not natural
>>75582069
/thread
>The 80/20 rule is real.
>>75579383
>>75579383
It's already bad enough to deal with ONE women what sort of absolute mad man would want to deal with 3 or more?
>>75579383
Either that guy is filthy rich or has a huge cock or both
>>75582830
Neither is marriage.
>>75582069
why do you hate capitalism?
Libfags don't want to debate polygamy, or bring it up when fag marriage is brought up.
They know they can't win the argument, especially when mormons and pimps are usually the ones who support it.
>>75579383
Because fat poor beta weebs think they're entitled to marry.
Polygamy would allow only the best to marry
>>75582069
>>75583027
This is better than what we have now though, which is basically a fake polygamy.
Rich alphas marry hot broads, guys aspire to be rich alphas again, hot broads become submissive again, women start voting right-wing because of male influence.
>>75582069
You mean Chad, not a rich guy
Rich people would have to be really stupid to marry multiple wives that could fuck their shit up and take all their money 3 or 4 times over
Yes! bring back beta raiders and pillagers
>>75579383
>Why is polygamy illegal?
Why is the government in the business of monitoring and regulating the relationships between consenting adults at all?
>>75579383
>>75583338
That guy has a house for each one of his wives. That really lets you know what it's about.
>>75583540
because without it fags could get married.
>>75579383
because it creates a society with lots of sexless young men thats why
>>75583242
monogamy (marriage or not idc) is only natural because it's about pure, true love and not about sex only. besides, who can put up with more than 1 wife, honestly...
>>75583769
Good thing we sure don't have that now!
>>75583540
taxes
Polygamy isn't illegal. Getting married legally multiple times for tax purposes is.
It's stupid. Marriages should be similar to LLCs; allow any number of consenting sentient entities to join.
Look closely. That man is married to 3 clones.
>>75579383
because it's only beneficial to society during times of war where significantly large portions of the male population die
>>75579383
1. Because each male deserves only one woman: a man can have 10 children with 1 female. If he takes more than one woman he is preventing another male from reproducing without making as much children.
2. Because this means his wives will have to be bisexual
3. He can't raise more than 10 children, his time is limited, so they will be effectively bastards
4. He may not be able to sustain them, and because divorce is wrong, he can't divorce them
5. If there is a lack of women, single men will make society unstable. Remember these men will be mostly poor, so they may look as muscled as alphas. It would literally create an unstable army of poor fucks
I gave you 5 reasons because you probably like pentagrams
>>75583980
And they should also come with an operating agreement written by a lawyer, just like an intelligent LLC.
>>75584320
6. because women hate each other and putting up with other women in husband's life is pretending shit. it's in our nature, they want to kill each other probably
>>75579383
Are the girls in pink twins? This guy must have some serious game to get a set of twins and a straggler to stay with him.
>>75583980
>>75584654
Yep.
The purpose of marriage is to provide for the children. The line marriage is clearly the best form of marriage.
>>75583098
this is nature and how it has always worked
>>75582069
Thst jist means more girls have to be born.
>>75583647
What? They each need their own space, they'd get into shit if they were all together.
>>75587241
>What? They each need their own space, they'd get into shit if they were all together.
I'm saying the guy is rich.
>>75579383
So betas don't riot because alphas like me have married all the women.
>>75579383
No good reason why it should be illegal.
If private individuals willingly agree, who is anyone else to stop them?
>>75583098
For the best
>>75585145
Jesus, I feel bad for that kid
>>75583098
is this because women naturally don't have a sex drive, or because of the value media places on women's bodies compared to men
>>75579383
You try living with more than one woman
>>75583098
Not really. The majority of men are normal and have casual sex.
>>75579383
Might result in ore white children.
>>75587974
The article I got the pic from said they have 25 children
>>75579700
A cuck?
>>75584800
This, apparently it takes a real Balkan man to explain common sense to these pasty western autists. I have never met a person so hellbent on hating and talking trash against all women 24/7 as my exgf
>>75579583
>polygamists in the US are christfags
Stop embarrassing mighty Polen.
>>75588147
wrong
>>75588025
>women naturally don't have a sex drive
you fucking what mate
How does the sex work in these relationships? Is there a rotation like a baseball team? Or is it just a gangbang each night?
>>75589690
yeah, i also like to hate them and talk trash but only about ones who deserve it, just like with any group of people. westerners are all idiots with modern way of thinking. no wonder why they can't tame their women lol
>>75590499
>Is there a rotation like a baseball team?
Yes, basically the wives decide among themselves who gets fucked by him when. And usually when it's a special event day, like a birthday or anniversary, the one whose special day it is will get him.
more than one mother in law?? hell no...
Is it even illegal? I always just figured it was socially stigmatized but not outright illegal.
Why would it not be legal? What if a man knocks up two different women? Would it not be right in the eyes of the Lord for him to honor each woman by taking her as a wife?
>>75579383
>Not stating diff between polygny, polyandry and polyamoury....
Because I'm guessing that /pol/ and it's love of "cuck" will jump at the idea of the missus having a couple of extra hubbys or lovers, right?
