from a logical/biological point of view, which is better: monogamy or poligamy?
you cant use religious arguments in this discussion.
>>68704043
poligamy
my opinion is that ideally, a lot of different men should fuck a lot of different women and vice versa, in such a way that the birth rates and genetic recombination would be high, which are both desirable for the survival of any species.
>>68704043
Polyamory.
It's all the fun of polygamy with none of the lifetime commitment.
>>68704043
Better for what? If you want your offspring to live, you have to take care of him. Impregnate 100 women who can't afford to feed their little shits, and your genes will die out in a generation.
>>68704043
Depends on the state of the individual.
If its one where the individual is struggling for survival: Monogamy
If its one where the individual is not struggling for survival: Polygamy
>>68704043
girls love poligamy until they hit the wall, then they get over it for some single chump
>>68704043
It depends on the species humans are somewhat polygamous all the way to very polygamous. Monogamous species exist but they mate for life and they don't find new mates even if the other dies.
>>68704043
So for humans, polygamy. I don't see anything wrong with it.
>>68704043
have you ever seen a polygamist over the age of 30?
>>68704954
>Luuk
>Soliloquy
Jesus fuck these names are awful. What sort of parent would hate their kids so much to name them these.
>>68705977
I've met swinger couples that are older.
Monogamy.
Polygamy results in too much conflict between males and stagnates civilisation.
>>68704043
Monogamy. You get fewer children, but they are raised with a father, which does wonders for the child. Step dads have been proven to not fill the role well.
a harem for males.
in asia if a man is rich enough he can have two families if he can afford to house them in different locations.
female biology makes a male harem redundant.
>9 month gestation
>multiple pregnancies increase defects
Poligamy could be meaningful in critical situations, if done right it could save Germany's genepool if things keep going down the drain for example
Monogamy and it's not even fucking close.
What men fail to understand is that polygamy would not lead to every one of them banging multiple women. No. We'd see a reversion to primitive times, where "alphas" would have harems and women, who naturally are hypergamous and polygamous, would gravitate towards a tiny percentage of men. Now, what happens when you have the vast, vast majority of men unable to find a partner? They become violent, destabilising society. You can see this in many countries in MENA, even today. Only the West practised monogamy and it led to colossal empires, low crime, high technological sophistication and so on.
Men without partners have no motivation to work or fight, and rightly so. Women need to be controlled, in addition to the very few true alphas who are generally not good at building civilisations.
>>68706147
>Step dads have been proven to not fill the role well.
You got a source on that? What I've read indicates that a strong male figure is enough.
>>68704043
Let's look at it from the survival of the species as a whole. In this case, poligamy. Certainly the argument could be made against have only the top 10% of males be allowed to contribute their genetic material, however some measure of cuckoldry will happen allowing weaker males to contribute to genetic diversity, while not enough occurring that would cause detrimental, weaker genes to accumulate. In this way they are then free to contribute to the betterment of the world as a whole, possibly accumulating enough status to gain wives of their own. If not, then at the very least they have given humans a stronger vantage point over nature. The strongest males meanwhile would contribute the most, ideally with the strongest females allowed to breed the most often, and furthermore raising strong children and increasing the overall fitness of the population, both mentally and physically since these children would have the best role models.
Of course, this would means we would have to have a society were these males would care about more than just fucking as much as possible and then running out the door, and the betas not devote their lives to whining, meaning the presence of most of the third world, white trailer trash, and this very site means it is an impossibility.
>>68704043
Polygamy is great if you have a lot of tools in your society to eliminate excess males. When there's too many dudes not getting it in, they riot and cause other social unrest, usually over unrelated shit too.
Monogamy has proliferated in most successful cultures because it keeps lower men in the hierarchy from thinking "shit, I should kill that guy and fuck his women" because it's less effort to just fuck the wife he ended up with.
Modern society is, ironically, only possible because mankind turned to sexual socialism AND IT WORKED.
Depends on a variety of factors. In this day and age, monogamy, since it makes property rights clear cut. Pre-historic tribes tended to be communes that regularly practiced polygamy though. Marriage back then was far different than it is now however.
>>68706372
Not of the top of my head. Gimme a sec to see if I can find the source where I read that.
But I read that an widow would raise children better than a divorcee with a step father. Abuse is more prevalent, because (more often) the male doesn't really care about the kid, only the women/his own kids.
