Is it safe to say that monogamous societies are more stable than

iirc studies have been done that show polygamous societies are more violent due to the surplus of sexually frustrated young men

>>3222549
I want to answer your question, but I simply don't know any
>non-monogamous society

>>3222549
No since you /r9k/ types will still bitch about women not liking you or finding women you like but aren't virgin.

>>3222554

islamic countries for starters

Yes, studies have shown that polygamous societies have massively inflated rates of violence and sexual abuse of women and children, as well as a general erosion of women's rights. The children of polygamous relationships are also exponentially more likely to suffer from developmental disorders.

>>3222549
Only because multiple sons by different mothers leads to succession crises and vicious factionalism that weakens the family and thus the state.

File: Hongzhi Emperor.png (128KB, 271x618px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 271x618px

>>3222642
That only ever contributes to a succession crisis if said monarchies can't into primogeniture. That was the case of the Turkics who for the longest time viewed "inheritance" as "daddy splitting his property amongst the sons." That was fine and dandy with herds and servants. Not so much daddy's landed empire.

Ironically, the only monogamous emperor in Chinese history literally touched off a succession crisis that nearly ended the Ming dynasty because all his sons fucking died. Which is ultimately why acquiring large harems was seen as necessary by the Chinese- succession security-, alongside leading figures throwing princesses to the emperor to link everyone familialy.

Besides, monogamous European monarchs managed to have shitloads of succession crises themselves anyway.

File: 1483917735752.jpg (1MB, 728x6714px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 728x6714px

>>3222549
no

when women have several men who provide sex and comfort for them, more people are happier therefore it makes a better society

>>3222549

It seems to be the case. Polygamous societies suffer terrible social unrest from the large numbers of young males with few or no sexual prospects, while "free love" societies suffer from extreme poverty among women / dependence on welfarism to keep going.

>>3222554

Islamic countries, and many African countries and extreme liberal degenerates in the West who are "polyamorous" and eschew marriage altogether.

>>3222564
>The children of polygamous relationships are also exponentially more likely to suffer from developmental disorders.

This is because of the vile Islamic doctrine of cousin marriage, which keeps the whole MENA inbred as fuck and costs them as much as 10 IQ on average.

>>3222756
>Islamic countries
>Eschew marriage
What are you smoking?

>>3222693
We're talking about real life, not the fever dreams of anarchist retards in the 1930's.

>>3222766

Reading is hard, huh?

>>3222751
>Polygamous societies suffer terrible social unrest from the large numbers of young males with few or no sexual prospects

Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sexual frustration amongst young Muslims or Indians without wife is on entirely different degree than those few vocal omega-males from /pol/ who at least have constant access to pornography.

>>3222549
Is it safe to say that knife and fork societies are more stable than chopstick ones?

The real impact that monogamy does or does not have on societal stability is minor to the point that it is barely even a factor. Not to mention that monogamy is in itself the result of other societal/cultural factors such as religions and native ethical systems, and that to presuppose that it is monogamy that affects societal stability, rather than the factors that cause monogamy in that society, is confusing correlation with causation at its worse.

>>3222782

On the contrary it is obvious you have no idea what you're on about. An Omega has a far greater prospect of marriage in a strictly monogamous society, since women (in general) are more anxious to marry than men are, creating a demand for even the most useless males.

>>3222784

Monogamy has obvious real world consequences that are fairly easy to analyse, such as the large number of unmarried young men, a demographic known to be highly prone to violent and anti-social behavior. Polygamy alone is not responsible for the pathetic state of the Muslims, but it is a key factor in the militant and bellicose character of their societies.

>>3222564
>viorence and women yada yada
What say you of divorce rates and marital satisfaction tho?

>>3222801

Divorce rates are lowest among arranged monogamous marriages. It's hard to tell what the "natural" divorce rate for polygamists is, since divorce is extremely difficult or impossible in many Muslim countries, particularly when initiated by the woman.

>>3222794
>Le angry virgin argument.
Fuck off.

>>3222817
>facts don't matter

Moron. Opinion disregarded.

>>3222787
>On the contrary it is obvious you have no idea what you're on about
I don't have an idea about your feelings that's correct, but I sure as hell know how angry are young sandpeople and how they calm down once they get a wife.

The bottom 2% of spouseless omegas (who btw often could get gf, if they dropped their standards) pacified by porn don't really have prospect of causing social unrest, except for the internet of course.The situation is different in orient, where almost everyone is pumped up with testosteron and aggresive.

>>3222827
He put "le" in front of it, tho, your opinion is wrong now

>>3222563
Only saudi arabia has it and they are pretty stable.

>>3222827
All you've been doing is spouting a statement.

People and /pol/ in particular don't seem to realise that marriage rates and so fertility have been lower in western europe since the black death, leading to higher living standards and lead to the industrial revolution in the first place. So even in your wild fantasies of going back to the middle ages to get a qt wife, you would actually just end up the same bitter virgins you are today.

>>3222916

that over generalization and strawman makes me believe you are the bitter one

File: Love_is_a_spook_comrade.png (32KB, 1300x417px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1300x417px

>>3222916
>>3222693
>>3222564
>>3222549
>>3222777
>>3222782
>>3223252
Love is a spook :^)

File: IMG_3691.jpg (39KB, 416x300px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 416x300px

>>3222549
Not necessarily

While the research does show that kids from nuclear families do better the kids from single-parent households, what's also true is that children from multi generational households, even ones with the father is not in the picture, do better than children raised in a nuclear family.

Also, socially compulsory monogamy only leads to houses where two people who hate each other are unable to escape the loveless trap that society forces them to observe, and this has an overall more negative affect on children then if their parents were allowed to divorce.

A society where a successful men gets to marry more wives is more eugenic in the long run.

>>3223615

what is divorce?

>>3223732

then why have muslims lower IQ?

>>3223741
inbreeding

>>3223741
Massive rates of cousin inbreeding. Polygamy is still shit nevertheless.

>>3223741

There are other factors. The Chinese have been polygamous in the past and have higher IQs.

Catholics have a society where the smartest men don't breed, this explains the advantage that protestants countries have.

If the west had practiced polygamy today they might have higher IQ then Chinese.

>>3223736
The social equivalent of declaring bankruptcy. Divorce actually strengthens the institution of monogamy for the same reason bankruptcy protection strengthens lending markets.

I wonder if a society based on bisexual trios instead of couples could work
Ecomically I see no reason why not since 3 people earn more income than one. Only thing needed is a new religion or a reformed one

>>3223757
Actually, Catholic society separates the smartest men from the drudgery of working to support a woman and three or four little mouths to feed, they still get their genes passed on in the form of nieces and nephews, while leaving the smart ones to focus exclusively on the pursuit of knowledge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_cleric-scientists

>>3223768
> threesome marriages
good luck with religions accepting that

>>3223768
Two is company, three is a crowd.

Eventually a couple will emerge which expels the third wheel. They'll start scapegoating the third wheel, fairly or not, and it will become the activity that (temporarily) brings the couple closer together.

Even gays and lesbians hate bisexuals. They think they're attention-whores even by the standards of a culture which embraces attention-whoring

>>3222564
>Yes, studies have shown
post source or it never happened.

File: back to pol.png (283KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 800x820px

>>3222756
>degenerates

the problem with polygamy is that its generally only wealthy men who can afford to support multiple wives, this creates a large underclass of poor men who become unmarryable and have no hope of ever starting a family. We've seen the kind of havoc that situation can cause in India with all the sexual violence a gender imbalance has created.

>>3223768
There is the undeniable limitation that each person has only one genital. Sure, you can throw in oral and anal, but I think there's too much room for potential jealousy to arise when even in threesomes, only two people at a time can be having genital to genital sex.

In which case I suppose perhaps a society based around sets of 4 would be more ideal.

>>3223615
>While the research does show
link to this research or shut the fuck up

>>3223757
polygamy has been outlawed in China for over a century, you can't use it to explain the modern success of asians.

>>3223615
>Also, socially compulsory monogamy only leads to houses where two people who hate each other are unable to escape the loveless trap that society forces them to observe, and this has an overall more negative affect on children then if their parents were allowed to divorce.

Not everyone makes poor decisions as it comes to marriage.

>>3223874
We have that on the West now, all reasonable qts want to jump on Tyrone's and Chad's cock while many betas are diving into fantasy world.

>>3223757

protestants still mad

>>3223848
> Even gays and lesbians hate bisexuals
That´s the big problem I see for LGBT
Bisexual people are their only hope of raising real families and wealth.

>>3223757
Faggots worldwide don't breed, not just the Catholic faggots.

>>3223768
sounds like the first step back to tribalism

>>3223848
>Eventually a couple will emerge which expels the third wheel. They'll start scapegoating the third wheel, fairly or not

Not really though thays just a thing people assume.

>>3224302
>Bisexual people are their only hope of raising real families and wealth.

You know how gays are compared to the pop financially? They only have themself to care for and even in a couple both have the benefit of dual MALE income and most likely shared interests and that just for ones with a decent job.

>>3224555
Many of them want to create real biological families, so why not include a woman?

>>3224577
Oh yeah add a woman to the mix. You think that will make it seem "normal" Cuz a vag us in it? People will just sperged about it.

>>3222549
>correlation = causation
t. Brainlet

>>3224583
no big deal
one of them inseminates the female and that´s it
she stays home and raises the kid
problem solved

>>3224614
you need a legal and religious frame for that though

>be Poos
>have oldest continuous societies
>divorce rates double
>still only 1%
Thinking intensifies

File: earthsoft-saving-marriagelife-and-partner-18-638.jpg (116KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 638x479px

>>3224631

>>3222549
me on the right

>>3222693
>S-See guys? B-Being a cuck is n-normal!
>C-Cmon guy, quit calling me a cuck

Lol sorry, I had to

>>3223471
kill it with fire

non monogamous societies don't really exist

where polygamy is practiced it usually done by an elite few while the majority of society remains monogamous

we are unironically living in one of the very first non monogamous societies and the effects are yet to be truly known but the number of incels with low value on the sexual free market continue to grow immensely

I don't agree with most of you but i agree with op's premise.

