Polygamy and polyamory for men in a healthy society, including traditionalist

[WilliamSmith]

Extremely strong and healthy ancient cultures often had successful masculine men practice polygamy: China, for example.
Like that Judge Dee from the Robert Van Gulik books, an upstanding traditional Confucian gentleman and celebrated public official fighting corruption, and he had four wives if I remember right.
It's a fictional example, but a real concept: Men who were successful with resources to support a large family could marry multiple women and build large healthy and happy families.

There's probably other good examples, but I'm not sure that's even vitally essential, because I think the advantages are obvious:

+ Higher quality men have more children rather than all the betas, lemmings, and sheep-men having them, but there's healthier genetic diversity because the men have kids with multiple women, so it's a win-win.

+ The family is stronger from having more willingly invested members, rather than the monogamy hodlers "putting all their eggs in one basket" and then ruining their marriage later and breaking up the family, which is often very painful for the children. (Or if something sad happened like the Mom or Dad died early, then they're gone, instead of still having more people in the family for support.)

The broken marriage was the story of my childhood, by the way, along with I believe more than half the people who bother getting married to begin with in the jewnited states. I'm not crying about it, but I can say from experience that it certainly would've been less painful to be either raised by a single Mom from the start, rather than see my parents marriage end in ruins at the age of 5. But being a child in a household with an alpha male father who taught you genuinely valuable skills and multiple nice women in his household would certainly have been better than being raised by a single Mom... well, at least for society's sake, LOL, sometimes those of us raised by single Moms manage to get away with being wild asses and doing more fun stuff than a strong traditional father would've let us get away with, but safe to say that isn't an argument in favor of an entire nation of single moms raising kids with no poisitve masculine role models.

I never had a single IRL role model (just 80s-90s action movie men LOL), but I think it's pretty well established that a strong positive masculine role model is a good thing for most boys to have, and a strong father figure is also an important part of the lives of many girls too.

Some of the traditionalist types get triggered by criticism of monogamy, and insist traditionalism has to involve monogamy. Some of them I think are cool as individuals, like @Outcast9428 and Varg Vikernes. However, those two examples also aren't typical beta men, so it's no surprise they can successfully attract the women, but I've never seen a single good argument in favor of why it should be monogamy for everyone, even if you like it yourself because you're actually a success with it (unlike most people).

There's also the ideal vs the real side of the question:

In theory I'm all for a genuinely loving monogamous marriage and happy nuclear family as the standard idealized option if that's what everyone really wants, but in the collapsing judaized 'West' where the "cultural marxists" targeted the nuclear for destruction, it barely even makes any sense anymore unless you happen to be really lucky and have a real loving romance (but few do).

Marriage in a 'Western' country has nothing but economic disincentives that I know of (at least for men, but there's also some women who have to pay their lousy ex-husband alimony for no good reason except how their divorce settlement turned out, so it's not helping them either in those cases).

Japan too: A perfect example of a wonderful ancient nation at risk of going down the drain because its full of beta males whose society says to default to monogamy, yet they also have a giant sleaze porn industry and legalized sleaze prostitution, so all the betas sneak off to waste money for no good reason but enriching pornographers and pimps, and completely dropped the ball on even keeping the birth rate of their ancient nation at replacement level going after their own women, and now Japan's disastrously being flooded with foreign invaders. Total disaster! If their alpha males with good $$$ had built large families and they'd even encouraged it at the societal level, they never would have this tragic dark and degraded fate Japan is now facing. I still hope maybe patriots and nationalists there can turn it around, but it's not going to be easy......

Anyway, both there and in the West, all the married people cheating and getting divorces already make a travesty out of the "institution" of marriage, so it doesn't make sense (except as a really traditional romantic gesture for people who REALLY love each other a lot, but I'm not convinced that's even common even if most married beta males and some of their sexually frustrated wives develop co-dependency relationships).

Personal opinion:
You also want to be a man with this chance you have in life and take pride in enjoying your masculinity (assuming you're born male, heheh) and the benefits that brings, not turn into one of these whipped little henpecked married men saying "my wife's gonna kill me if I don't do blahblahblah." A lot of these guys literally even let the women take control of their money and finances. Don't be these guys, LOL!!

Well there's a start to the discussion...

