[Wutang]

https://www.economist.com/news/christmas...my-and-war

Quote:

Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10% of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30% of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.

Quote:

The taking of multiple wives is a feature of life in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index compiled by the Fund for Peace

Polygamy leads to large swathes of men becoming Elliot Rodgers. The equivalent in the West of what we see in these polygamous societies are all those neckbeard, perpetually single shooters.

[ProGambler]

Except they're not doing shit because they're pacified by porn and the opportunity to mate with low quality women.

[gework]

As outlined here, though mixed in with a few other topics, polygamy and monogamy act as soft-eugenics programs that over generations change the overall gene pool and the two act as a feedback loop.

You can compare it to people who live high in the Himalayas, who have considerably better abilities to process oxygen. This has culminated over many generations, where those who were better at processing oxygen would have a slight advantage in a low-resource society where dominance and/or competence were paramount. Being more successful led to having more children and over a long period it led to those traits being more common.

Polygamy was the global norm before social forces like Christianity. In these society, the model was leaders had many wives, allies of the leader had multiple wives and others had few if any wives and were essentially slaves. Women also were typically of slave status. This was a raw alpha dominance society that proliferated genes that were suited to survive in it. It was the only option in those times due to the circumstances. This was shifted by religions that were imposed by rulers in concert with priests. Through the socialisation and the successive change in the gene pool, fewer dominating alphas existed and the society had changed so that they were less successful.

Today in West Africa about 20% of marriages are still polygamous. For the most part, prior to European colonisation the societies were dominated by:

- inter-tribal and kingdom collonisation
- hierarchical polygamy with slave status and no wives for the weak
- extreme violence, summary justice, ritual sacrifice
- slave trading

This is a social structure that selects dominance. There is little room for trades or professions to flourish. Such things have typically precariously sprouted elsewhere and then brought in by more technically advanced cultures. Intelligence and technical competence were of little importance beyond what it took to understand the simple dominance hierarchy. The result is there was no path for genes that produce larger brains, higher reasoning ability and faster neurotransmission to proliferate.

The result in West Africa is the average IQ (a measure of verbal, numeric and spatial intelligence) is close to 70 (see page 357). There was no structure through which they were selected and little area for its utilisation. Due to the affects of poverty in Africa average IQs are about 10 points lower than their biological threshold. Just as your eyes only have so much ability to focus, your lungs have only so much ability to process oxygen etc., there is a threshold of how much the brain can process and how fast. There is nothing known of that can change this. If you compare this to East China, which has had a society with a middle-class with some dark ages for 3,000 years, the average IQ minus poverty is about 110.

On the front of male dominance, there is a gene called MAOA (also known as the warrior gene), which is involved in the regulation of neurotransmitters. A variant of this gene, known as 2R. This variant doesn't break down as many neurotransmitters which can cause elevated aggression. It is particularly linked to pathological aggression like organised crime, i.e. carrying on the same sort of behaviours that civilisation has sucsessivley genetically deselected. 1 in 18 African Americans have this gene variant as opposed to almost 1 in 150,000 orientals.

Confucius was something of a Chinese Jesus, who taught many of the same socially stabilising models, such as the notion of the family unit, 500 years before Christ. And the Chinese were already more civilised than the Jews at that point.

The married family the the bedrock of modern civilisation. The previous model was a few men, taking what they wanted, smashing things up and leaving little or nothing more than what came before them. The family model forces men to give up a life or whoring and plunder and instead invest in their children. With each generation, children can take on a little more wisdom, knowledge and the structure of the society gently eases out genes that promote violence and usher in those that encourage intelligence. But as with anything, the left cannot dismantle quickly enough what gives them everything they want.

[MANic]

Polygamy in and of itseld selects fot dominance (not to be misconstrued as physical dominance), however, you would be erroneous to portray polygamous society as being innately primitive, low brow and anti-progress.

