Is Polygamy the best kind of marriage ?

You can't have a functioning harem society. Unmarried virginal men start dropping out. It's already happening.

>>1841958

Not just here, look at the Arab world where polygamy is legal, they have massive problems with gangs of restless young men looking for poon.

>>1841958
Wrong

In ages past young men would go out and attack OTHER tribes to claim wives for themselves

It was incentive

>>1841902
Only feasibly in societies with huge male mortality

File: BzRk5T2CMAA_UhO.png (493KB, 600x348px) Image search: [Google]

493KB, 600x348px

not worth the effort

>>1841902

Can you imagine how fucked up polygamous divorce would be?

>>1841958
The Aztecs made it work.

File: succturk.jpg (33KB, 443x380px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 443x380px

>>1841902
It's the only kind of marriage.

File: Brazilian Polygamy.jpg (33KB, 560x350px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 560x350px

Brazilian one is.

>>1841902

Short answer, No.

Long answer, NOOOOOOO!

The chief problem with polygamy is that it is an unequal system. Men still get born at roughly an equal rate to women, so even if a man only takes 2 wives, that's still a huge chunk of the female population. Historically, since most marriages were arranged at very young ages, this meant that many men were systemically screwed.

Add to this, the added burden of a single man having to keep control of multiple women while providing everything that they need (and want) and you can clearly see that the polygamous marriage is a female centered concept.

The woman brings nothing to the table, except her ability to reproduce. She has no qualms about sharing a high-status man (especially if she can reproduce with him). She gets provided for in every way, and can be a stay at home mom with her fellow wives, doing all the same activities that single women would do. The idea is to remain "perpetually youthful" in lifestyle and the easiest way to do that is to pursue powerful and wealthy men.

Ironically, polygamous societies are some of the most patriarchal and brutal in their treatment of both women and men. A father prioritizes sons over daughters because his sons can help support him (and his wives), his sons become a commercial investment. His inheritance has to go to his sons because he is actively training them to be the breadwinners. Women always suffer in such systems; men do begin to treat them as stock meant for marriage alliances or for pleasure.

Such systems however create technological, political, and cultural stagnation. All male energy is being harnessed simply to provide for the females. Young men are too busy working to be creative or have an enterprising spirit.Those who are left out of the marriage pool are exploited through war and labor. Women are kept as mere livestock. The few high-status men are the only ones who will ever get to self-actualize in such societies.

>>1842005
>implying divorce isn't almost entirely caused by failed attempts at monogamy

>>1841996
>said the beta

>>1842434
Nothing you've described sounds that different or worse than the American monogamous marriage/divorce/custody battle system as it currently stands, though

>>1842441
It isn't. Collapse of the monogamous relationship is usually a symptom of the relationship failing, not the root cause.

>>1842349
>>1842430
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>1842469
Step 1: Partner A and Partner B start fucking.
Step 2: They get married and reproduce
Step 3: Partner A stops being attracted to Partner B.
Step 4: Partner B still wants to fuck.
Step 5. Partner B fucks Partner C
Step 6. Partner A finds out and FLIPS THE FUCK OUT HOLY SHIT WE ARE GETTING A DIVORCE
Step 7. Divorce
Step 8. Reset to Step 1.

This is seriously like 90% of US divorces. True story.

>>1842498
This just keeps getting funnier every time I read it.

>>1841902

>wanting several wives in this era

holy fuck, unless you were some billionaire adonis with muslim-tier submissive wives it'd be a hell worse than the devil himself could contrive

>>1841902
If we were a more emotionally stable species, maybe.

>>1842455
The current modern system equates to soft-polygamy. Women spend a majority of their lives as part of defacto harems of powerful men. They take a short midlife sabbatical in a monogamous marriage to a standard-issue male for a couple of years. but once the divorce-rape kicks in go back to sharing top status men as divorcees in the dating market. The loser males may not be literal slaves or cannon fodder in wars like in hard-polygamy, but are nonetheless yoked to the system via things like unending alimony.

>>1842537
Sounds about right.

I can't say it makes marriage all that appealing, given that 40-50% divorce rate in the US today, with the financial downside being very well in the woman's favor.

>>1842502
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3963207
More like 15%

>>1842537
This is a myth. Something like 80% of the population has 1-4 sexual partners through our their lifetime. The highest 10% is something in the 20s or higher. The high sexual activity is all done in a certain chunk of the population. And the youngest generation is having less sexual partners than ever.

It's simply not true that a few men have all the women. Most people have a handful of partners and some have a shitton

>>1842502

A bit over 40% of all births in the U.S. happen to unmarried parents. Divorces happen fairly regularly before the birth of any children. You often have an intervening step 2.5 of some sort of relationship trouble such as money issues, parenting issues, generalized stress due to unexpected life problems, too much (or little) time spent together, the same for time spent apart, career movement issues, etc.


Then, now that they don't get along as well, you start seeing sleeping around. At least in my admittedly anecdotal experience, cases where one party in a divorce is seeing someone but the other is not are extremely rare; usually by that point they're both sleeping with other people.

You're an idiot.

>>1841958
>>1841961
This.

>>1841902

Only an anecdotal story, but my grandfather was a polygamist, still allowed in the Yeminite Jewish community.

Now, he passed away when I was 7, so I don't remember him all that well, but what I do remember is that literally every single time I would go over to visit him, he would have to get up every 10-15 minutes to settle some stupid argument or another between his two wives, who could not stop fighting for an instant.

Doesn't seem like something I would want to do myself.

>>1841961
Polygamy is pretty rare in the Arab world, and certainly doesn't account for massive gangs of restless young men. Polygamists in the Middle East are either rich or in the countryside, and are usually plugged in early into their father's politics. There are also more young women than men, and the gangs of restless youths come from decades of population booms without an equivalent economic boom to support them.

>>1842434
Naturally the population of a women in an area provided no selection has a occurred is higher then the males.

Accounting for gays, the mentally disabled (many affecting males more the females much more or exclusively hit males), exiled or a criminal,and people who can't reproduce, and based on the area religion that tips it more into the women having an even higher number of people.

>>1842603
>http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3963207
>huffpost
Made me wew for the very first time

>>1842634
>80% of the population has 1-4 sexual partners
In the US? That sounds like an entirely self-reported and utterly unrealistic number.

>>1841966
But they were never polygamous. Indo-european religions were strictly monogamous, it was only a thing with some societies, and only the upper noble class would enjoy it.

there is no cure for herpes or HPV

>>1842344
Yeah, and look how they turned out.

What do they even do. What do they even talk about sitting on the beach?

>>1841902
Polygamy was good in the Pre Modern World, where the strongest-smartest reproduced the most, but in the Modern World where the wealthies are kings, polygamy is unsuitable since it isn't the people with the best genes who reproduce but the richest.

>>1842502
It isn't monogamy's fault, sexual revolution and woman equality are at fault, in a non degenerate society women hold no rights and can only shut up while being traded and married without their own consent.

>>1843272
Rich people have a best genes. They aren't rich because they are stupid or weak.

>>1843285
> women hold no rights
Arranged marriages worked for both sides, anon. Don't be a retard.

>>1843294
>The quality of your genes naturally attract money

Sure m8

>>1843316
You need to be smart to be rich.

>>1843319
Or have rich parents
Or be good at stealing
Or be lucky and gain at poker, gamble, lottery, and so on

>>1843377
> Or have rich parents
You mean have genes of person who become rich by being smart or strong? Heir of rich persons still a genetically superior .
> Or be good at stealing
You need to be smart to be rich from stealing.
> Or be lucky
Luck works both ways i.e. person with good genes can just die from an accident, but it is statistically irrelevant forn society as a whole.

>>1843148
No cure for life either. Once you have either it's kind of a relief, because then you don't have to worry about it.
The main issue is the stigma, which stems from fear. Fear is the ultimate cuck.

>>1841902
>stable relationships

no need once child rearing gets delegated purely to upbringing facilities without the input of parents :^)

>>1843424
Bring on the Clonepods!

>>1842537
>this is your brain on /r9k/

>>1843294
The Kardashians disprove your assertion.

>>1843424
why are communists so autistic that they think one day all women will give up their children to nurseries if they don't have to?

>>1843442
t. John Green

>>1843463
>communists

??? ???

