Anything is Possible
The female journalist mentions at the end that "people" have found that monogamous cultures are more stable and economically sound over polygamous ones.
This is true, however she doesn't mention that those stable monogamous cultures weren't riddled with female-biased court systems taking part in divorce rape, or that fathers were the owners of their children. e.g. Romans.
Mormon polygamy has always interested me for the same reason cult psychology interests me, and this video was particularly fascinating because of the mention of just how these guys keep all these women locked down and from slitting each others' throats. It seems like religion really is the key. Such a powerful tool of psychological control.
This is true, however she doesn't mention that those stable monogamous cultures weren't riddled with female-biased court systems taking part in divorce rape, or that fathers were the owners of their children. e.g. Romans.
Mormon polygamy has always interested me for the same reason cult psychology interests me, and this video was particularly fascinating because of the mention of just how these guys keep all these women locked down and from slitting each others' throats. It seems like religion really is the key. Such a powerful tool of psychological control.
Religion is likely the key, but the guy's game must be nothing to be scoffed at.
How do they handle the finances of twenty four children? I keep thinking of how married college graduates work until their thirties until they can afford to have one child.
Two of the wives are twins. What is it like for their children to live with their mom, and with an aunt who is her identical twin, who is the mother of your half-siblings? Kind of a mindfuck.
How do they handle the finances of twenty four children? I keep thinking of how married college graduates work until their thirties until they can afford to have one child.
Two of the wives are twins. What is it like for their children to live with their mom, and with an aunt who is her identical twin, who is the mother of your half-siblings? Kind of a mindfuck.
Eirykr,
I found the TIME woman's defense of monogamous culture interesting as well considering her and her ilk have been attacking traditional American values for around half a century.
I think a lot of American women know that feminism is bad and that traditional values are good for them and society, but they don't want their "rights" they've gained in the system (divorce theft, alimoney, cock riding in college etc...) taken away, simply because of their biology. Women are designed to take. They are designed this way because they are not strong, creators, or providers, their biological imperative is to never let go of something gained, no matter how it's gained, even when they know what they've gained is necessarily good for the future of their tribe.
I used to be angry at American women when I first took the Red Pill. Now I feel genuine sympathy for a lot of them. Most do not see the big picture. And my generation (early 20's) will not have the same success in the Alpha Fucks Beta Bucks strategy as their mothers did. Their mothers men had parents who were always together so their generations women infidelity came as a shock to them when they opened the floodgates by distorting the incentive system, however, my generation although stereotyped as weak as a whole (probably true) still has relatively masculine men who will be the guys left standing as marriage material. Considering they will have seen their fathers or at least relatives having gone through the ringer in relationships, as well as dealing with girls in their own lives, they will not be eager to sign up for marriage in order to "save" these whores.
I guess I feel sympathy, because feminism isn't pushed just because it hurts men. It hurts women long term too. I think sometimes the manosphere forgets that, but its true. Feminism is a bad deal for everyone and society as a whole in the long term, even if it is beneficial for women in the material sense if they use it to abuse the system.
I'm not saying I don't hate women who abuse the system, they are legion, but there are many women who are hurt, even if they don't even realize it, by feminism.
I found the TIME woman's defense of monogamous culture interesting as well considering her and her ilk have been attacking traditional American values for around half a century.
I think a lot of American women know that feminism is bad and that traditional values are good for them and society, but they don't want their "rights" they've gained in the system (divorce theft, alimoney, cock riding in college etc...) taken away, simply because of their biology. Women are designed to take. They are designed this way because they are not strong, creators, or providers, their biological imperative is to never let go of something gained, no matter how it's gained, even when they know what they've gained is necessarily good for the future of their tribe.
I used to be angry at American women when I first took the Red Pill. Now I feel genuine sympathy for a lot of them. Most do not see the big picture. And my generation (early 20's) will not have the same success in the Alpha Fucks Beta Bucks strategy as their mothers did. Their mothers men had parents who were always together so their generations women infidelity came as a shock to them when they opened the floodgates by distorting the incentive system, however, my generation although stereotyped as weak as a whole (probably true) still has relatively masculine men who will be the guys left standing as marriage material. Considering they will have seen their fathers or at least relatives having gone through the ringer in relationships, as well as dealing with girls in their own lives, they will not be eager to sign up for marriage in order to "save" these whores.
I guess I feel sympathy, because feminism isn't pushed just because it hurts men. It hurts women long term too. I think sometimes the manosphere forgets that, but its true. Feminism is a bad deal for everyone and society as a whole in the long term, even if it is beneficial for women in the material sense if they use it to abuse the system.
I'm not saying I don't hate women who abuse the system, they are legion, but there are many women who are hurt, even if they don't even realize it, by feminism.
So what are the rules? Groupsex with all wives ok? Do the wives kiss each other?
I'm shallow and curious.
I'm shallow and curious.
If those wives divorce him, he's in for a world of hurt. Imagine getting fucked by three different women simultaneously through the court system.
Dangerous game he's playing...
Dangerous game he's playing...