P.S. I think I'm more a friend of most MGTOW than not, even if you disagree with some stuff I say, but if this triggers any incels just because you're mad because you want to get laid (understandable), two comments to cheer you up:

#1 You CAN get good with women as a skill, if you want to. It's like learning boxing or something, except better because you don't actually need a partner or coach to learn to do it well. (I've learned from other men's knowledge they shared on that old newsgroup or some ebooks I found floating around as PDFs + some used books, but never paid for anything except the used books, and never learned anything from other men or went out with a male 'wingman' or whatever they call it.) If you want to learn but for some reason think all the books and theories and techniques about how to get good with women are "scams," then don't pay for any of them then!! Get them for free like I did.

#2 If you still won't do it and are just whining you want to use women as a sexual outlet, go get one of those hot looking dolls they make in Japan and China that look like real women, and soon they also will have sex robots and robot companions. (Don't know a lot about this yet, but I heard they also have AI girlfriends you can talk to now, which is awesome...)

So there are solutions for you even if you're in the learning phase right now and haven't succeeded with your goals about scoring with women yet, but have the confidence that you can get there (or like I said, if you're one of the defeatest negativity addicts, go for option#2 and get a sexy TPE doll or a sex robot companion that looks like a hot chick) .

But for society, for the sake of society and a nation? They should do healthy and patriotic polygamy with the quality men with $$$ and knowhow getting more women and keeping them happy in a large family.
China should actually go back to doing this, they also f***ed everything up with their demographics too for mostly different reasons than Japan, so their high-earning alpha men should build large families with multiple women instead of letting their monogamy hodler wives waste money shopping or other nonsense... (I do think sweet loving marriage is nice, but it's not like that has to be outlawed as an option for people who want to do it that way.)

I've also heard some patriotic Russians are starting to do it more. Guys who are already good with women, have financial resources, and love having big families with a lot of children can build stronger healthier families. The women who go for this kind of arrangement like it too.

[WilliamSmith]

Heheh, here was the other posts in the thread where @Outcast9428 went off on @NGH607 because I guess Oucast doesn't like polygamy, but I'm taking the controversial side and agreeing that polygamy can be a positive healthy thing for a society, including a traditional one:

african women are the best, in fact. Problem is monogamy. The entire beta male society allows monogamy and forbids polygamy. Thankfully the beta male scum and their NPC female counterparts are being exterminated by the vaccine.

You're just a grade A asshole, you openly wish for people's deaths and believe that you should be allowed to have a harem even if that means other men will go the rest of their lives without a wife all because having another notch on your bedpost pumps up your ego. I have no sympathy for you whining about how the laws are ruining your dream of being an exploiter of society.

You know, Somalia has lots of polygamy and no beta males. What are you waiting for? Get on a plane and fly to paradise. I even hear the cost of living there is not too bad but I'm sure, given what a tough, survivalist alpha male you are that you will be perfectly fine getting on the next flight to Mogadishu with nothing more then the clothes on your back. You don't need society's help at all, you'll figure out a way to forage and live off the land because you're very accustomed to doing things your own way and not playing by no man's rules.

Heheh, well I've given my own pitch about how polygamy isn't being an "exploiter" of society: Whining weak beta males demanding that women should either be subservient to them or else work in prostitution so that they have a sexual outlet are far guiltier of "exploiting society" (and women) than a wholesome masculine polygamist who supports a big family would be just because he has multiple wives, IMO.

Oh, also, I made this thread and my arguments because it's FOR the sake of society that I think is healthy: Outcast yelled at NGH607 as though he was having harem fantasies when he put a word in favor of polygamy in that other thread, but we already can do that (harems) without polygamy being encouraged for society's sake:
Guys who want as much sex and girlfriends as we want already can get that right now, and monogamy cultures where betas have it too easy even without acting like real men just makes it worse, because the women are easier lays since they're not even used to men who know what they're doing. I disagree with nailing married women because I think it's mean to turn other men into cucks (as well as not romantic, unpalatable, etc), but as I'm sure everyone knows, tons of other guys who practically specialize in nailing married women can do that the easiest in monogamy hodler beta male societies since there's so many frustrated wives, and monogamy doesn't work for most people, from what I see.... Like I said, I don't nail married women, so I'm not a threat to any monogamous marriages that actually do work (or breaking up the zillions of lousy ones full of cheating spouses), but I'm still not convinced they're the best model...

Some guys like Farrakhan who has 9 kids or Elon Musk do an awesome job building families with a lot of kids even where monogamy is the norm (though Musk has had multiple wives even if he keeps only marrying one of them at a time), but they're the exception.