>>1843467
t. Charles "Supergenes" 2nd, king of Spain

File: comment_eTH54r5hYQAY1DIvIRUbb6guBdylwehO.jpg (342KB, 664x748px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 664x748px

>>1843407
>You mean have genes of person who become rich by being smart or strong? Heir of rich persons still a genetically superior .

Sure m8


Here is the pic of a genetically superior KANGZ and his genetically superior QUEENZ


At one sight we can tell they were born to rule

>>1843476
communists want to abolish the family, I guess you want to tear babies from their mothers' arms for other reasons then, I am guessing cannibalism

>>1843476
Regular topic of conversation on a lot of communist forums is how true proletarian emancipation can only be achieved once all the children are raised in nurseries.

>>1843513
>>1843499

So, you judge my entire ideology and intention from 1 sentence.
Jej, talk about the [Us] vs [Other]....

>>1843524
Sorry I just assumed. Not totally unfairly I don't think.

>>1843531
Well, such rash judgements are to be expected of uneraged anarcho-capitalists

No, its actually extremely shit for everybody involved. Marriage in general is fucking worthless atm. Its basically risking losing money if she decides to leave you. hich she has a 45% chance to do. The tax exemptions are also pretty worthless if you run the math and know how to manage assets

>>1843539
See at least my assumption was reasonable while yours was a complete stab in the dark.

So, where were you when this entire side of 4chan became purely /r9kpol/?

For fucks sake, even the tranny and gay threads on /gif/ are now 80% discussion about degeneracy and cuckdom.

>>1843555
>See at least my assumption was reasonable

no it wasn't you dirty ideologue

>>1842434
Yes, then it makes men go out and get a wife.
There is then conflict, which kills the men.
The balance is then restored, with the strongest getting the wife.

>>1842434
belonging to a harem was not any easier for the women. You'd basically be forced to compete with your sister wives for the attention of your husband and to curry his favor for your children. and once you were past a certain age your husband probably began to neglect you completely in favor of his younger, hotter wives while you were stuck raising his children by yourself.

You call it a female oriented system but put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself how it might feel to be sold to some rich prick who uses you up before moving on to the new hotness and forgetting you (and the children he had with you) ever existed.

Like you stated, primitive large-scale polygamous societies were brutally patriarchal societies which were horrendously unfair, and after collapsing horribly the iron age societies which arose in their place were monogamous to the point of being repressive about it.

>>1843588
also prostitutes exist.

>>1843614
Polygamy still existed in the Iron age and past that.

>>1843233
It only ended because friars forced that custom to end for muh morals. Aztec nobles then pointed at the hypocrisy that Spanish men often had many mistresses.

>>1843622
it lingered in certain conservative cultures but by the time of the Romans it was a minority behavior, as western civilization's great erasers were staunch monogamists with severe punishments for adultery, their most important religious figures were virgin females, and their very Republic was sparked by a rebellion incited when their king Tarquin the Proud raped a noblewoman named Lucretia (who opted to commit suicide rather than live in shame, a hugely honorable act by Roman standards)

>>1842434
Polgyamy doesn't really benefit the women either. A women (and her offspring) in a polygamous relationship now has to share her husbands resources with other women and their offspring. This why we so much harem poltics in these relationships, especially when the resources and inheritance are large.
Polygamy is really a system for the male elite, since they are the only ones that actually gain a benefit from it compared to monogamy

>>1841902
Fuck that. Let all the chads have all the women.

I'm not usually r9k but in a polygamous society rich chads would have that much more advantageous.

>>1841902
Polygamy is only sexual intimacy, so it barely qualifies as a type of marriage.

>>1841961
Do you mean India?

>>1842349
lol dats funy

File: Shakoka.jpg (136KB, 403x405px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 403x405px

>>1841902
it sorta works in societies where women have strong property rights, men have high mortality rates and honor cultural doesn't consider sex that big a deal...the Mandan made it work for instance.

File: 1366240955054.jpg (40KB, 399x388px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 399x388px

>>1841902
>dat pic

>>1844083
polygamy is not legal in India

If you're the polygamist, yes

If you're the man with no wife because of the unequal woman distribution, no

>>1841996
Dafuq