"...Polygamy isn't going to have the traction that same sex marriage has had..."
Ha. That's what she thinks. And she thinks it because she can only see what is in front of her nose right now. The problem for her is that time marches on, and as the political machine runs out of "victim" groups and their issues to cynically manipulate in order attain political power polygamous people are inevitably going to rise to the top at some future time. Simply because they will run out of other suitable groups.
Certainly, the first suitable group of polygamists in the USA to make the case with are not going to be supposedly "conservative" mormons from Utah. Much more likely to be recent muslim immigrants wanting Sharia laws to apply. Also possibly recent African animists or christian/animist combo, but this is less likely.
If anyone is interested in how polygamy and modern constitutional law has interacted elsewhere in the world consider the example of South Africa. Polygamy is legal in South Africa, but only for certain defined groups. The constitutional court of the country (same as US Supreme Court) voted to legalise same sex marriage (enthusiastically) and also polygamy (reluctantly, but they still did it). Basically you have to come from a cultural group that has practiced it before, and where it currently has some sort of standing in the community. Controversially, at least in my opinion, this effectively limits polygamy to certain black African tribes in the country. I'm still waiting for this to be challenged in court by someone not from one of these groups who claims that the law as practiced discriminates on the basis of race - which is illegal. Should win IMO.
The relevance of this to the USA is that at least one Supreme Court justice, Justice Ginsberg, has supposedly stated that she believes the South African constitution to be superior to the American one (in a discussion on constitutional issues in Egypt after Mubarak fell). And this constitution (or at least the justices interpretation of it) allows (limited) polygamy. And once limited polygamy is allowed, this in turn can be challenged on the basis that the law must apply equally to all.
Not that we don't already have polygamy. It's just not official. "Soft" polygamy I think they call it. You know, the 80:20 law. 20% of the guys get 80% of the girls, Absent very harsh social restrictions, that are not likely to ever be applied, it will inevitably be like this. Just won't involve actual marriages until the day the political class determine polygamy to be the cause du jour.
Ha. That's what she thinks. And she thinks it because she can only see what is in front of her nose right now. The problem for her is that time marches on, and as the political machine runs out of "victim" groups and their issues to cynically manipulate in order attain political power polygamous people are inevitably going to rise to the top at some future time. Simply because they will run out of other suitable groups.
Certainly, the first suitable group of polygamists in the USA to make the case with are not going to be supposedly "conservative" mormons from Utah. Much more likely to be recent muslim immigrants wanting Sharia laws to apply. Also possibly recent African animists or christian/animist combo, but this is less likely.
If anyone is interested in how polygamy and modern constitutional law has interacted elsewhere in the world consider the example of South Africa. Polygamy is legal in South Africa, but only for certain defined groups. The constitutional court of the country (same as US Supreme Court) voted to legalise same sex marriage (enthusiastically) and also polygamy (reluctantly, but they still did it). Basically you have to come from a cultural group that has practiced it before, and where it currently has some sort of standing in the community. Controversially, at least in my opinion, this effectively limits polygamy to certain black African tribes in the country. I'm still waiting for this to be challenged in court by someone not from one of these groups who claims that the law as practiced discriminates on the basis of race - which is illegal. Should win IMO.
The relevance of this to the USA is that at least one Supreme Court justice, Justice Ginsberg, has supposedly stated that she believes the South African constitution to be superior to the American one (in a discussion on constitutional issues in Egypt after Mubarak fell). And this constitution (or at least the justices interpretation of it) allows (limited) polygamy. And once limited polygamy is allowed, this in turn can be challenged on the basis that the law must apply equally to all.
Not that we don't already have polygamy. It's just not official. "Soft" polygamy I think they call it. You know, the 80:20 law. 20% of the guys get 80% of the girls, Absent very harsh social restrictions, that are not likely to ever be applied, it will inevitably be like this. Just won't involve actual marriages until the day the political class determine polygamy to be the cause du jour.
Women are naturally polygamous, because polygamy goes hand in hand with hypergamy. Women would rather share an alpha than have unfettered access to a beta. And when are women the most dedicated and committed to a man? When they are insecure in the relationship and know that he is desired by other women.
Monogamy is an institution that benefits beta males and children at the expense of alpha males and women. It is the cornerstone of Western civilization for this reason, because beta males and children are the most important building blocks of a strong society. Therefore, as monogamy is weakened, civilization itself is weakened. Bad Hussar is correct to point out that in the West we already have de facto polygamy due to the promiscuous hypergamy of women all chasing after the same alpha cock. It's clear and unmistakable evidence of societal decline.
Monogamy is an institution that benefits beta males and children at the expense of alpha males and women. It is the cornerstone of Western civilization for this reason, because beta males and children are the most important building blocks of a strong society. Therefore, as monogamy is weakened, civilization itself is weakened. Bad Hussar is correct to point out that in the West we already have de facto polygamy due to the promiscuous hypergamy of women all chasing after the same alpha cock. It's clear and unmistakable evidence of societal decline.
[size=8pt]"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”[/size] [size=7pt] - Romans 8:18[/size]
I think the elephant in the room is that we're having these discussions socially without a value of female responsibility. In other words, women's sexual license evolves within a framework that pays for their birth control/abortions/children etc. If we held women responsible for their own damned sexual autonomy (if they were held solely financially responsible for children for which they were unable to acquire the commitment of a father), you'd see alot of this bullshit dry up really quickly.
Alot of this unrestrained female sexual dysfunction is due to a runaway culture of female reproductive non responsibility; they don't have to take responsibility for their little oopsies. Add the responsibility and watch what would happen.
Just think about polygamy. If women had to be fully responsible for their pregnancy and children, do you think they'd be more or less likely to engage in this sort of thing? Would they be more or less likely to engage predominantly in sexual activity with a loving and committed partner?
Alot of this unrestrained female sexual dysfunction is due to a runaway culture of female reproductive non responsibility; they don't have to take responsibility for their little oopsies. Add the responsibility and watch what would happen.
Just think about polygamy. If women had to be fully responsible for their pregnancy and children, do you think they'd be more or less likely to engage in this sort of thing? Would they be more or less likely to engage predominantly in sexual activity with a loving and committed partner?
Quote: (09-06-2013 01:09 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:
I think the elephant in the room is that we're having these discussions socially without a value of female responsibility. In other words, women's sexual license evolves within a framework that pays for their birth control/abortions/children etc. If we held women responsible for their own damned sexual autonomy (if they were held solely financially responsible for children for which they were unable to acquire the commitment of a father), you'd see alot of this bullshit dry up really quickly.
Alot of this unrestrained female sexual dysfunction is due to a runaway culture of female reproductive non responsibility; they don't have to take responsibility for their little oopsies. Add the responsibility and watch what would happen.
Just think about polygamy. If women had to be fully responsible for their pregnancy and children, do you think they'd be more or less likely to engage in this sort of thing? Would they be more or less likely to engage predominantly in sexual activity with a loving and committed partner?
This is a very good point. I think you're very right as far as "soft" polygamy is concerned, where society as a whole pays a promiscuous woman's bills as far as birth control, abortions and so on is concerned. Or for welfare and/or jail if she actually has children.
As far as true polygamy is concerned I think this is less of an issue. Real polygamist men tend to be relatively well-off and prominent in their communities. That's how they get to be in that position in the first place. I know there is a lot of talk that the few mormon style polygamists in the USA and Canada leach off the public service, but I don't really see it. Seems to me that the critics want to see this. What is definitely a problem is the treatment of both young women and young men in these communities. They are very tight knit and the older men in power call the shots. This results in younger women being forced into marriages with men irrespective of their own wishes, and young men being seen as threats and "cast out" from the community.
Quote: (09-09-2013 10:15 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:
Quote: (09-06-2013 01:09 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:
I think the elephant in the room is that we're having these discussions socially without a value of female responsibility. In other words, women's sexual license evolves within a framework that pays for their birth control/abortions/children etc. If we held women responsible for their own damned sexual autonomy (if they were held solely financially responsible for children for which they were unable to acquire the commitment of a father), you'd see alot of this bullshit dry up really quickly.
Alot of this unrestrained female sexual dysfunction is due to a runaway culture of female reproductive non responsibility; they don't have to take responsibility for their little oopsies. Add the responsibility and watch what would happen.
Just think about polygamy. If women had to be fully responsible for their pregnancy and children, do you think they'd be more or less likely to engage in this sort of thing? Would they be more or less likely to engage predominantly in sexual activity with a loving and committed partner?
This is a very good point. I think you're very right as far as "soft" polygamy is concerned, where society as a whole pays a promiscuous woman's bills as far as birth control, abortions and so on is concerned. Or for welfare and/or jail if she actually has children.
As far as true polygamy is concerned I think this is less of an issue. Real polygamist men tend to be relatively well-off and prominent in their communities. That's how they get to be in that position in the first place. I know there is a lot of talk that the few mormon style polygamists in the USA and Canada leach off the public service, but I don't really see it. Seems to me that the critics want to see this. What is definitely a problem is the treatment of both young women and young men in these communities. They are very tight knit and the older men in power call the shots. This results in younger women being forced into marriages with men irrespective of their own wishes, and young men being seen as threats and "cast out" from the community.
And that is ultimately why polygamist societies fail. Look at the history of Islam. After their initial conquests and gains, the next generation of men were greedy for their own share of spoils but there simply wasn't anything there for themselves. This sparked massive civil unrest and civil war, which led to the crumbling of Islamic power structures.
I cannot see why it would be any different for any polygamist society, even one that calls itself "Christian." Ultimately these societies create no incentives for the average man, aka the "beta" male, to contribute, so they just stagnate and fall into political tyranny in order to maintain control over the horny masses of leftover men.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
http://content.time.com/time/video/playe...bvidrecirc
Polygamy in Utah - Seems like they are happy. News reporter just pushing her biased view point.
Polygamy in Utah - Seems like they are happy. News reporter just pushing her biased view point.
The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.
- Garry Kasparov | @Kasparov63
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)