Expanding a bit more on the ideal vs realism side of the topic:

In order to defend monogamy, I think the monogamists have to come up with strong cases where it actually works:
Scratch all jew-occupied 'Western' white countries off that list, since the population of judaized beta males and karens is collapsing, and they're being wiped out by the mass immigration brought in by the jews, communist woke libs, and christians.
Also, I didn't mean to be too hard on the beta males but I pointed out they CAN learn to get good with women if they try. But a lot of other men are not just betas, they are lowlifes and should not be having children at all: 'Western' society is now filled with useless nasty little weak but mean unkind porno and drug addicted men, faggots, psychotic transexuals, jews, and other scum, and all those roaches and maggots should ideally not even be having any children at all.
It makes no sense to have some notion as many single women should be left available withering on the vine while all these pussies and faggots won't even do anything, and a lot of girls don't even get asked out anymore.

Japan is also becoming a mess for similar reasons, like I mentioned in the first post: Japan is one of the most wonderful and unique ancient nations in the world, but now it's literally endangered because it was filled with repressed beta males flooded in a culture of readily available pornography and sleazy legalized prostitution, but also institutionalized monogamy on top of that in a society filled with rules and social pressures, the worst possible combination! This massively contributed to their native Japanese birth rate collapsing as all the betas shuffled off in bubbles of social introversion and obedience to "society" and got their outlet fapping over perverted pornos or went to waste money at a soap parlor, and now the enemies of Japan have flooded the country full of foreigners and the nation's in danger of being run down the tubes. Already there's so many foreigners in there, Japan will probably never be the same again. I do give their ultranationalists a big thumbs up and wish them the best, but this is the ugly reality from those factors.
If they had all their alpha males with financial resources and the skills to get the women being encouraged to build large strong families, that obviously would've been better!

Also, Japan's case shoots down the argument that there should supposedly be 1:1 match-ups by having a huge stock of women waiting in reserve until they can be matched up with 1 little man each for the sake of men and/or monogamy, because all the men milling around like a bunch of betas over there didn't get the job done, since they didn't even go after their own women enough to keep the birth rate at replacement level.

Well that's enough for now, but obviously that's my view! I might be gone a few days but look forward to more spirited discussion later.

[Cornfed]

The obvious problem is that there aren't enough females to go around. It is easiest to see the harm of this when you have polygamists within a monogamous host society - the early Mormons for example. What happens is that middle-aged men with status will use their advantage to marry young females and boot out the young men as potential rivals, so you have waves of pissed off young men being unleashed onto the host society, but the polygamists retain all the females. If these men find wives, that means that perfectly decent men in the host society who would have been husbands and fathers miss out, so the polygamists are breeding at their expense while cannibalising their human capital, like a kind of parasite that weakens and eventually kills its host. It is not surprising that the host population was not best pleased with this.

[Cornfed]

#1 You CAN get good with women as a skill, if you want to.

You seem to be suggesting that society should be radically feminist and allow females to choose who to breed with based on whether the men entertain them in some way and that men should devote energy to this. Such a society is doomed to collapse in short order anyway so is not really worth talking about.

[Outcast9428]

@WilliamSmith

First of all, no modern society in Europe or North America counts as monogamous. North America, South America, and Europe practice non-institutionalized polygamy with the prevalence of casual sex and hostility towards monogamy expressed by a large percentage of our population.

All true monogamous societies have been successful. The real question is whether you can find a single polygamous society that isn't a dysfunctional shitshow. Every single polygamous society that has ever existed has been rife with war, criminal violence, and unrest. The economist has an article that goes into detail on this.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220209223 ... my-and-war

You can't use Ancient civilizations as an example for this precise reason. Pretty much every Ancient civilization has been an absolute horrorshow rife with extremely brutal warfare and rampant violent crime. I may love Asia but Ancient China is definitely included in that. Ancient China was almost constantly at war through the entire Spring and Autumn as well as the appropriately named "Warring States Period." This period of history lasted from 770 BC to 220 BC so it was basically 550 years of almost constant warfare. Most of the deadliest wars in all of human history happened in China. The Three Kingdoms period caused another extremely bloody era of human history. The 100 years of war from 180 AD to 280 AD caused the population of China to drop from 60 million to approximately 20 million people. Another extremely bloody era of Chinese history was the An Lushan Rebellion occurring from 755 AD to 763 AD. During these seven years, a minimum of 13 million people were slaughtered but some estimates show that as many as 40 million people died in these years.

Ancient societies in the Middle East didn't pile up the same kind of numbers that China did but the methods of warfare were equally brutal if not worse. The Bible notoriously documents numerous instances of genocide occurring. Warfare tactics like these were not unusual. It was common when a city was conquered for the entire male population above a certain age to be exterminated while the women and children were enslaved. The Neo-Assyrian Empire was especially known for brutal tactics. Rebelling cities would have all their nobles skinned alive and their skins draped over the walls of the city while the average citizens would be impaled on stakes outside the city walls.

