Thread: Manosphere is wrong about polygamy + why I'm all for it

Let me preface this with: There are two definitions for polygamy. One comes from social sciences and humanities and the other is from biology. The one from social sciences defines it as the practice of marrying multiple spouses. While in biology it means, any mating system where a female or a male mates with two or more members of the opposite sex. In the biological sense of the word, we are already polygamous. But, in the social sense, we are not there yet.

However, I'm fine with polygamy in the social sense. Here's why.

I'll be lazy a bit here and not bring specific info about what each manosphere creator thinks. But the message is generally:

1. 20% of men will marry 80% women (1 man marries 4 women)
2. 80% of men will have to settle for 20% (4 men marry 1 women)
3. This can reduce # of single men and women
4. In case, bottom 20% women still get selected by chad, or they refuse to marry bottom 80% men, there will be blood

I have a lot to say about this because all of this is wrong in my opinion.

First of all, these top 20% men already have access to all the beautiful women they want. Why would they sign a suicide contract to get the attention and care and sex from women then?

Also, if he marries 2 or 3 women, he's constrained to these 2 or 3 women. Since supposedly he's one of the best men and women are willing to share him, he obviously can get at least 9 different young women every month. So, why would he sacrifice the variety to slave his life away to 2 or 3 wives (who don't get any younger btw).

Also, these are wives he has to work and provide for. Why would he go that route when he can hook-up and not give the woman a dime in allowance?

Obviously, a top percenter man will never marry. So, no. "Chads" are not taking all the women. They are just sleeping with them and not putting a ring on it.

Second, 80% will settle for 20%?

Isn't 40% men against marriage in USA? That percentage goes as high as 80% in Denmark, 70% in Japan and Morocco. If laws stay the same, not that many men will change their mind about marriage.

Also, let's consider a woman marries 4 men. This will be difficult on her to juggle 4 relationships and keep them emotionally and sexually satisfied.

How many of them can she go out on dates with and sleep with? If we say, she has to spend at least 3 hours with her husbands and have sex at least 3 times with them a week. That's an entire day a week spent on her husbands and 12 times she's pleasing them sexually.

If she has a job, Sunday will be entirely taken up by fulfilling the emotional and sexual needs of her husbands. And so, it's highly unlikely she's keeping that many around.

If she doesn't, that's manageable but she will be reliant on them financially. If one of them slacks off and doesn't provide for her she's likely withholding sex and not caring about him or even divorcing him. (We know that finances are #1 reason women get a divorce (edit: I was wrong. It's like #8. top 10. #1 is marital infidelity.)) This is a low-key form of abuse for the men. She keeps them around just to use them and abuse them and dispose of them with she's done with them.

So, in both case (she works or not) her partners will very likely get reduced to who she can be content with and no more.

And so no. This will not create less single men. It will create more divorced men. I doubt singlehood among men will decrease much.

Lastly, about the increase of violence in polygamous societies. I must say this is fucking stupid. We are already polygamous. No hell is breaking loose. People are not burning cities down, and we don't see unprecedented levels of crimes.

We saw the sexlessness go up from 9% in 2010 to 29% in 2018. There wasn't a rebellion or a revolution of some sort. Life is as usual. And no. Incels are not violent. 7 attacks have been recorded since 2014, meaning we get a single incel attack every year. Hardly a problem.

Even in traditional societies that allow polygamy like Morocco, they don't have civil wars or violent protests or anything like that. They quiet support polygamy actually.

So now that we are done with myths. Let's talk about why I'm all for polygamy.

I think there's a small percentage of men and women who really want to share partners, and for those polygamy won't be a terrible idea.

I remember hearing an amusing story about a girl whose best friends was saddened she couldn't find a husband to have kids with and so she shared her husband with her. I thought that's nice.

On top of that social polygamy is actually better than biological polygamy. We'd definitely have less out-of-wedlock births, STDs, abortions, and fatherlessness and much more if having multiple dates required marriage.

I must warn of one thing though. If we are instituting polygamy to combat promiscuity or reduce singlehood, it ain't gonna ever work IMO.

So, that's all I have to say. What do you think of this? Did I miss something or there's something you want to expound upon. I'm interested in your opinion cuz it's a hot topic.

Originally Posted by MoroccanMgtow

Lastly, about the increase of violence in polygamous societies. I must say this is fucking stupid. We are already polygamous. No hell is breaking loose. People are not burning cities down, and we don't see unprecedented levels of crimes.

That's because men in western societies have more alternative ways to find fulfillment outside of pursuing vagina or being a provider for a woman.

This isn't the case in more primitive Muslim societies without positive alternate avenues for men, so their rage tends to be directed towards militaristic conquests.