Hypothetically, where a society selects for intelligent individuals (intelligent people are more likely to succeed) collective intelligence will be likely to rise at a more rapid rate in polygamous society. In more primitive societies dominance equates to brawn though as society progresses brain acquires greater and greater importance.
Per example, the Macedonian elite practiced polygamy (unlike the Greeks and Romans who kept many concubines and slaves but who together with their offspring were not afforded the same status). Proceeding with the supposition that the elite were smarter and that the practice naturally allowed such men to procreate more, it would be reasonable to assume society progressed through the proliferation of superior genetic material. At least hypothetically that is.

[puckerman]

I know a lot of lunatic progressive women who are into polyamory big time. I have also seen what it looks like in practice.

Let's imagine 11 football players and 11 cheerleaders. Under monogamy, each football player would hook up with one cheerleader. Every cheerleader would have the security of having one steady boy friend. Every football player would have a steady fuck. Harmony ensues, and the football team does well.

Now we have polyamory. The 11 cheerleaders decide they will only fuck the quarterback, the leading running back, and leading wide receiver. The three players probably get laid more often and don't have to make a commitment. The cheerleaders now have their "freedom" and probably end up having less sex than before. The other eight football players aren't particularly happy with the situation. Needless to say, there is also a lot of dissension on the football team.

Polyamorous and "progressive" women are actually more prudish than more conservative ones nowadays. This actually gives them a way to show "liberated" and "open-minded" they are, while it's just another double standard held by many on the left.

It's interesting that these progressives consistently complain about economics and how "the rich get richer." They say they are for equality. Yet when it comes to sex, they do want rich men to get richer. If a guy has only fucked five women, he's a loser who just deserves to be alone. If he's fucked 200 women, these polyamorous women are ready to fuck him in a heartbeat.

[Super_Fire]

Polyamory is rife within the antifa community.

Tells you all you need to know.

[Sgt]

(12-27-2017 11:01 PM)MANic Wrote:  

Hypothetically, where a society selects for intelligent individuals (intelligent people are more likely to succeed) collective intelligence will be likely to rise at a more rapid rate in polygamous society.

This is only if you suppose that intelligence is determined by genetics only and education and parental attention has no effect whatsoever.

Monogamous parents will be able to invest more attention and guidance per child (maternal + PATERNAL guidance) than polygamous parents (maternal guidance yes, but only a fraction of the paternal guidance)

[MANic]

I do see your point, however, one must remain cognizant of a few factors:

a) Raw cognitive ability is entirely genetic (assuming basic levels of nutrition);

b) Offspring of an intelligent parent is more likely to show a genetic proclivity to intellectual curiosity and is further exposed to more intellectual stimulation than the average child even if their paternal attention is encumbered,

c) In a society which selects for intelligence such men would be in a position to provide more resources to their offspring, interalia perfect nutrition and superior education (regardless of parental presence).

It's all just conjecture anyway

[nomadbrah]

Gework, just as a comment to your excellent post, monogamy was the norm even in pre-christian Europe, but of course they had slave girls, but they were from outside the tribe/city/republic.

[Number one bummer]

In my experience the biggest supporters of polygamy, on the guy side, would ironically be the worst off if society was organized that way. I could see polygamy becoming legalized in next decade or so, but I don't see it having disastrous effects right away. There is no way in hell a woman is going to share a husband in current year America, they need the attention.

[BelyyTigr]

I was pretty astounded when I heard 1 or 2 forum members thought polygamy would actually be good for men, or even the more successful men.

That topic was addressed back there. But people also seem to forget other aspects of it. Polygamy was common in places where masses of men died in pretty pointless wars. The remaining women became slaves/chattels or basically imprisoned in harems - with the threat of death very close by.
It was also common in the fundamentalist Islamist world and not the Christian one.

If anyone wants a return of that then I'm pretty astounded.