Also, pic related - look at where it's most popular.....
>>75579583
>that flag
>that post
Christe eleison.
>>75579383
Because divorce exists and there has to be protection from that guy giving up 150% of his stuff
>>75579383
Because it's exclusively a white person thing. And people dislike strong families, upholding christian values.
It's also degenerate.
>>75592098
>Because it's exclusively a white person thing.
Literally look at the map posted above.
https://www.polygamy.com/articles/96169309/is-polygamy-illegal
>>75592098
Christianity did not endorse polygamy, remember "the two shall become one flesh", not "the however many you want shall become one flesh"
>>75579583
It's because of rome and the nature of competition. The societies with 1 man, 1 woman marriages had tons of productive men that used their extra energy to beat everyone else. Societies with polygamy didn't have more children but they had less productive men. I expected more from you poland.
>opportunity to marry and pussy smash on a rotating basis any number of absolute 10/10's
>marry a few fat or fugly munters
>>75579659
>>75583338
Mormon here.
We practised polygamy for a while, but no longer do so.
It's something we now condemn. If you're practicing it in the church you're booted out so fast it'll make your head spin.
>>75593061
You do realize you belong to a fake religion, right? Have you ever researched the origins?
Because wealthy and the most attractive men get multiple wives while the average/shit tier men get none.
>>75579383
Because that could lead to a situation where everyone is married to everyone. Divorce, child support and alimony proceedings would be a fucking nightmare to decide.
>>75593197
Ah yes.
Of course, I just practise my fake religion for kicks, don't you know?
Of course I know the origins.
With every denomination there are things that don't seem to make sense or just are hard to accept right now, but I'm sure there's an explanation for these things.
Are you religious?
Polygamy is de facto legal
My dad for example had kids with 3 women, each woman ONLY had his kids. Because of him there are 2 cucked guys in the world
>>75592344
Could a man not "become one" with more than one woman?
If you take Christ's phrasing literally, then I guess you could conclude that a man could not give himself to more than one woman, since his being has already been committed to another, and mathematically he wouldn't have another 1/2 to offer towards a second union. But Christ spoke in parables and metaphors more often than not, so I don't think we can extrapolate his views on polygamy just based on one instance of him refuting some Pharisees about divorce.
And again, I urge everyone to think about a scenario in which a man impregnates two women. What is his most righteous course of action at this point? To marry just one of the women, and leave one with a lovechild? Or to marry both of them?
polygamy makes women lazy.
>>75579383
It is a double standard to slut shame and then say that men can sleep with whoever they want.
inb4 my biology. Morals>Biology.
>>75592696
Ancient Greece did fine with polygamy
>>75582830
Monogamy is an imposed cultural value. Historically only 40% of men have reproduced.
>>75583819
Dealing with multiple wives is easier than one because they compete for your affection.
>>75579383
don't work as good as monogamy.
I mean let's be honest here now,most of you autists won't even get a chance to breed if chads keep stock piling all the bitches for themselves.
It will be a fucking travesty,the work force(men) will decline with time,genetic diseases will be much more rampant,children will probably get perma b& by their step moms and so on and so forth.
>>75593013
One big fat wife.
>>75591320
This sounds so nice
How does he even tell the difference between those two
>>75593826
wtf is this from?
How are they allowing this?
Fucking degenerates ,this is disgusting.
>>75593537
>I urge everyone to think about a scenario in which a man impregnates two women.
>Not an argument!
Why is he getting 2 women pregnant? Traditionaly that man would have been shamed and an made into an outcast along with the women and children he had. That would have served a warning to anyone else thinking about doing that.
>>75591878
true story
I actually had a polygamy thing with 3 of my friends (me male, them female), lasted for a 3 years.
ended because I rushed the things and got one pregnant, I could have convinced one of the others but the other one got really really mad and manage to set her against us.
currently raising my boy with that girl
we wonder what would have happened if we remained together
how I was going to explain to my boy that he had three moms
something to share with /pol/ with love
>>75579383
It's an abomination
>>75593426
Joseph Smith was a fraud and your religion is verifiably false. You are either stupid or a cuck. Which is it?
>>75593537
Some of Christ's phrasing was meant to be literal, other phrasing was more figurative.
It seems you are trying to justify having multiple fuckbuddies in Christianity. My answer to your question is that a man should not impregnate two women, but rather his only wife. The other "what ifs" don't justify polygamy. If you were following Christ's teaching on sexuality you wouldn't impregnate two different women you were not married to in the first place.
All of the major denominations, save fundamentalist Mormonism, condemn polygamy. I think I would trust the judgment of 2000 years of Catholic theology over a sola scriptura sex addict.
Single partner marriage was created for the benefit of individuals within society. Without this contract, 80% of women sleep with 20% of men, since deep down most women only want the cream of the crop alpha males, and alphas deep down just want to sleep with as many women as possible without commitment. This is just human nature. It has the end result of most men within the society being miserable, as they have no access to consistent sex. It also ends up making the majority of women miserable, since they get the taste of alpha cock but will never be able to tie one down as their provider.
The contract was created to ensure that as many men as possible can get sex and as many women as possible can have lifelong providers. Of course, thanks to the destruction of chastity as a virtue, and no-fault divorce, monogamous marriage has been rendered completely pointless in modern society.
>>75593667
and why exactly would men want women to compete for their affection? women shouldn't be no1 in man's life. use your energy to be productive for civilization , not on fucking women (double meaning). don't be vaginal slaves.
>>75579383
A few men would get all the women. A literal beta uprising would happen, good luck trying to control thousands of sexless young men with nothing to live for.
>>75593781
POO
>>75579383
that dude has the pimpiest face
>>75593979
We are living in the age of the Kali Yuga. Anything goes free-for-all.
>>75593979
If the little kid wants to be a faggot, who's to stop him.
Probs was raised by 2 dads and thought being a faggot was normal. Jokes on him, he'll get aids.
>>75594291
Having women compete to please me and make my life easier has no downsides. I get more motivation to work and spend less time cooking and cleaning plus I get more kids. I have two sons and I plan on more.
>>75593979
>Fucking degenerates ,this is disgusting.
You nailed it mate, these people are the cancer that's eroding Western society, they're the liberals who are pro-Islam, pro-immigration, pro-lgbt.
It's funny, they support ideologies that want to kill them, fucking idiots.
>>75593660
False, Greece was monogamous with slaves and concubines.
>>75594310
>A literal beta uprising would happen
Sounds familar
>>75593660
In what shape or form?
>>75594208
Not an argument ;)
All jokes aside, where are you getting your information from?
I might be stupid, but one thing I do know is that it's true. Your insults can't change that, friend.
I learned the Book of Mormon is true, and as such, Joseph Smith was a prophet.
A perfect man? By no means, he had a lot of faults. But being human and making mistakes doesn't take away from the truth.
Let's keep it civil now.
>>75588025
> women naturally don't have a sex drive
wat
>>75589982
Pretty sure the opposite
>>75594509
how can you truly love more than one woman, honestly? also, one woman is more than enough for cooking, cleaning and you can have as much kids as you want with only one. but what she gets when being in polygamous marriage? emotionally , nothing. how would you feel if you had to share your wife with multiple men?
>>75594028
>Why is he getting 2 women pregnant? Traditionaly that man would have been shamed and an made into an outcast along with the women and children he had.
I'm asking you to think about his situation after the sin has been committed. Obviously it's not right to cheat on your partner and knock up someone else, but once the deed is done, this man has a decision to make.
And again, I will argue that it is more righteous for that man to take two wives than one. Find me one piece of scripture that permits a man to have children out of wedlock, or speaks favorably of one who does so. On the contrary, you can find plenty of examples of scripture speaking favorably of men who have multiple wives. Even fucking Abraham had multiple wives. Yeah okay one of them was his half-sister, so maybe Abe isn't the best example, but surely you get my point.
If it is your wish to follow God's law as closely as we know how, then there are instances in which polygamy is not only acceptable, but encouraged, such as when a man, by whatever circumstances, ends up having children to two different women.
>>75593660
A society can exist with polygamy but I'm guessing the greeks had a disproportionate number of women to men. War and plagues can sometimes create disparities that allow polygamy to work but any stable society won't work or win competitively in the long run. Slavery and conquest also help maintain the practice.
>>75593781
>I mean let's be honest here now,most of you autists won't even get a chance to breed if chads keep stock piling all the bitches for themselves.
That may happen in certain circumstances but typically if young men don't have partners they wreck shit. We have porn today but there weren't enough prostitutes to satisfy or pacify men in the past. History is filled with tribes of men who raped anything that moved. Anytime you don't have sex or masturbate, your testosterone levels increase for months and you become irritable and stressed. The "chads" don't stand much of a chance once the so-called betas(who are full of testosterone and aggression) get horny enough. Monogamy stops the in-fighting and redirects the energy towards productive instead of destructive ends.
>>75579383
You can't have a society of Chads
Society runs on Beta sweat
People should organize into any type of living situation they want, as long as there is at least 1 adult male and adult female in the house when children are being raised.
>>75594605
False. Phillip had 8 wives
>>75594679
Why are Australians such good shitposters?
Because it creates a society filled mostly with permavirgin neets.
They need a chance at women in order to have a reason to be productive.
>>75594928
Polygamy and Polyandry are different reproductive strategies.
One (polygamy) promotes more properly bred children and heightened birth rates and the other does not increase birth rates or ensure proper breeding.
My girls like each other and I love them both. You can't understand loving two people at once?
Having a woman to do everything and balance everything allows me to work (and goof around at work) quite a bit.
Women are meant to be with the greatest men and history shows that strategy wins out (again, citing 40% of men reproduce and 80% of women do).
1-1 pairing was only created to create societal cohesion and encourage individualism through putting more care into children and working less about having many children (ie, Hajnal).