As a general principle I agree that we shouldn't outlaw polygamy because the government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. But, since polygamy and hypergamy go hand-in-hand and unchecked hypergamy tends to collapse the family unit, and therefore society, over time, it's a decision that enriches individuals yet hurts the collective. But nobody knows how to solve those kinds of problems and the best solution we've arrived at is to remove government involvement in basically everything because it's the biggest threat men face today.

80% of men will have to settle for 20% (4 men marry 1 women)

This won't work, because women will share a high value man, but don't want 100% attention of an average or a moderately better-than-average man, much less 4 men.

Also, there is no guaranteed paternity for those 4 men.

Not to be a stickler for terms, but polygamy is multiple wives, and polyandry is multiple husbands. 80% of men in polyandry doesn't sound like fun for the guy at all.

Western Women's egos are already to the moon. The last thing they need is 4 husbands competiting for her attention.

I'm gonna throw a blue flag on this. This post title states clearly that you are "all for polygamy." That's some high-tier indoctrination; blue-pill level. Are you sure you're in the right forum for this?
If MGTOW is to have any written rules, the first one would likely read: DO NOT MARRY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

The rest of it reads like a social sciences anthropology type essay where you wanna 'right the wrongs' in society. We don't care.
I mean, if you want, you can take all the women that we gave up on.

Chad may be able to fuck who he wants, but he’s just as likely to be a stupid trad cuck and worship marriage.

Chad may have had some things easy, but he can still be a dumb ass.

Damn, at least give me the benefit of the doubt. I clearly say:

* First of all, these top 20% men already have access to all the beautiful women they want. Why would they sign a suicide contract to get the attention and care and sex from women then?
* Isn't 40% men against marriage in USA? That percentage goes as high as 80% in Denmark, 70% in Japan and Morocco. If laws stay the same, not that many men will change their mind about marriage.
* I think there's a small percentage of men and women who really want to share partners, and for those polygamy won't be a terrible idea.
* If we are instituting polygamy to combat promiscuity or reduce singlehood, it ain't gonna ever work IMO.

I don't think it's bluepilled. It's a redpill idea that women would rather share alpha than have a faithful beta. She will likely divorce him otherwise. The only bit that could be bluepill indoctrination is:
* "On top of that social polygamy is actually better than biological polygamy. We'd definitely have less out-of-wedlock births, STDs, abortions, and fatherlessness and much more if having multiple dates required marriage."

Is this a redpilled take? I think so. I ain't telling lies to please the masses there. If there was marriage before intimacy, there wouldn't be that much abortions and out-of-wedlock births and single-motherhood.

Originally Posted by DangZagnut

Chad may have had some things easy, but he can still be a dumb ass.

Perfect idea. The idealization of women and marriage is rampant in the dwindling market of PUAism. Sometimes they sound like Winfry Oprah but for men. I hear them all the time say sub-5 can become alpha and get a wife whose correlates with divorce and sour relationships is very low. I often ask myself, are they living in the same planet we are in. But they have a product to sell. So it always becomes sales pitchy. They are selling snake oil with all that confidence + gym shit.

Edit: every hole is a good. You'd be surprised at how many of them sleep with trans out of deprivation. It's always hilarious to hear. But the redpill+PUA has shifted to a more MGTOWy stance. They are largely against marriage.

The last thing they need is 4 husbands competing for her attention.

That's a good point. Most women get that much attention already. One more reason why polygamy will not decrease singlehood. However, women still get more money from divorcing their husbands than welfare. That's why 70% of women still get married. They have a lot to gain from divorce and welfare. One last, marriage to multiple wives is polygyny not polygamy. Polygyny is most practiced form of polygamy.

I'm gonna call bullshit on all of what you said.

Originally Posted by Rock

That's because men in western societies have more alternative ways to find fulfillment outside of pursuing vagina or being a provider for a woman.

Everybody does. Have you heard of hobbies, travel, music, video games? No, that's is not unique to the west. Nearly all of the world provides more than sex and marriage.

This isn't the case in more primitive Muslim societies without positive alternate avenues for men, so their rage tends to be directed towards militaristic conquests.

Just what a fucking cringe-ass caricature of Muslim societies do you have in mind? Did you forget Qatar is muslim country. They hosted the world cup.

Here's a map of muslim societies:


Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt... and many others provide no positive avenues for the young to channel their frustration? You think very highly of what the west provides.

But, since polygamy and hypergamy go hand-in-hand and unchecked hypergamy tends to collapse the family unit, and therefore society, over time, it's a decision that enriches individuals yet hurts the collective.

I already talked about what polygamy I support:

On top of that social polygamy is actually better than biological polygamy. We'd definitely have less out-of-wedlock births, STDs, abortions, and fatherlessness and much more if having multiple dates required marriage.

