Explain to me why Polygamy is wrong, /pol/. In my mind, I don't see anything wrong with superior men laying claim to multiple women and producing a higher crop of superior children.
>>71979587
then why dont you try marryng 4 chicks
>>71979587
Do you want a beta uprising??
Because that's how you get a beta uprising.
>>71979748
Why are betas entitled to the right to reproduce? Why shouldn't society keep them from infecting the race with their imperfect genes?
>>71979587
All the men below the ones on top start going insane from the inability to reproduce and break into tribal wars for control of the females. Say goodbye to civilization.
>>71979587
don't lie, you can't even get ONE woman let alone MULTIPLE women.
get real stupid faggot lmao.
>>71979811
>>71979587
>superior men
>chads
>20%
>alphas
r9k autist, pls leave
Thank you.
>>71979587
Because it creates a permanent underclass of men with no reason to contribute to society.
Just math.
>>71979811
Civilization was build on the backs of betas working together and building shit. You let the chads have all the wives, the future generations are nothing but chads, and nothing gets done.
>>71979922
Implying it doesn't already exist.
>>71979748
>beta uprising
but those words have self excluding meaning
>>71979587
It is fine for the reasons youve mentioned. However if we ever find ourselves with hordes of partnerless betas running around on the outskirts of town with nothing to live for, we will know hell.
>>71979587
Look at the Arabs. Multiple generations of "superior alpha males" practicing polygamy there.
Lmao at all the people in this thread who self-identify as betas.
>>71980066
Fair enough.
It would cause that underclass to expand massively.
>>71980168
Why is pepe's butthole on his leg
>>71979887
Those with enough money or power can. It will be hotter to keep them as maids though.
>>71980066
Why would you want the manchild problem to get even worse
What's the difference between our current society of sluts and chads and polygamy?
>>71980554
In polygamy the sluts are faithful, so betas would have literally 0 hope
>>71980168
>he downloaded the imgur album
>>71979587
From a moral perspective, I don't think anything is wrong. Ethically, it presents some issues.
Firstly, in a rigidly polygynous society, a significant number of men are left without a partner. While ideally these men would retain their moral compass in such a situation it's not unreasonable to suggest that the frustrations inherent in their predicament would lead to delinquency, either as an outlet for gratification (e.g., rape) or frustration (e.g., vandalism).
Secondly, I question whether a man taking multiple wives can reasonably be expected to fulfill his duties as a husband and a father. The arrangement lends itself to r-selection, large numbers of offspring with low quality in attention and upbringing. Without going into details, this is not the sort of reproductive strategy we want in a healthy society.
Finally, polygyny in general assumes that all women make rational decisions regarding sexual partners and remain faithful to those decisions in order for those practices to function. How are divorces and custody handled? Does this encourage marriages of (financial) convenience that don't produce quality offspring? I fear that allowing this practice opens the proverbial can of worms on many more issues.
All that said, the number of Americans who seriously consider polygamy, or plural marriage in general, as an alternative appears low enough that legalizing it would have little effect. However, I feel a better alternative would involve the government leaving the marriage business altogether. The state has done enough damage to society in its pursuit of diversity and tolerance. Marriage belongs in the hands of the religions who first developed the institution, not bureaucrats who value control over sustainability.
Polygamy good for competition, don't you burgies believe in a free open market?
it's the quickest way to creating a class of angry sexually frustrated men who want to fuck shit up
>>71980377
I personally don't see the appeal of having many wives, unless of course, I get to live off my wifes' incomes, limiting my obligations to fucking them.
I really don't think that there would be many polygamous marriages,
I bet some perverted women might marry many betas, in order to have their male harem.
Tbh, I'm too possessive to consider agreeing with polygamy. Doesn't help that I want to be possessed either. Women would be trying to kill each other left and right.
In the end, the only other women we like are siblings, moms, aunts, and sometimes our cousins. Otherwise females talk shit behind each other's backs no matter how good of 'besties' they might be.
One crazy bitch will ruin polygamy for everyone.
It's not wrong, it's just not good.
If you want to fuck 4 women, do it.
If you want to marry 4 women, you're not an alpha. You're an idiot.
>>71981172
even a monkey get it
also, fucking 4 women contributes to the general shitfest
>>71980506
>leafless canada defending polygamy so he can have a pretend harem full of japanese cartoons
lmao pathetic faggot.
>>71979587
Because they are inferior
>>71979587
Its just plain greedy
>>71980887
>While ideally these men would retain their moral compass in such a situation it's not unreasonable to suggest that the frustrations inherent in their predicament would lead to delinquency, either as an outlet for gratification (e.g., rape) or frustration (e.g., vandalism).