>>75583162
You don't understand. When there's 3 or more they compete for you and tend to be on their best behavior. If one decides to be a bitch, there are two others hoping to keep you warm at night.
>>75579383
It is against God's law. It should be punished with death by stoning.
>>75595063
/thread
There aren't enough women to go around as is and we all know how dangerous un-satisfied horny young males are.
It's just a bad idea overall and it's part of the reason Muslimes are such assholes.
>>75595266
Money is the reason to be productive.
>>75594379
It's not that bad everywhere,they would have been jailed in many countries.How the fuck they are allowing and encouraging it is beyond me.
>>75594506
There's a thing called grooming,this might be one of those cases.I don't think this kind of apathy will help the west either.
Although i reverse searched it ,turned out it was brazil.
>>75594530
Let them have a chance with islam then,let them taste the gravity while they chuck them off the roof.Fucking cancerous scums.
>>75595025
They can probably find a way to pacify the youth so they can't wreck shit up, but i think the loneliness and the loss of meaning will mess them up.
They won't work as hard as they could have,or most likely they won't work at all.The workforce will suffer immensely.I don't think that a system that was built by keeping monogamy as the default over centuries will be able to deal with it the way you said it would.
>>75595094
>one woman
>one hundred men
It's a nice day for a . . . Turkish wedding.
>>75595316
Yes, but you are largely benefiting from the work of the lesser males. It certainly isn't your wives generating the vast majority of the economy and tax base. The greatest men all had support. A king must have his nation and a general must have his army.
What happens if those men no longer have any reason to work? You plan on sending your wives and children into the mines to keep the lights on?
>>75594347
Is it the pooinloo version of cool clock ahmed??
>>75595617
One: I own my own company.
Two: I fail to see how I'm being upheld by multiple men.
I'm white, not a nigger in case that wasn't readily apparent. I have silver hair and silver eyes with skin like paper - no welfare for me.
>>75595426
I don't need money if I don't have a woman or a family.
I can work part time at a hobby shop, sleep in a van and eat Ramen.
I can spend my 12 leisure hours per day in the library on a gaming laptop, or just hanging out in the hobby shop.
This is without public assistance.
>>75584320
A sucessful virile society will be constantly be exporting their male population to fight and conquer and take new land.
You should always have more women than men at home in a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio, otherwise your a puss country that isn't conquering enough.
Look at the middle east, they are sneding tens of millions of young men to Coquer europe and rape their women and kill their men and take the land. As a result there are enough women in Arabia for polygamy.
>>75595316
sry, i can't understand. if my husband brought another girl home, i would probably slit her throat because i don't wanna be shared, i'm not an object, i'm human being and want to be sure i'm the only one who can make my partner happy. if he needs something more than me, i'm sorry, but it isn't true love( btw country is different, i was on vpn)
>>75593826
I have I trully sleept to long and ignored the media for shit like this to be accepted into the public? This is trully hell.
>>75595804
I hope you understand that most people would not be happy with living alone in a van eating ramen, not showering and gaming in a library.
>>75579383
>Why is polygamy illegal?
it's legal in Europe now, thanks to diversity.
So now. single men have to pay tax thru the nose for this brown invader, his 3 wives and 20 niglets.
It's a;ready (secretly) here in Canada, and surely has arrived in the USA.
Denmark: Invader’s 3 Wives, 20 Children
http://newobserveronline.com/denmark-invaders-3-wives-20-children/
>>75595602
To be fair at least the children would be raised well. I've seen guys who were raised by single mothers, aunts and grandmas. I had 4 such guys in my graduating class. 3 of them literally suck dick and the other is a neck beard shut in who still lives with his aunt
>>75595617
In holding up a society lesser males do strict one-to-one pair bonding like in Tacitus' Germania, if that's what you were trying to talk about.
Of course not everyone can have multiple wives unless we severely outbreed to skew sex ratios towards women. Therefore, the greatest men get multiple mates, normal men get one, and lesser men have the same fate as always - dying off.
>>75595840
I see and that's fine but I'm far more domineering than your husband likely is and my girls both like each other as well.
Better men should pass on more of what makes them great. Lesser men should be forgotten.
>>75595800
You may own your own company but you participate and draw revenue from the U.S. economy as a collective (and any other countries in which you do business). Your company would generate 0 revenue if it did not have any customers, whether that be for products or services.
So while you did build your company, the company is participating in something much larger than yourself. If no one had need for your products or services your company would not make any money.
>>75579383
Because of property. It's easier to pass property down the line if only Jim and Sue were married as opposed to Jim, Sue, Becky, and Titania.
>>75595602
That's funny but that wouldn't actually happen.
>>75579383
Legal exploits via the 5th amendment spousal privilege.
>>75579383
Unfortunately women hate each other more than anything and life isn't anime so it never works out.
>>75596116
The greatest men are great because they organize lesser men.
Their utility vanishes without the established hierarchy.
You also leave the ultimate decision up to women to decide what is valuable. You can see what happens when you allow that to happen.
>>75596186
That is irrelevant in the context of the conversation we're having which is about human mate selection and not about business.