One may ask what polygamy has to do with all this brutality and violence. The first thing to understand is that polygamy was really extreme in the Ancient world. Single kings and emperors were occasionally known to have had 1,000 wives and concubines. The reason for this being that there was no limit at all on how many wives or concubines the aristocrats and royalty of society could have in either the Middle East or China. Its not like there are any number available to us, but the percentage of men who had no hope of ever marrying was huge. Young, unmarried men are a very problematic demographic for any civilization. They tend to get involved in criminal activities or may even start rebellions and riots. So if you're the king of an Ancient civilization and you want 100 wives but don't know what to do with all the angry young men you've deprived of a wife, the logical conclusion is to send them to war. You could potentially become more powerful and beat your enemies, and the unmarried men are either going to die in combat or you can give them the women of the conquered territory.

It helps to kill all the men above a certain age in a city because you prevent rebellion from occurring if all the men who could potentially fight are dead. But often times, once the men were dead, the soldiers who killed them would take the dead men's wives as their own.

In modern polygamous nations, warfare, crime, and violence are still major problems compared to the rest of the world. This is a map showing all societies in the world right now that have institutionalized polygamy...



One thing worth pointing out is that every single country in the Middle East that falls into the darker green category are known for producing a disproportionate number of terrorists compared to other Middle Eastern countries. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, and Afghanistan all produce a lot of terrorists compared to other Middle Eastern countries. Syria and Iraq surprisingly don't, its just that those countries are unstable so they're where all the terrorists flock to.

While the kind of behavior I've described is common to polygamous societies. It is much more rare in monogamous societies. Medieval Europe wasn't always a peaceful paradise, but the amount of death that wars caused in Medieval Europe was nowhere near as high as it was in previous, polygamous societies. Medieval societies struggled to build armies that were larger then 10,000 men. The First Crusade created the largest army that Medieval Europe ever fielded at 60,000 troops and they could only do that by calling every single Christian in Europe to join the crusade, as well as offer eternal salvation to anyone who joined, including violent criminals who had murdered or raped in their past. 60,000 soldiers would be scoffed at by Ancient Chinese generals during the warring states period who regularly fielded armies of 100,000 or more despite only having 1/7 of China's 50 million people under their rule. During the Goguryeo-Sui war, the Sui Dynasty managed to field 1 million soldiers.

Most notably, however, widespread mass killings of civilian populations virtually disappeared. Atrocities against civilians on a small scale remained. But mass killings became confined only to the most vicious of holy wars. Medieval European societies struggled to motivate peasants to fight in armed conflict as they were seen by most as petty squabbles between kings and lords that did not concern typical civilians. Ancient civilizations on the other hand, could either draw upon their angry, unmarried young men, or they could draw upon married men who were terrified of what would happen to their country if an invading force managed to succeed.

J.D Unwin in his book "Sex and Culture" found that monogamy is absolutely essential for building an advanced civilization and that every one of the 96 societies he studied, uncivilized or civilized, that abandoned monogamy subsequently collapsed and that every time a civilization in history flourished and advanced, it was under the conditions of monogamy...



Even people who are genetically predisposed to violence are less likely to express those genes when married. Being married significantly reduces a man's likelihood of falling into delinquency and crime.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631445/

Last but not least, depriving people of marital opportunities because a small minority of men want multiple wives is extremely cruel to the men who get left out and will be expected to never have a wife in their life. It is essentially the same as condemning large portions of the male population to death through sheer misery and unhappiness even if it doesn't drive them to starting wars or murdering people like many of their ancient ancestors did.

Overall rises in white mortality is limited almost exclusively to those who are not married. The decline of marriage is cited as a key factor in "despair" effecting white communities.
https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/8374m

Marriage has a protective effect on survival.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 011-0032-5

Single men die younger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1506209.stm

Finding a romantic partner and family related goals contribute significantly to "meaning in life."
https://www.psypost.org/2020/01/new-psy ... life-55163

Marriage is associated with a 2.4 higher chance of early recovery from depression.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaps ... cle/206644

Warm contact with intimate partners increases people’s ability to handle stressful events.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 0309596065

Debunking earlier research claiming that sex roles are disadvantageous to women because of marriage, new research found that the emotional benefits of marriage apply to both sexes.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/f ... 086/339225

A study on college students in committed relationships found that they experienced significant mental health benefits compared to singles. In addition, the following is reported in the study.