This might explain the behavior of the Dindus. African societies are notoriously polygamic. So the only betas that get to breed are the violent ones.
>The arrangement lends itself to r-selection, large numbers of offspring with low quality in attention and upbringing. Without going into details, this is not the sort of reproductive strategy we want in a healthy society.
Allowing wealthy individuals to have many offsprings is the best way to reduce the wealth inequality. The more heirs a wealthy person has, the less each one receives.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with polygamy from a population perspective. So long as the most genetically fit individuals breed, we get individuals with the best chances of surviving in the given environment.
So long as we don't have a severe bottle-cap there will still be enough competition that we don't sacrifice genetic diversity either (i.e. variants are needed so that the next plague won't immediately wipe out all of humanity).
>>71979587
>>71979811
>>71980117
>>71980945
These guys are right.
>>71980887
Valid reasoning for the issues of polygamy. I would agree with the final message as well.
>>71981022
>>71981062
These guys get why polygamy isn't likely to work.
So where am I going with this? Absolutely nothing wrong polygamy. The very society we've ended up in just doesn't work very well with it. This ends up multiplying the negative effects this kind of relationship has on the individual, which will probably also decrease the chances of the offspring turning out fit.
Bring in moral institutions and even the simplest of concepts and deals become a horrible mess.
>>71980977
Pretty much this.
>>71981703
lol I didn't even notice the random picture I chose was full Jew mode
Take this as a red pill famalam :^)
>>71980977
Yeah, just look all the immigrants in Europe not getting any. Rape, vandalism etc.
>>71981649
>This might explain the behavior of the Dindus. African societies are notoriously polygamic. So the only betas that get to breed are the violent ones.
African behavior is more a product of r/K selection than simple sexual selection. Understand, they have lived on a continent for thousands of years with little in the way of resource competition. Even today charities across the world dump free food into villages with no expectation of payment or any other transaction.
The violence is attributable to defective amygdala. It's sort of an offshoot of narcissistic personality disorder. Speaking in timescales relevant to evolutionary processes, Africans are not used to conflict over resources. This plus generally low intelligence leads them to "snap", for lack of a better term, when their atrophied amygdalae encounter this sort of conflict. In other words, they're new at this. Many of the genocides and civil wars of the past few decades, while superficially tribal or religious in origin, involved conflicts over scarce resources. This is not going to improve as the African population explodes.
>Allowing wealthy individuals to have many offsprings is the best way to reduce the wealth inequality. The more heirs a wealthy person has, the less each one receives.
Money is of the least concern. The problem of r-selection is that children do not receive the proper instruction and discipline required to become well-functioning adults later in life. Furthermore, r-strategists often sexualize children, something that is not likely to be assuaged in a polygynous relationship where wives compete for the husband's attention. Again, this is not the sort of childhood you want for tomorrow's productive adults.
>>71982607
A mighty fine response from a burger, I am impressed. What is your field of study or work?
And are you implying that r-strategists are often kikes? Sure enough pedophilia is not yet a rampant problem and I never want it to be. But it seems like promoting it is strong in the kike agenda. A terrifying thing.
They've even got this show airing in Finland now called Forbidden Love where they are promoting the relationship of a 100% certified pedophile degenerate as something positive and misunderstood. At the very least, according to the show, they didn't shack up before she became of legal age.
>>71979909
>>71979887
I accept my place as a beta male. I know I can't get women, and I don't want to try. I want what's best for my people; I came here to find out if people could explain to whether or not polygamy is the right or wrong course
>>71979587
I would be lucky to have even one woman fall in love with me.
>>71983071
>What is your field of study or work?
I'm a civil engineer, I just bounce around different subjects in my free time. I've been stuck on psychology for the past few months and the r/K epic maymay, while imperfect, I think has really nailed down the left/right divide.
>And are you implying that r-strategists are often kikes? Sure enough pedophilia is not yet a rampant problem and I never want it to be. But it seems like promoting it is strong in the kike agenda. A terrifying thing.
The joos are playing to their audience. Maybe some of them believe in what they peddle, I don't know. But modern Western society is highly r-selected, unfortunately, so it's easy for them to just give us what we want. r-selection really does explain everything: the lack of concern for the refugee invasion, the demands for free resources, the LGBTQ+ revolution. But, we're on a collision course with a serious collapse. The pendulum is swinging back towards K and a lot of our fellow countrymen, insofar as they deserve to be in-grouped with us with that term, are going to be caught out in a bad way. Hopefully they won't take us down with them.
>They've even got this show airing in Finland now called Forbidden Love where they are promoting the relationship of a 100% certified pedophile degenerate as something positive and misunderstood.
