A case for polygamy

[Vastator]

Hypothetically, if polygamy was legalized, this would mean that the top 1% of of males (e.x. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg) could marry multiple women, and potentially father more children.

This might help to reduce poverty and low education, by encouraging women not to marry "average men", but compete to marry the top 1% of men. (It might also encourage "average men" to become more personally productive, knowing that their wife could leave them for a better option, such as Warren Buffet).

What would be the concerns in regards to this?

(Of course, I don't expect this to actually happen, but hypothetically speaking...)

Or those men, finding they are competing against fucking BILL GATES, might become despondent, and then dangerously violent.

That's the sad irony for the modern feminist, empowered woman. They've been taught at birth by Disney, Cosmo, right on up to adulthood that they can have it all. And they believed it! Lol! That left 75percent of the women clamoring for the top 5 per cent of men. And by the time they realize they're drying up, and dont have the sexual market value they once thought they did. Their chances of snagging a man in even the top 50 percent are nearly non existent. Instead they bemoan "where have all the good men gone". Lol! Too ignorant to realized they've willingly been pumped, and dumped by a dozen or so of these guys in their youth; that they'd kill for today. Only to end up old, dried up, and fat; with only their collection of cats, and icecream to console them. Ultimately dying face down in the litter box of bad decisions they refused to change...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamourus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

I'm sure bripat would be happy to tell you about Mohommed's 9 year old wife.

Isn't that pretty close to the age Mary was supposed to have been when she became pregnant with Jesus?

 

[g5000]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamourus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

I'm sure bripat would be happy to tell you about Mohommed's 9 year old wife.

Isn't that pretty close to the age Mary was supposed to have been when she became pregnant with Jesus?

NINE?!?

Nope.

 

[Questioner]

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

It's in her rational interest to do that.

If she's married to an attractive guy who's financially unstable, she should have an affair with a guy who makes more money.

If she's married to a guy with money who's boring and unromantic, she should have an affair with a guy who's more attractive and offers better genetics for her kids.

Unless a guy is both at once, there's no reason she shouldn't do what's in her rational interest for her and her offspring.

 

[bripat9643]

Non sequitur - it's a relationship, and given that many "successful men" are married, and consider the relationship or union an "end in and of itself", not a means to an end, I'd beg to differ.

If you're talking about marriage legislation, that's something different entirely than the actual relationship. Please explain your logic.

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Coldly and rationally, speaking, the only reasons a woman should be with a man are:

1. He has good genes ("He's hot")

2. He makes good money ("He's a provider")

3. He's both at once ("He's Mr. Right)

So in the event a woman is married to a provider who's romantically unappealing, it would be in her rational interest to have a love affair on the side with a man who is tall, dark and handsome, hoping to sire kids with him, even though he's financially unstable.

Or vice versa, a woman in a relationship with a tall, dark and handsome stranger, should find a guy who's a boring provider to live with, and maybe give him sex once a year on his birthday, while hoping to sire the kids with the tall, dark and handsome stranger.

Unless a woman is married to a man who'se both at once, then there's no cold or rational reason for her or her offspring to stay "faithful" to either or - having a "little bit of both" is her best option.

What's your point?

 

[g5000]

Mary was somewhere between 12 and 14. 12 was the youngest age a girl could be betrothed.

In a time when life expectancy was under 30.

 

[Questioner]

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Coldly and rationally, speaking, the only reasons a woman should be with a man are:

1. He has good genes ("He's hot")

2. He makes good money ("He's a provider")

3. He's both at once ("He's Mr. Right)

So in the event a woman is married to a provider who's romantically unappealing, it would be in her rational interest to have a love affair on the side with a man who is tall, dark and handsome, hoping to sire kids with him, even though he's financially unstable.

Or vice versa, a woman in a relationship with a tall, dark and handsome stranger, should find a guy who's a boring provider to live with, and maybe give him sex once a year on his birthday, while hoping to sire the kids with the tall, dark and handsome stranger.

Unless a woman is married to a man who'se both at once, then there's no cold or rational reason for her or her offspring to stay "faithful" to either or - having a "little bit of both" is her best option.

What's your point?

Do you have a problem with "coldness and rationality", or do you not?

 

[bripat9643]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamourus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

I'm sure bripat would be happy to tell you about Mohommed's 9 year old wife.

That's the truth, isn't it?

 

[Questioner]

Hypothetically, if polygamy was legalized, this would mean that the top 1% of of males (e.x. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg) could marry multiple women, and potentially father more children.