In a pre society setup, the supposed alpha male that hoards all the women and fucks them to spread his seed while the betas don't pass their genes is a recent creation of the ones who wan't to destroy the west.
It's clear that in this hypothetical scenario the "beta" males would rise up together and club the alpha to death, sharing the pussy and making a non animalistic society.

Therefore monogamy is the only natural and sensible choice. The norm

The "alphas" of modernity are a mere creation of a system that should not be, an artificial one, the natural cicle will repeat again when resources are scarce and wellfare is crushed

Polygamy and polygamous acts (cuckoldery, cheating, being a "player", etc.) is one of the most disgraceful acts and should be punished with a horrible death.

>>3224627
We had marriage before most religions of the world

>>3224665
>the number of incels with low value on the sexual free market continue to grow immensely

Completely false

File: 1454719583666.jpg (635KB, 1328x2148px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 1328x2148px

>>3225978
>the wealth will trickle down
not legit
>the promiscuity will trickle down
legit
can't wait for the uprising of the sexual proletarian to seize the means of reproduction

>>3222827
Facts don't exist, retard

Only problem I can see is that polygamous society examples are dominated by Muslim ones. You'd need more data from non-muslim societies to see if there is any discretion. I have a feeling they will be more unstable though, just not as much as muslim ones because muslims are inbred subhumans.

>>3223757
>Catholics have a society where the smartest men don't breed
You don't think it's because the church affords young men schooling and a learning environment that they would have otherwise not gotten?

>>3222766
He's talking about people in Western Countries.

>>3226137
Muslims manage their harem but sending their sexually frustrated into battle, 72 virgins has never been a stronger sales pitch. This massive dying off has been the Islamic institution of polygamy, besides the typical " cult leader seeks to exceed roastie quota angle.

File: Blurry.jpg (3KB, 209x255px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 209x255px

>>3223471

File: blush?mark.jpg (774KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1080x1080px

>>3223761
>Divorce actually strengthens the institution of monogamy
?

>>3223471
>undermine the basis of civilization
What kind of mongs have access to the internet?

>>3222693
What the fuck is wrong with people?

>>3223793
>they still get their genes passed on in the form of nieces and nephews

They arent whilst their family genes might continue, if they have any new or unique combinations that will die out with them.

>while leaving the smart ones to focus exclusively on the pursuit of knowledge

Not true the overwhelming amount of monastics and clerics - including those who were pressured into the role - had a very large amount of administrative, logistical and clerical work to do it wasnt just a life of pure contemplation - Saint Anselm is a good example of that .

>>3223848
Is that what happened in Mormon societies?

>>3223911
It does when you have a society that bars sex before marriage

>>3222765
10 IQ is not a significant deviation. It's interesting all you race theory peddling morons don't even understand IQ.

>>3227765

You clearly have no idea how normal distributions work. Small differences in the mean result in large differences at the upper scale, e.g. a population with an IQ of 110 would have orders of magnitude larger numbers of people with IQs of 150 compared to a population with IQs of 100

>>3227765

muh racists

>>3222549
>Is it safe to say that monogamous societies are more stable than non-monogamous ones?
In what way?
Which societies have lasted that can prove this?
China did not have a monogamous society (Imperial Chinese Harems) and it lasted for 3000 years. Quite a lot of empires had the same thing throughout history.

What do you mean by monogamous?
What do you mean by society?
What do you mean by stable?

Monogamy as a religious/societal doctrine did not start occurring in Europe until the 1200s IIRC. Even after that happened, Europe was not some kind of stable society if we took stability by it's face value definition.

polygamy creates an underclass of unmarriable men that tend to become violent

>>3228359
That technically is not a bad thing if you're trying to make an expansionist state, which a lot of civilizations did in the past. You just had to learn how to direct that violence. It's how the Romans ended up creating a hundreds year old republic and empire.

>>3222564
See, the thing here is that by "polygamous" you understand "polygeny".

Societies where polyandry is practiced have lower death rates for children and men tend to cooperate more. It's just that these are piss-poor illiterates that mostly live in jungles and what-not.

Ruthlessness was usually selected for over kindness throughout history.

>>3226198
Sleeping outside the marriage bed is grounds for divorce. Before, men were free to be practice polygamy outside matrimony.

>>3222563
>>3222756
Polygamy may be a thing is muslim countries but its far far from being the norm, its actually something unusual outside of gulf countries especially these days
Your average muslim doesnt have a harem

>>3222549
>safe
What proof or logic do you have that says so? Reading human history, it doesn't seem like that assertion has much support.

>>3222549
yes

>>3222549
what historical proof do you have that makes your implied statement true? Monogamous societies only started getting actual promotion/official doctrine 800 years ago.

>>3222751
What do you mean by "free love" societies?

>>3222553
Violence doesn't really imply a less stable society. It depends on where the violence is directed to. If an outlet exists (invading other places), the society might not encounter any instability.

>>3222549
Most ancient empires allowed people to have multiple wives, so I guess it depends on your definition of "stable society"

>>3223471
>unironically using Stirner
Holy fucking shit.

>>3234537
Rome was monogamous.