It's sickening. As you probably know we have a big debate over here about transgender people in bathrooms. The left has always been on about kids and sex: free birth control and abortions for teens, sex ed in elementary school, etc. And that's all this is. They don't care if little girls go to the restroom next to men and if one gets the urge to molest or rape them, all the better, right? That's r-selection: they don't see an issue with that.
I suspect pedophilia will be the next cause du jour of the left. I have three daughters and the idea that we've let the r-strategists go this far is despicable. Hopefully the collapse comes soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw
>>71979587
The reason the middle east is shit is because of polygamy. Same thing in Africa. It leaves the vast majority of men frustrated with no reason to contribute to society.
Monogamy was necessary to control women and Chads, to allow for all men to grow a civilisation.
There isn't. The only problem I have with it is when people try to use it to sleep with other random people and not feel guilty about it.
Also see: Open relationship
>>71979587
Agree. There are so many males in this world it's unnatural.
Only human has 1:1 sex ratio. No other animal does.
>>71984825
>1:1 sex ratio
Meaning?
>>71984914
#of living males : # of living females
>>71985144
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
>>71979587
Polygamy doesn't work with humans, we're too smart. The only time it "works" is when a bunch of males die and the females need mates but once the ratio is fixed within a generation polygamy ends.
>>71985211
He has no facts. It should also be noted that most polygamous animal species also have a 1:1 sex ratio.
>>71979587
because of genetic bottlenecks
>>71985211
common knowledge. Look around you.
>>71985557
That's not true. They haven't counted them all. It's just pure speculation. Real observation shows otherwise.
Ex: on animal planet, female lions vastly outnumber males.
>>71984586
Industrial engineer here, I think we'd get along well mate. I've been avoiding 4chins and certain part of the internet for a while now, can you explain to me what the epic r/K maymay is? Sounds like something I'd be interested in researching.
>>71984767
You are correct. This made me think about it bit more. Southern lands are more fertile and definitely more forgiving to live in than northern ones. Think of Assyria, Jordan, Nile, Mesopotamia. Also the areas close to rain forests.
You literally get everything you want there after establishing your community. After that it becomes a problem of getting what you want as a person, which means pussy or a strong provider for your herd.
Men compete, strongest alphas become herd leaders and are free to do as they wish. We can safely ignore the actual deserts, very few wish to live there. And in the savannah you get on by hunting big game. Better hunters mean more qualities seen as alpha meaning stronger, more violent and competitive men. Hunt, eat, fuck, sleep.
Saudi-Arabia managed to skip out on a few steps of obtaining prosperity as well. Finding and capitalizing on oil created a lot of that. And even so, the west funnels money into the worse off areas nearby. The sandnignogs have less incentive to develop forward.
I wouldn't say it is as bad as you imply, but it is definitely true that they have large groups of frustrated men with nothing to contribute. Maybe these are the easiest demographic for organizations like Isis to pick up? Makes sense to me.
TL;DR Middle-East people hunt, eat, fuck and sleep. People stuck in the desert might have actually gained some benefit from polygamy during Mohammed's time.
I am sure you folk understand the problems early Northern European people had with their nature, the frequent plagues and famine. Strong nuclear family goes a long way to make that more bearable and survivable.
>>71984767
This is also a good point. But we have to wonder, is the middle east and africa so shit only because it's a savage harem culture that leaves the vast majority of men frustrated and violent? Or did said culture degrade the genetic diversity of those countries to the point where it's now inbred junk unable to function well enough to produce a civilization (pic related).
Probably both imo.
>>71986369
>can you explain to me what the epic r/K maymay is? Sounds like something I'd be interested in researching.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
As I said, it has some holes but I think overall it's a good description of the motivations behind leftism.
In a polygamous society you're going to need an outlet for all the men with nothing to do and no one to fuck. Prisons, wars, or mass executions are the only way you're going to accomplish this and keep some form of societal stability.
There's a saying that 80% of women want 20% of the men.
In a polygamous society, that 20% of the men GETS the 80% of women.
Hm, I wonder why /pol/ (and 4chan in general) hates the idea of polygamy?
>>71986594
>Prisons, wars, or mass executions are the only way you're going to accomplish this and keep some form of societal stability.
I didn't realize war and mass executions were a form of stability.
>>71979587
Nothing wrong with it. Government constitutionally has no power to prevent it, but of course it usurps that power.
to have a productive society the citizens need a sense of purpose and a family provides that. there isn't enough women to make polygamy a viable option
>>71987093
Nothing of beauty can be created unless the creation is the end of itself.
We have so many useless stuffs like family, men, women, cars, iphones etc... None of those matters in the big picture and only contributions to the current degeneracy.
Polygamy is necessary to put us on the right path again.
>>71979587
>polygamy
>doesn't even have 1 gf
Call, Toll-Free! At 555-COME-ON-NOW!