This might help to reduce poverty and low education, by encouraging women not to marry "average men", but compete to marry the top 1% of men. (It might also encourage "average men" to become more personally productive, knowing that their wife could leave them for a better option, such as Warren Buffet).

What would be the concerns in regards to this?

(Of course, I don't expect this to actually happen, but hypothetically speaking...)

Or those men, finding they are competing against fucking BILL GATES, might become despondent, and then dangerously violent.

That's the sad irony for the modern feminist, empowered woman. They've been taught at birth by Disney, Cosmo, right on up to adulthood that they can have it all. And they believed it! Lol! That left 75percent of the women clamoring for the top 5 per cent of men. And by the time they realize they're drying up, and dont have the sexual market value they once thought they did. Their chances of snagging a man in even the top 50 percent are nearly non existent. Instead they bemoan "where have all the good men gone". Lol! Too ignorant to realized they've willingly been pumped, and dumped by a dozen or so of these guys in their youth; that they'd kill for today. Only to end up old, dried up, and fat; with only their collection of cats, and icecream to console them. Ultimately dying face down in the litter box of bad decisions they refused to change...

I'm sorry you hate capitalism so much.

 

[Correll]

Hypothetically, if polygamy was legalized, this would mean that the top 1% of of males (e.x. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg) could marry multiple women, and potentially father more children.

This might help to reduce poverty and low education, by encouraging women not to marry "average men", but compete to marry the top 1% of men. (It might also encourage "average men" to become more personally productive, knowing that their wife could leave them for a better option, such as Warren Buffet).

What would be the concerns in regards to this?

(Of course, I don't expect this to actually happen, but hypothetically speaking...)

Or those men, finding they are competing against fucking BILL GATES, might become despondent, and then dangerously violent.

That's the sad irony for the modern feminist, empowered woman. They've been taught at birth by Disney, Cosmo, right on up to adulthood that they can have it all. And they believed it! Lol! That left 75percent of the women clamoring for the top 5 per cent of men. And by the time they realize they're drying up, and dont have the sexual market value they once thought they did. Their chances of snagging a man in even the top 50 percent are nearly non existent. Instead they bemoan "where have all the good men gone". Lol! Too ignorant to realized they've willingly been pumped, and dumped by a dozen or so of these guys in their youth; that they'd kill for today. Only to end up old, dried up, and fat; with only their collection of cats, and icecream to console them. Ultimately dying face down in the litter box of bad decisions they refused to change...

Or going the single mother route out of desperation.


This is great.

 

[Vastator]

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

Women initiate divorces more because men cheat more. It is pretty simple.

That's extraordinarily debatable being generous, and averaging numerous polls it's closer to a tie. While recent studies of paternity have concluded that a third of men's children, arent of their own loins.

 

[bripat9643]

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Coldly and rationally, speaking, the only reasons a woman should be with a man are:

1. He has good genes ("He's hot")

2. He makes good money ("He's a provider")

3. He's both at once ("He's Mr. Right)

So in the event a woman is married to a provider who's romantically unappealing, it would be in her rational interest to have a love affair on the side with a man who is tall, dark and handsome, hoping to sire kids with him, even though he's financially unstable.

Or vice versa, a woman in a relationship with a tall, dark and handsome stranger, should find a guy who's a boring provider to live with, and maybe give him sex once a year on his birthday, while hoping to sire the kids with the tall, dark and handsome stranger.

Unless a woman is married to a man who'se both at once, then there's no cold or rational reason for her or her offspring to stay "faithful" to either or - having a "little bit of both" is her best option.

What's your point?

Do you have a problem with "coldness and rationality", or do you not?

Not at all. So what's your point?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

I'm sure bripat would be happy to tell you about Mohommed's 9 year old wife.

Isn't that pretty close to the age Mary was supposed to have been when she became pregnant with Jesus?

NINE?!?

Nope.

I have seen accounts that put it at 12...not off by much

 

[bripat9643]

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

Women initiate divorces more because men cheat more. It is pretty simple.

Horseshit. The fact is that women have everything to gain from a divorce, and men have nothing to gain, other than freedom.

 

[Questioner]

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

Women initiate divorces more because men cheat more. It is pretty simple.

That's extraordinarily debatable being generous, and averaging numerous polls it's closer to a tie. While recent studies of paternity have concluded that a third of men's children, arent of their own loins.

That's capitalism, why do you hate it so much?

Marriage could even be argued to be a "socialist" institution anyway, designed to prevent men at the top of the "evolutionary hierarchy" from marrying multiple women, and leaving table scraps for men of less evolutionary desirability, as they have historically.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

Women initiate divorces more because men cheat more. It is pretty simple.

That's extraordinarily debatable being generous, and averaging numerous polls it's closer to a tie. While recent studies of paternity have concluded that a third of men's children, arent of their own loins.

Link?

 

[Correll]

Hypothetically, if polygamy was legalized, this would mean that the top 1% of of males (e.x. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg) could marry multiple women, and potentially father more children.

This might help to reduce poverty and low education, by encouraging women not to marry "average men", but compete to marry the top 1% of men. (It might also encourage "average men" to become more personally productive, knowing that their wife could leave them for a better option, such as Warren Buffet).

What would be the concerns in regards to this?

(Of course, I don't expect this to actually happen, but hypothetically speaking...)

Or those men, finding they are competing against fucking BILL GATES, might become despondent, and then dangerously violent.

That's the sad irony for the modern feminist, empowered woman. They've been taught at birth by Disney, Cosmo, right on up to adulthood that they can have it all. And they believed it! Lol! That left 75percent of the women clamoring for the top 5 per cent of men. And by the time they realize they're drying up, and dont have the sexual market value they once thought they did. Their chances of snagging a man in even the top 50 percent are nearly non existent. Instead they bemoan "where have all the good men gone". Lol! Too ignorant to realized they've willingly been pumped, and dumped by a dozen or so of these guys in their youth; that they'd kill for today. Only to end up old, dried up, and fat; with only their collection of cats, and icecream to console them. Ultimately dying face down in the litter box of bad decisions they refused to change...

I'm sorry you hate capitalism so much.

That was not a rational response.

 

[g5000]

We are not a polygamous society. Not even close.

A handful of anecdotes about polyamourus throuples, or whatever, does not make a polygamous society.

Every polygamous society devolves into pedophilia. Every last one.

The Jews were into pedophilia? They were a polygamous society in biblical times.

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

I'm sure bripat would be happy to tell you about Mohommed's 9 year old wife.

That's the truth, isn't it?

It is not certain. Marriage was not allowed until the onset of puberty. If the marriage was consummated when she was nine, then she hit puberty exceptionally early.

Muhammad had 11 wives.

 

[bripat9643]

Many Moslem nations allow polygamy.

Do they also practice pedophilia? According to G5000 they go hand in hand.

I'm sure bripat would be happy to tell you about Mohommed's 9 year old wife.

Isn't that pretty close to the age Mary was supposed to have been when she became pregnant with Jesus?

NINE?!?

Nope.

I have seen accounts that put it at 12...not off by much

Marriage at the age of 12-14 was quit common prior to the 19th century.

 

[Vastator]

What does it matter what some idiots believe?

When you look at it coldly and rationally, men receive no benefit from the institution, and in fact they incur huge liabilities.

Coldness and rationality are for nerds and ugly people.

Every man who has been divorced can tell you that.

I'm sorry about their low status on the evolutionary hierarchy, and that the woman coldly and rationally found a better deal.

The laws that government the relationship are all that matters. If you ignore those, then what is even the point? You can live together without being married, but women seldom go along with that.

Some people have a wedding but forgo the legal arrangement.

So no, you're conflating the legal arrangement with the marriage, union, intimacy itself. If a woman wouldn't be with a man unless he would have it officialized, then he could decline to be with her, it should be as simple as negotiating an arrangement which the couple is satisfied with, but apparently basic negotiation and social skills are a foreign concept to some couples... sigh..

Women are always looking for the next "better deal", marriage or not. As 80 per cent of divorces filed by women can attest to. But it sure is nice to have half of your former spouses assets in hand to fund her pursuit of the next Mr Right Now...

I believe your theory is correct, but how do 80% of divorces attest to it?

Simple. Women overwhelmingly choose to cut and run with half of their former spouses shit. They seldom stay single if they can help it. If that's not a testament to the reality of things; nothing is.

It's in her rational interest to do that.

If she's married to an attractive guy who's financially unstable, she should have an affair with a guy who makes more money.

If she's married to a guy with money who's boring and unromantic, she should have an affair with a guy who's more attractive and offers better genetics for her kids.

Unless a guy is both at once, there's no reason she shouldn't do what's in her rational interest for her and her offspring.

And once a man understands this basic instinct women have.; it makes handling them easier. And makes a man much less likely to bet half his lifes labor and accomplishment against it. Look at that... We agree on something. Whoda' thunk it?