>>75596058
>3 of them literally suck dick and the other is a neck beard shut in who still lives with his aunt
Except none of them are here posting apart from you. How is Aunt May btw?
>>75596295
I organize men under me in my company.
I therefore exhibit the value to have multiple wives.
Our utility won't vanish because we keep the system afloat and created it. It is propagated by great men.
No one is forcing my girls to stay with me. They chose this, I make it worth it.
"here anon you can sleep in the middle!"
>>75579383
It's demeaning to women, making them like property.
>>75596436
It would seriously be bomb. You could fuck all day every day until your dick hurt.
>>75596295
This. Egalitarianism is tool of the despot
>>75596299
But your argument was that you were not dependent on any external forces, or "upheld by the lesser males" as I had claimed in my first post.
My argument was that your company, while built by yourself, is dependent on transactions as part of a larger economy, otherwise your business would fail. Thus, in that sense, you are being upheld by the lesser males, as those lesser males are participating in the workforce and economy and as such providing you with customers for your products and/or services.
Without these other men participating in the economy, you would not generate revenue for your business. So in essence, yes, you are upheld by other men.
But if those men no longer have the ability to acquire a mate, which many would not due to the distortion of the upper class men taking several wives, you would see a decline in participation or at least the quality of participation among these men which could hurt your business and your status as well.
>>75596116
nah, he just doesn't like women. i mean, he loves me ofc but we are introverted people and it doesn't make him any lesser man than other people, it's just about man's choice to spend life with one woman.
>>75596369
>Except none of them are here posting apart from you.
I'm 23 and engaged. I'm posting before going to a dinner party with the rest of my family. My fiance made an apple pie and a pumpkin pie. You tell me who's worse off
>>75596546
Voluntary arrangements between free people are nothing like taking a person as property.
>>75596429
This model has been attempted in hundreds of civilizations and none of them have gone to the moon.
You run the labor put of the gene pool and all you have left are go getters looking to maximize personal gain.
I undersrand that this is all just fanfiction for you, but get with it dude. It just doesn't work in practice; it never has.
>>75596596
You would have to work so much you wouldn't have much time to enjoy sex
>>75596436
Pets in the bed... I'll pass.
>>75596734
A lack of mates has never occurred in European society save for instances where foreign populations either floor in or kidnap from natives.
A large portion of both women and men do not ever mate or find a mate. Letting a select few superior men have multiple mates does not change this on a significant enough level to call for it being stopped or mitigated.
Even areas in which it is routinely practiced such as in the Middle East and North Africa have no shortage of mates, just a lack of participation from men. China exhibits problems without this phenomenon and the growth they show will still sustain them.
If anything, this system (as it did during The Annals and later Rome) would help birth rates and help the population at large by incentivizing greater people to have more and more children and be thoroughly rewarded for their efforts in life and have those efforts multiplied in turn by their children.
>>75596749
And that's fine, but a large portion of women will share a great mate instead of settling for their own lesser mate.
This comes down to preference and the dominance of the man. Where your husband is meek, I am strong and thus I will have my girls and my kids.
Polygamy works selectively, is all I'm attempting to say.
>>75579383
Because it inevitably leads to violence. Men who end up without women are more violent and angry.
>>75596436
Rossannaaa why dont you love meeeeee
>>75597093
>he makes the bold claim that polygamy is the factor that stopped other nations from going to the moon before the United States
>he tells someone else to get with it and implies he is not writing pseudo-history fanfiction
Jesus fucking christ maybe I'm too old for this board.
>>75597168
Who says they wouldn't have jobs?
>>75579383
>Why is polygamy illegal?
To spare men.
>>75597093
Saying none of them went to the moon as some sort of example to show their inadequacy is a brazen and inadequate argument. Rome and Germania employed this system to immense success and there's no reason to doubt that letting the elite of men have many wives and thus many kids would cause any negatives.
Again I'll say it, many people don't mate. There will not be a mate shortage. It will not occur.
This will merely enable eugenics if regulated properly.
This has worked before and I know two other couples for whom it works just fine. That's anecdotal but the evidence in history suggests it works just fine as well.
>>75597256
a man can be strong if he has only one wife. i don't judge greatness of men based on how many women he can get, but how good human being he is.
Could curent marrange laws be exploited so that:
Two guys get legally married, their several wives stay home, they each get a tax break?
>>75597533
That's fine. What I'm implying is that men whom are more genetically fit would be preferable for having multiple mates. It would aid both them and society at large.
>>75597372
It is far from a bold claim. It is simple statistical analysis; monogamous societies represent a minority in history and they have consisently achieved better results.
And it isn't "before the United states". None have done it even today. None of them achieved, or are currently achieving dick all from shit.
It isn't one monogamous society doing better, it is all of them.
>>75579383
Because the uniform distribution of the sexes ensures the survival of civilized society.
>>75597746
I'm going to assume you're not quite historically literate and Hajnal eludes you based on this comment.
>>75597520
Immense success is fizzling out after a couple hundred years.
When current society goes out, it will at least go out with a bang.
>>75579383
because feelings
>>75597875
That's a major presupposition and you have absolutely nothing to base that on.
>>75593013
why doesn't the fat one take care of itself better? is its location at the bottom of the pecking order a mandate to make itself less attractive than those above her in the hierarchy?
>>75597746
I hope you understand that showing a correlation alone doesn't mean shit and you would be laughed out of an academic situation. You need a lot more support for that theory, this is fanfiction that you're writing. You sound like me when I was 15.
>>75597638
i would feel sorry for those 'lesser' men you are talking about. we all deserve to be loved if we don't prove otherwise to people. you are talking about reproduction, offspring but what about the bond between man and woman, two soul mates? the bond that is called love
>>75597859
You have a model based on conquest and slavery and attribute it to marriage traditions.
It isn't hard to have economic success based on theft. It doesn't make a great society.
>>75598191
>It's a /pol/ becomes collectivist commie softies when the topic of competition for mates comes up
This board is so transparent it really does feel like satire.
>>75598075
This isn't a simple correlation, this is overwhelming evidence.
This isn't some new idea of yours that hasn't been tried. It is the historical norm. Polygamous societies are net historical losers.
>>75598355
>there is overwhelming evidence
Lmao lets hear it bud, I'm waiting on you.
>>75598355
>>75598442
Why do yanks get so riled up so easily..
>>75598191
The lesser men can still get mates. I will say this *again* - there is not and has not been a shortage of mates except for rare instances like Paraguay T-E.
I love, it's just not one-to-one.
>>75598196
Nothing I've said promotes slavery or Conquest.
Nowhere have I said all men should or will have multiple wives or made any indication this would be unsustainable. On the contrary, if you read earlier replies you would realize that already most males and many females do not reproduce.
This only increases the amount being produced and does nothing to skew the marriage ratios or pair-bonding of people not involved in polygamy.
I have never implied a system based on theft would be used. I'm a Capitalist to an extreme. I'm in the Hoppe, 'tenuous covenants,' vein of thought wherein a revise NAP of sorts is followed in my ideal world.
I don't know why you sidetracked the argument to make those accusations when I'm talking about mating practices and economy is unrelated (despite however much it would improve).
Because polygamy is bad for societal stability
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657
>>75597936
There is plenty to base it on. Nuclear proliferation is immense and historical scholars all agree that nuclear war is a likely outcome.
No model has achieved more. Even with the free flow of information and technology, no polygamist nation has managed to pull themselves up and achieve anything of note.
There are plenty of polygamist societies that exist. The are all losers.
I don't bet on losing strategy.
>>75597746
>>75598075
>>75598355
>>75598442
See:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/657
>>75598699
The hanjal line shoes a difference in marriage tradition and attributes societa progress to it. Meanwhile, it ignores the difference in economic strategies, with western societies focusing on conquest.
>mfw feminists want to keep polygamy illegal yet because of the supreme court's interpretation of the 14th amendment they literally have no argument against making it legal. Mfw the libcucks are bringing all this upon themselves.
>>75598699
>there is not and has not been a shortage of mates except for rare instances like Paraguay T-E.
You forgot about China having millions more men than women, and Sweden now having more men than women. I agree with most of what you said though.
>>75598442
The top 50 nations for gdp and hdi all have strong marriage laws and enforced monogamy to some extent.
If polygamy is a winning system, it would win. It doesnt. It is a consistent loser and has been tried for tens of thousands of years.
>>75598780
Your article is outright saying that polygamous societies outnumber monogamous ones 6 to 1 and they STILL can't crack into the top 50.
Embarassing.
>>75598741
Are you joking now? This doesn't lead or relate to nuclear war.
I wonder why I come to this board or talk to Americans at all some days.
>>75598867
That's another wholly untrue presuppositional argument.
I really don't know where you're getting these ideas from, but they're not wholly logical or well-thought at all.
The Hajnal line denotes genetic differences, consanguinity rates, varying nuptiality, parental investment in child rearing, and there is no such correlation to, "Conquest," whatever that may be in this context.
Besides all that, go take a look at >>75598780
>>75599028
It isn't an issue in China though. The issue will pass and has already corrected (by 1-2%) since the child laws were laxed and then removed. Either way, it was really much more of a rural issue and not as severe as people believe it to be
>>75599132
It did win for a long time and now people in the West (and Westernized areas) value stability over growth and the Frontier mindset, as Glubb puts it.
It is precisely this lack of an expansive mindset that will have us falling under foreign hordes.
>>75594310
So, Arabia?
It doesn't provide for stable and tradiational families
Also it's degenerate and heretical
>Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
>one wife
>>75599350
read the fucking article mate. I'm agreeing with what you're saying
It says monogamy is the foundation for stable societies.
>>75598780
>>75599132
There is simply not enough evidence to state it as a matter of fact that successful nations owe their success to monogamy. Neither they or you have isolated it as a primary variable, only showing some effect. There are other correlated differences between these nations that have not been written off.
>>75598332
sorry for having empathy, because not all people want to just breed in their lives, some people want to have wife but no kids, it's a matter of choice. but i hate female stupid mind that says she has to go for 'better' men, it just shows she's there for money or 'security' not for love...
>>75599028
source
>>75599616
God dude, it's just what they're attracted to. You've never loved a girl in significant part because she was smart and competent?
>>75598709
>>75599599
> There is simply not enough evidence to state it as a matter of fact that successful nations owe their success to monogamy. Neither they or you have isolated it as a primary variable
See the part where it says "comparative monogamous countries" and "less polygynous african countries".
Those other variables your talking for have been accounted for.
Look at the evidence before pulling shit out of your ass
>>75599406
I said modern society would go out with a bang, rather than collapsing due to conquest becoming a less viable economic model. This is likely, and many historians agree with me.
Apparantly we have been doing it wrong and achieving immense economic success anyway, for reasons you can't explain.
Mind you, this is a consistent pattern occurring globally, not an isolated case, all with polygamous societies out numbering the monogamous 6 to 1.
At this point, you are arguing in favor of death because it is easier to achieve than progress. The foreign hordes conquer and replace productive culture with shit culture, and your cognitive dissonance I'd so thick that you choose to not see through to the end game.
>>75599616
These guys are on 4chan, they fantasize about impregnating all the hot girls from their highschool but in reality the only thing they impregnate is their socks.
Look up any 4chan meet ups, especially the /pol/ and /k/ ones. Everyone there is soft and weak looking but you'd never imagine that by the way they talk.
Finally, most of these guys are under 30, so they have a nigger mindset about women and think that more kids= more success. Companionship means little to them.
>>75599647
A Japanese movie called The Torture Club.
>>75600004
>he's on /pol/, looks at a comparison of Africa when compared to asians and europeans and chocks up differences to socioeconomic factors
To be clear, you think races are equal or race is a social construct right?
>>75599599
The entire top 50 spots filled with an ideology that is outnumbered 6 to 1.
Not enough evidence.
If you just assume that they are equally viable, you have to hit 1 out of 6 50 times in a row. We are talking 1 in 1200000000000000000000000000000000000000 that this happens by chance of they were EQUALLY viable.
You are insisting that polygamous societies are MORE VIABLE. This makes the numbers look even worse.
Because polygamy destroys civilized society unless it is heavily regulated. People simply do not have the capacity to have multiple spouses. People are naturally greedy and jealous, and you will have lots of strife. Only works when the people are mentally ill or you put rules on it (usually through religion).
So basically, while it may seem to be the right thing to do to let people marry who they want, it will ultimately mean a curtailing of freedom, not an increase in freedom.
>>75600108
Let's see those historians.
Nowhere did I imply economic success was impossible without this system. Nice try though. Obviously reforms would cause greater productivity or at least incentivize it.
Most of humanity was polygamous. It prospered and will continue to regardless. This, 'top 50,' metric you spout has no basis.
>you are arguing in favor of death
What else am I arguing, oh wise one?
Give me a break, kid.
>cognitive dissonance
I haven't exhibited any, by definition.
You're so full of shit.
>>75600249
I'd be surprised if they didn't with how the facts seem to die in their minds.
E Z 2 P I M P A B I T C H
>>75600415
>We are talking 1 in 1200000000000000000000000000000000000000 that this happens by chance of they were EQUALLY viable.
I'm seriously too old and educated for this board. It's just annoying at this point. No one can even calculate probability, do statistical analysis or understand basic science and data analysis.
>>75600433
Considering that our society has functioned on its own production rather than conquest for the better part of 250 years, we can safely rule out death by economic failure stemming from lack of conquerable societies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
Plenty of work done on nuclear annihilation.
>>75579383
It creates a huge amount of single men that eventually kill you or steal from you cause they aren't getting pussy.
Polygamy creates destructive societies. People knew this back in the day, but they dressed it up in flowery religious language.
>>75600433
You cited the Hajnal line, which supports the theory that Western society flourished under relaxed marriage laws while eastern society had stronger marriage that was matched with equal mortality and nothing more. I'm explained to you that this was incorrect, because no other polygamous society has seen similar success. Their success was a function of their conquest and supply of neighbots to rob from.
You have cognitive dissonance because you decry the foreign hordes for practing the very strategy you are a proponent of.
Simple shit really m8.
>>75600850
Neither of those stem from what we were originally discussing.
>>75579383
Because all the women would marry BBC.
>>75600684
1 in 6 raised to the 50th power.
It is simple. If 5/6 of societies are polygamous, they should occupy 5/6 the top 50 spots. If they are equally viable, but still lose, the only explanation is that they got unlucky 50 times in a row.
The odds of that are 1.2 * 10^-37 percent.
>>75601298
It absolutely is.
Polygamy loses every time. Sorry.
>>75589982
>calling mormons christfags
bro, do you even Nicene Creed?
>>75582069
They already do that now though? They all flock to chad and bbc. Look how many baby mamas furture has.
>>75596829
>You tell me who's worse off
Thanks for the blogpost
I'm 40 something, seen my missus out the door to work, took both my kids to school and settling in for a day of coding [work] and shitposting on 4chinz [not work].
Breddy comfy твн
>Just another gentle reminder to the thread - look at where it's most popular....
>>75601155
>no other
No. Just look at Rome, for instance. It's production derived mostly from agriculture and domestic production where the later occupied provinces in the Isles and up to Frisia were a net cost.
I don't have cognitive dissonance. I never once called for those foreign hordes to cease their practice but at the same time by saying this you've highlighted that you didn't read. I called for the best men to have multiple wives. Islam does not do this, it calls for *anyone* to have them and not for eugenic breeding purposes as evidenced by their over 50% consanguinity.
>>75601451
I suppose Rome was shit then, right? Ancient Greece? Germania? Basilieum? No? They were all great? Interesting.
>>75601375
>1 in 6 raised to the 50th power.
>It is simple. If 5/6 of societies are polygamous, they should occupy 5/6 the top 50 spots. If they are equally viable, but still lose, the only explanation is that they got unlucky 50 times in a row.
>The odds of that are 1.2 * 10^-37 percent.
I know how to calculate probability fuckass, I'm telling you that you're applying it incorrectly. All that says is that the difference between the two isn't due to chance alone, it doesn't say anything about why. This is the shit I'm talking about, these are the type of stupid calculations I thought were meaningful about the world when I was just a stupid 15 year old.
>>75583098
Until sex AI robots are a reallity.... Soon
>>75601700
Where's this list of the top 50? What makes them the best? I have a suspicion that modern societies are all on the top for no objective reasons.
>>75601734
Oh man I'm so happy I can get girls, I can't imagine being like you.
>>75588147
If they are bbc
>>75601830
Questions about all of society are inherently extremely complex, for that kid to act like he's isolated a single variable that explains most of the difference with the evidence he has is fucking laughable. I think coming here might make me dumber if I don't leave.
I can take on 3 women bring it on.
>>75602016
I feel like that kid just wants to be contrarian instead of think.
Every rich dude would have a wife for each day of the year. The poor would see this and revolt.
>>75579383
You've never been with a jealous womsn have you OP? You'll change your tonr when you live through that.
>>75602193
I mean, what's stopping that from happening now?
>>75593826
The russians were right
Faggots want to spread their insanity to children since they can't reproduce (and probably for pedo purposes, since many of them are also pedos)
>>75583162
Never looked at it that way.
>>75583189
It's his religion idiot.
>>75598027
She's probably the cook
>>75602193
Not revolt, but rich dudes from having committed partners for each day of the year?
>>75590210
They have a sex drive but it is nothing like men's. And a lot weaker
>>75602780
It's not as different as you think. Their taste is different than yours, but it's pretty close to the same strength.
>>75588025
>>75602780
Found the virginal Internet Researchers.
>tfw you've never been pounced on day in day out as you get home from work...
>>75579383
HEATHENS
E
A
T
H
E
N
S
>>75602250
It's not as blatantly obvious today because cheating/extra partners is considered a personal issue. Yet by making such relationships recognized by the government with marriages would make it acceptable to talk about.
>>75603957
I don't know if you know this man, but rich guys often have what essentially amounts to harems, and I don't think they care what other people think and I don't think I would either.
>>75583098
>>75586647
Am I on r9k?
This has been debunked btw:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/
>>75579383
Are those......twins?
>>75579383
Ayy
>>75579383
>>75604241
HOLY FUCK THEY ARE TWINS
And the third is their cousin.
The fucking madman.
>>75583098
That's a gross exaggeration and just goes to show that you are that guy who has no partners. You either want everyone to look worse or you have no experience with casual sex.
tfw no woman left for me in my country
feelsbadman
>>75583098
Even more hilarious is that implies that no sexual relationships change, end or begin, it screams sexless loser.
>>75597638
Children of polygamous couples have more problems than children of monogamous couples.
>>75604706
fuckin whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
>>75604706
Literally where?
>>75579383
Because it usually leads to child abuse and murder
>>75604706
RARE
>>75604706
What country are you? On mobile.
Goot please fix that
>>75579583
First post best post.
>>75604706
Literally 3 atolls.
Which one are you on?
>>75605064
no one lives outside fakaofo
>>75604807
Post proof.
>>75602780
KEK
E
K
>>75583189
you missed it
all it takes is confidence
most really don't care if you have cash or a big dong
>>75605248
Atafu looks pretty habitable.
Are you from there?
Were you there for Cyclone Percy?
>>75593061
There are more of us with fundamentalist beliefs than you imagine. I openly discuss the true doctrine with very eager listeners. It won't be long before the false prophets will be held to account for changing the word of God for the sake of the US government.
>>75605460
Atafu is great as well and I was there in 2004 yeah
>>75604390
And you're the guy who's getting cucked.
>>75605668
Wtf are you?
>>75595840
Tits or GTFO.
it's not.
There are tens of thousands of Muslims in Britain who are in poly-amorous marriages.