Social polygamy is fine since it's pro-family. It can only happen with a social contract. So you tacitly support my take and you don't even realize it.

But nobody knows how to solve those kinds of problems and the best solution we've arrived at is to remove government involvement in basically everything because it's the biggest threat men face today.

I'm all for that too. But I'm cynical. I doubt the government would ever let us create our own social contracts involving our spouses. They did that with prenups but the government retains the right to invalidate them any time. In fact in Australia, they ruled them out so they are now useless piece of paper men hold.

Thanks for the map MoroccanMGTOW, that was interesting.

Fifty years ago, some Middle East families sent their sons to no name colleges like I went to. I got the idea that their families were just warehousing them for a few years. Their families were rich, I doubt these guys ever really needed a diploma.

I knew a few of them, they were alright. None were revolutionaries back then. They liked America, specially the beer, pizza, and blonde girlfriends. Throw in a pony car and they were in paradise.

I have no take on the matter. Marriage? IMO it's an institution designed to keep humans in check. Biologically I think we're social hierarchic primates (yes, apes). We have bred to a vast population combined with technology. Said tech has made us partially independent from nature. So the need to survive in a group isn't really that necessary anymore. Marriage is something "invented" ages ago to more or less guarantee social stability: to keep the B's dicks wet so they wouldn't revolt against the A's.
In this day and age I don't see any need for marriage at all anymore. Despite Disney's gospels, I can summarize any relationship with a female as follows. It'll be really nice for 3 to 6 weeks, then her dissatisfaction kicks and and she'll start to sabotage the whole thing. If you don't believe me; when is the last time you've seen/ spoken to a satisfied woman. One who doesn't complain about anything and seems to be just fine with her life, the people around her, her fucking job and the things she has? So whether I marry 1, 2 or 5 women. That dissatisfaction will come sooner or later. Thanks but no thanks. As for polygamy the other way? Hell will freeze way sooner than I tolerate another man in my house. There is only one male body in this universe which can sexually arouse me: my own.
I'll leave it up to all people to do as they chose but it's not for me.

Originally Posted by DangZagnut

Chad may be able to fuck who he wants, but he’s just as likely to be a stupid trad cuck and worship marriage.

Chad may have had some things easy, but he can still be a dumb ass.

Very true. Women want to be knocked up by Chad, so Chad can be easily baby trapped if they're dumb enough to raw dog a woman on a one night stand, or not dispose of a condom after sex. I know of a couple such cases.

Originally Posted by RedPilledSimp

In this day and age I don't see any need for marriage at all anymore. Despite Disney's gospels, I can summarize any relationship with a female as follows. It'll be really nice for 3 to 6 weeks, then her dissatisfaction kicks and and she'll start to sabotage the whole thing. If you don't believe me; when is the last time you've seen/ spoken to a satisfied woman. One who doesn't complain about anything and seems to be just fine with her life, the people around her, her fucking job and the things she has? So whether I marry 1, 2 or 5 women. That dissatisfaction will come sooner or later.

Marriage is an institution destined to fail, especially with today’s standards. No man, not even if he had the powers of Superman, is capable of keeping a woman satisfied and happy for any sustainable amount of time. Look at all the twats who even monkey branch among the Chads. I ask myself the logical question of why would any man willingly play a game where he’s declared the loser right from the outset? That’s where the blue-pill poison enters a man’s veins and fucks with his head and emotions. When a simp sees a beautiful woman, especially one who’s giving him attention, and feels his crotch area stiffening, his ability to reason and make rational choices goes right out the window.

I don't support that shit. It's a bit of a moot point since we MGTOW have opted out of today's retarded games. All polygamy would do would be to legitimize hypergamy even more, and just spread even more STDs. I'm all for keeping as much slut shaming in place as possible. A woman who fucks 4,387 different men fully deserves society's full contempt as the STD-spreading trash/loathsome, revolting, and despicable slattern that she is. It was better when a woman like that was treated as a total social outcast. That can at least keep some of the ease, sleaze, and disease in check. The more these slatternly, worthless skankahoes spread STDs around, the more chance that shit has to mutate into something much, much worse. It could mutate into something that spreads non-sexually, like through handshakes or through the air.

We need to keep in place the total contempt for a woman sleeping around. If a woman admits to doing that, the reaction should be, "EEEEWWWWWWW, you're a grotesque and despicable, flea-bag, disease-ridden tramp. I hope you eat a bag of shit and DIE before you infect anyone else, you trashy sleep-around HOE!"

There should never be any holding back on berating a slattern like that.

I do not support a poly relationship culture and let me tell you why..

They tried this many hundreds of years ago. What they found was multiple women were just marrying Chad Thundercock, and he was
getting groups of women. It solves the problem of women being unable to get Chad to commit, but it in turn creates a dangerous society.
This led to society becoming very violent and it led to the formulation of The Vikings. The Vikings then went off
to other places to steal women and riches. You could say The Vikings were actually the original Incels, although the women were just
going off with the high value men of society.