[ColSpanker]

Perhaps. I'll dissent here.
I can see allowing the productive men to have 2 or 3 wives AND NO MORE, so long as they agree to support them. In return, same sex marriage would go out the door. This would establish a standard where the most productive men can keep one woman pregnant at a time so as to increase his genes to propagate to the next generation. Having the additional wife would become a gold standard that all men would try to obtain.
No, I don't know how to bring it about. This is in the realm of pure speculation.
I like to call it "The Marston Option" for the Ivy League professor who created Wonder Woman. In spite of the fact that he lived with two women. The old horn dog managed to have kids by each, although none of them knew they were all blood until years after he passed. In spite of his access to two women (and a third from time-to-time), he was a lousy provider that relied on the income of his wives to make ends meet. If nothing else he was an alpha dog in his extended household. The kids grew up to be successful, so there is that.

[BelyyTigr]

(12-30-2017 10:19 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

Perhaps. I'll dissent here.
I can see allowing the productive men to have 2 or 3 wives AND NO MORE, so long as they agree to support them. In return, same sex marriage would go out the door. This would establish a standard where the most productive men can keep one woman pregnant at a time so as to increase his genes to propagate to the next generation. Having the additional wife would become a gold standard that all men would try to obtain.
No, I don't know how to bring it about. This is in the realm of pure speculation.
I like to call it "The Marston Option" for the Ivy League professor who created Wonder Woman. In spite of the fact that he lived with two women. The old horn dog managed to have kids by each, although none of them knew they were all blood until years after he passed. In spite of his access to two women (and a third from time-to-time), he was a lousy provider that relied on the income of his wives to make ends meet. If nothing else he was an alpha dog in his extended household. The kids grew up to be successful, so there is that.

But what makes you think that system would be so good for YOU? How would you define the "most productive men"? One with famuily money like in Saudi? Why do you think the system would be good for for other men?
Its one thing having game and say 3,4 even 6 hot plates as a young or even older guy. But its a completely different thing to be able to sustain multiple hot wives. Or compete with others for hot wives.

The countries with polygamy are an utter joke, mass wars, poverty, constant unrest etc etc.
Infact many of these marriages were between clans to try and lessen the warring that polygamy had caused -a vicious spiral of destruction. The rest of the world decided they were too "civilised" for it thousands of years ago and never looked back.

Its not just numbers. It means for everyone outside a certain whatever group, the QUALITY of bitches deteriorates.
Lots of men dream of being the caliph with his harem. I don't think many would actually be able to do that. And just imagine the rush of Arab sheiks flooding London and New York if it was ever legalised.

I can follow polyamory though I'm not a fan. But polygamy means men get permaently excluded from the fundamentals of human existence. I couldn't think of a better breeding ground to propagate gangs of homicial maniacs hellbent on hanging the elite from lamp posts.

The polygamous males would be the wealthiest men, often young men with family money. That trend would rapidly multiply so that we'd see small ruling clans and large serf classes. They would control the economic and political systems. Something like a form of apartheid would appear. Until bloody revolution occurred.

[Lunostrelki]

Assuming one responsible and stable man and multiple wives/concubines, polygamy can work well and create a stronger family in some cases, but legalizing it would do more harm than good, especially in today's cultural atmosphere. It'd work if only 2-5% of men had concubines (to create a little healthy competition among men), but in practice 80% of women will be lining up for the 20% of men they consider the hottest and most successful. Most men will be statistically lucky to even get an ugly wife. And it'd be pretty much impossible to make sure that only a small percentage of alphas get more than one wife, or that they will restrict themselves to two or three and share the rest of the nubile female population with their more average brothers. A man with the resources to deal with two girls who can divorce or cheat on him at any time isn't going to care about some law that says he can't put a third woman on his tax return. He's going to have as many wives as he wants and so is every other man in his social circle. Politics follows culture and once you open the cultural doors to limited polygamy, you can be sure that the people who benefit will stretch those limits.

[Super_Fire]

Stephen Chow has a great comedy, Flirting Scholar, in which he has 8 wives. He's the envy of men, but he has a bunch of wives, not girlfriend. That means they all nag him at once, all go on the rag at once, and all go into fits of hysterics and dramatics at once: