A case for polygamy

[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.

That was not a rational response.

Why should a woman stay with a loser when more evolutionarily fit varieties are available to her liking?

 

[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.

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

The low view men on this forum have of women is just plain alarming sometimes. I hope none of you have daughters and treat them this way.

Who Cheats More? The Demographics of Infidelity in America

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're making a lot assumptions that aren't justified. Your assumption that Muhammad observed such norms is the major one.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The low view men on this forum have of women is just plain alarming sometimes. I hope none of you have daughters and treat them this way.

Who Cheats More? The Demographics of Infidelity in America

View attachment 294365

What do men gain from divorce?

 

[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.

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?

No reason you should be allowed to live if you don't offer something of value, either money or genes, which you seem to admit yourself.

So why should the remainder of the men let you live autonomously if you admit you don't have enough value either in money or genetics to offer anything to women - if anything, men like that could just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population. Cold, calculated, and rational.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why should a woman stay with a loser when more evolutionarily fit varieties are available to her liking?

You aren't making a good case for men to get married.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No reason you should be allowed to live if you don't offer something of value, either money or genes, which you seem to admit yourself.

So why should the remainder of the men let you live autonomously if you admit you don't have enough value either in money or genetics to offer anything to women - if anything, men like that could just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population.

Ever heard of something called "rights?"

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

The low view men on this forum have of women is just plain alarming sometimes. I hope none of you have daughters and treat them this way.

Who Cheats More? The Demographics of Infidelity in America

View attachment 294365

What do men gain from divorce?

The same thing women do.

 

[Questioner]

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?

No reason you should be allowed to live if you don't offer something of value, either money or genes, which you seem to admit yourself.

So why should the remainder of the men let you live autonomously if you admit you don't have enough value either in money or genetics to offer anything to women - if anything, men like that could just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population.

Ever heard of something called "rights?"

A socialist notion, why should men who admit they don't have anything financially or genetically to offer women have the same "rights" as the top 1% of men, such as Warren Buffet?

 

[Questioner]

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.

Why should a woman stay with a loser when more evolutionarily fit varieties are available to her liking?

You aren't making a good case for men to get married.

I'm making a case for why men who admit they don't offer enough value to women to get married should just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population.

Rights are for sissies and socialists who just hate capitalism. If you don't produce good income, and don't produce good sperm, then die, mofo.

 

[Vastator]

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?

Trying to be quick about it... I could only find this slightly older study which pegs it at 25 percent. But the recent one I just recently read moved to up to a third...

Surprise! 1-in-25 Dads Not the Real Father | Live Science

 

[g5000]

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.

You're making a lot assumptions that aren't justified. Your assumption that Muhammad observed such norms is the major one.

There is no empirical evidence Aisha was nine.

That she was nine IS an assumption.

 

[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.

Why should a woman stay with a loser when more evolutionarily fit varieties are available to her liking?

Because of the value of having a stable family unit.



I saw an interview once with one of the huge basketball stars of the recent past. NOt Wilt Chamberlin...


I think Shaq. He was pretty honest about how sad he was to not be living with his children, because his behavior led to the end of his marriage and thus broke up his family.



And I felt bad for this rich and famous and stupidly tall man. My life is better than his, because I did not ruin my family and drive away my wife and child because of my inability to keep my dick in my pants.



My wife and child both live with me, and look up to me. Neither hates me, or looks at me with contempt.


That is worth more than all the money and one night stands in the world.

 

[g5000]

It's just plan common sense that polygamous societies devolve into pedophilia.

If the male-to-female ratio is 1:1, and the husband-to-wife ratio is 1:2 (or greater), then child brides become mathematically inevitable.

 

[Vastator]

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?

No reason you should be allowed to live if you don't offer something of value, either money or genes, which you seem to admit yourself.

So why should the remainder of the men let you live autonomously if you admit you don't have enough value either in money or genetics to offer anything to women - if anything, men like that could just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population. Cold, calculated, and rational.

Too late feminazi. I've already reproduced and am seeing my genetic contribution thrive. It just wont directly be benefiting your type. Nor can you leverage the power to make your fantasy a reality. Funny you think other men would throw their own lives away, trying to kill me, on your behalf. You truly are delusional...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

Trying to be quick about it... I could only find this slightly older study which pegs it at 25 percent. But the recent one I just recently read moved to up to a third...

Surprise! 1-in-25 Dads Not the Real Father | Live Science

Thanks.

I found this one.

New DNA Studies Debunk Misconceptions About Paternal Relationships

"Now that DNA testing is becoming cheaper and easier, we can get better numbers. A couple of recent studies from Western Europe suggest that somewhere between 0.6 and 0.9 percent of men are unknowingly raising another man’s child."

 

[Vastator]

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?

No reason you should be allowed to live if you don't offer something of value, either money or genes, which you seem to admit yourself.

So why should the remainder of the men let you live autonomously if you admit you don't have enough value either in money or genetics to offer anything to women - if anything, men like that could just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population.

Ever heard of something called "rights?"

A socialist notion, why should men who admit they don't have anything financially or genetically to offer women have the same "rights" as the top 1% of men, such as Warren Buffet?

Youre the only one saying anyone made such a claim. Typical desperate feminist shaming tactics that haven't worked for at least a decade. Unless of course you'd like to provide a quote ...

 

[Questioner]

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?

No reason you should be allowed to live if you don't offer something of value, either money or genes, which you seem to admit yourself.

So why should the remainder of the men let you live autonomously if you admit you don't have enough value either in money or genetics to offer anything to women - if anything, men like that could just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population. Cold, calculated, and rational.

Too late feminazi. I've already reproduced and am seeing my genetic contribution thrive. It just wont directly be benefiting your type. Nor can you leverage the power to make your fantasy a reality. Funny you think other men would throw their own lives away, trying to kill me, on your behalf. You truly are delusional...

I'm sorry you think capitalism is feminazi.

Women dumping losers for more attractive mates with better financial or genetic prospects benefits the survival and fitness of the species, there's no reason she should restrain her rational self interest to find better mates just because of your "feewings". Heh.

 

[Questioner]

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?

No reason you should be allowed to live if you don't offer something of value, either money or genes, which you seem to admit yourself.

So why should the remainder of the men let you live autonomously if you admit you don't have enough value either in money or genetics to offer anything to women - if anything, men like that could just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population.

Ever heard of something called "rights?"

A socialist notion, why should men who admit they don't have anything financially or genetically to offer women have the same "rights" as the top 1% of men, such as Warren Buffet?

Your the only one saying anyone made such a claim. Typical desperate feminist shaming ta tics that haven't worked for at least a decade. Unless of course you'd like to provide a quote ...

You're arguing that capitalism is feminist, and women should be more "egalitarian" and stay with a man even when he isn't financially or genetically in her best interest, How naïve.

As an entrepreneur, I've been hit on by married women and been "nice" enough to say no when I learned they were married, and no from a cold, rational perspective I don't blame them for wanting a better offer when they are probably married to some whiny man-child who spends more time looking at porn than he does making love to his wife, or some bitchy little "social justice warrior" who wonders why women would cheat with Trump, when if she was unfortunate enough to be married to him, the reasons would be patently obvious..

Sorry that "coldness and rationality" isn't all it's cracked up to be after all. Make up your mind.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Why should a woman stay with a loser when more evolutionarily fit varieties are available to her liking?

You aren't making a good case for men to get married.

I'm making a case for why men who admit they don't offer enough value to women to get married should just be eliminated and reduce the surplus population.

Rights are for sissies and socialists who just hate capitalism.

No one gives a shit about you moron theories. I'm not surprised at your contempt for rights.