In theory a poly culture could solve the incels on paper but it doesn't it actually makes the situation worse. Then religion came
along and solved a lot of problems i.e enforced monogamy.

Our culture is as bad as it is due to the de-population agenda being enforced by the United Nations (check the quote from Boris Johnson
from 2007 on his article regarding this) they're raising women up (which i dont have a problem with) but they know that when women
get raised up, they rarely date down, so if they keep men out of university (women out number men going to uni) it creates a population
crash. This is coupled with financial crises which creates a population decline as well along with all types of country war.

A lot of the problems being faced today regarding male/female dynamics is directly caused by the west and its governments. If the government
plays daddy and protects women through welfare, schemes and opportunities, and allows women to climb dominance hierarchies more easily,
then women can treat men like shit which they are doing right now. They are using the media as a weapon for this along with other things.

Originally Posted by Thread Title

Manosphere is wrong about polygamy + why I'm all for it

Originally Posted by MoroccanMgtow

I already talked about what polygamy I support:


Social polygamy is fine since it's pro-family.

MGTOW: No Marriage, No Cohabitation, No Impreganation.

PRO-FAMILY?

Troll!

Originally Posted by ShogunRonin

I do not support a poly relationship culture and let me tell you why..

They tried this many hundreds of years ago. What they found was multiple women were just marrying Chad Thundercock, and he was
getting groups of women. It solves the problem of women being unable to get Chad to commit, but it in turn creates a dangerous society.
This led to society becoming very violent and it led to the formulation of The Vikings. The Vikings then went off
to other places to steal women and riches. You could say The Vikings were actually the original Incels, although the women were just
going off with the high value men of society.

In theory a poly culture could solve the incels on paper but it doesn't it actually makes the situation worse. Then religion came
along and solved a lot of problems i.e enforced monogamy.

Our culture is as bad as it is due to the de-population agenda being enforced by the United Nations (check the quote from Boris Johnson
from 2007 on his article regarding this) they're raising women up (which i dont have a problem with) but they know that when women
get raised up, they rarely date down, so if they keep men out of university (women out number men going to uni) it creates a population
crash. This is coupled with financial crises which creates a population decline as well along with all types of country war.

A lot of the problems being faced today regarding male/female dynamics is directly caused by the west and its governments. If the government
plays daddy and protects women through welfare, schemes and opportunities, and allows women to climb dominance hierarchies more easily,
then women can treat men like shit which they are doing right now. They are using the media as a weapon for this along with other things.

I'd just like to add-on to this point that the feminization of men through food being laced with anti-androgenic substances (if its name sounds complicated - it's probably not good for you) to remove the edge males have.
Because these 'empires' are all weak from the inside. Civil war from vicious males is the most likely destructive force to cause a collapse. But that can't happen if you get placated on your porn, video games and lack of testosterone that they feed you until you wither out and die without reproducing.

Why should a man only be miserable with one woman when he can be made even more miserable by multiple women?

The logical position is to not be miserable with a woman at all.

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

I'd just like to add-on to this point that the feminization of men through food being laced with anti-androgenic substances (if its name sounds complicated - it's probably not good for you) to remove the edge males have.
Because these 'empires' are all weak from the inside. Civil war from vicious males is the most likely destructive force to cause a collapse. But that can't happen if you get placated on your porn, video games and lack of testosterone that they feed you until you wither out and die without reproducing.

Food ingredients, porn, video games...and I would add weed. Smoking it, vaping it, edibles and everything else. Huge push on that in my lifetime and it lowers a man's drive to do anything aside from more video games/food. Pro pot people will always mention the super productive pot heads, but in my life I never met them. Hell, I've met plenty of single women in their 40s that are completely cool with their teenage kids having unlimited access to weed. Absolutely blows my mind.

It seems that just about everything hoisted upon us is destructive and that definitely includes social media. Sometimes I wonder if a person would be better off completely unplugging from society and living far outside the bigger cities. Basically live like it's 1995 or earlier...a basic phone, radio, maybe newspaper delivered but no cable just an antenna. This is how my grandparents lived all their lives until their deaths in 2012 or so...and they seemed much happier than the average person nowadays. Life was so simple at their house.

From what I've read, in polygamous marriages the wives compete for the attention of the husband. Because the wives are jealous of each other, it takes the load off the husband. "Janey, I would love to buy you the SUV Tahoe, but I have to get Suzy's OK first . . . " LOL

Originally Posted by WheelBarrow

Why should a man only be miserable with one woman when he can be made even more miserable by multiple women?

The logical position is to not be miserable with a woman at all.