“Being married is linked to better physical health outcomes including lower morbidity and mortality (Lillard & Waite, 1995). Married couples are less likely to suffer from longterm medical conditions (e.g., cancer, spinal cord injury) and they have faster recovery rates and better chances at surviving when they do (Coombs, 1991; Goodwin, Hunt, Key, & Samet, 1987; Putzke, Elliot, & Richards, 2001). Similarly, mortality rates are lower for married individuals in causes of death that have a behavioral component such as lung cancer, cirrhosis of the liver, suicide, and accidents (Gove, 1973; Litwak et al., 1989; Smith, Mercy, & Conn, 1988; Sudhir Kumar, Mohan, Ranjith, & Chandrasekaran, 2006). With regard to cardiac health, research has demonstrated that body mass index (BMI) and changes in BMI over time are associated for married partners (Jeffery & Rick, 2002) and that married individuals, especially those in happy marriages, have better mortality rates for coronary diseases (Coyne et al., 2001; for review, see Hemingway & Marmot, 1999).

Marital status has also been consistently associated with better mental health. Compared with their married counterparts, single 1 2 S. R. Braithwaite, R. Delevi, and F. D. Fincham men and women have higher levels of depression, anxiety, mood disorders, adjustment problems, and other forms of psychological distress (Coombs, 1991; Cotten, 1999; Simon, 2002). Marital status has also been shown to be an important predictor of alcoholism and drinking problems (Hradilova, 2005), with unmarried people experiencing a higher rate of alcohol-related problems (Woodruff, Guze, & Clayton, 1972). In short, across a number of different indices, there is strong and consistent empirical evidence that married people experience better physical and psychological well-being than their unmarried counterparts.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... e_students

A study on singles found that hardly anyone is single by choice and “suggest that the positive image of singlehood needs to be reconsidered.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub

Individuals who have never married are twice as likely to die from heart disease.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 7313475893

In addition to all the effects marriage and sexual satisfaction have on people’s well being, it has been found that unhappiness is directly correlated with economic unproductivity.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-00074-1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11967432/

[Outcast9428]

On a micro scale, I believe that any man deserving of leadership takes care of his tribe.

If a man is truly such a lowlife that he cannot be trusted to marry a woman, he will be in prison. For the milder variants of lowlifes, however, there are lowlife women as well whom such men are perfectly suitable for. A man who cannot control his vices ought to be paired up with a woman who also cannot control her vices. Of course they will have a difficult life ahead of them but that's the life they chose. If they wish to enjoy a more stable life they will learn to control their vices and hopefully overcome them together. Men who are just pathetic will not have enough testosterone to create the fertility necessary to conceive a child in the first place. Either that or they'll conceive one child and that'll be it. Otherwise, any leader should attempt to teach his followers to be virtuous enough that they'll be worthy of marriage. By a "leader" I am also talking about the leaders of countries. Viktor Orban is an example of such. Viktor Orban is trying to help as many people in his country get married as he can and he knows that in order to do that, it is essential to teach them proper morals which he is using the education system to accomplish.

[Lucas88]

Wow! This is a good discussion, guys!

I've read through the arguments of both @WilliamSmith and @Outcast9428 and even pondered over them while I was in the shower fantasizing about being a hypermasculine ancient warlord, conquering enemy people's and taking all of their sexy women for myself. Once that fantasy was over and I got all of the desire for conquest and hot passionate harems out of my system, I came back to my computer and reread your respective posts.

I think that you both make some good points.

WilliamSmith argues that institutionalized monogamy unfairly ties many women to undesirable beta males and ultimately results in mass dissatisfaction for many. He also asserts that those women would be better off with worthier and more viable men not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the future offspring while the beta lowlifes who occupy the lower rungs of masculine desirability should just be abandoned to loneliness.

Outcast on the other hand counterargues that institutionalized polygamy increases the numbers of wifeless men and incels and therefore leads to greater levels of violence and social instability in the long run. He also makes the ethical argument that polygamists depriving less successful men of the opportunity to find a wife is morally cruel.

I can't give a comprehensive answer to the problem at hand since a topic of this level of social magnitude doesn't have any easy solution but I can at least give my own thoughts on the subject of marriage as I see it today.

I'll use this quote from WilliamSmith's post as my starting point:

There's also the ideal vs the real side of the question:

In theory I'm all for a genuinely loving monogamous marriage and happy nuclear family as the standard idealized option if that's what everyone really wants, but in the collapsing judaized 'West' where the "cultural marxists" targeted the nuclear for destruction, it barely even makes any sense anymore unless you happen to be really lucky and have a real loving romance (but few do).

Marriage in a 'Western' country has nothing but economic disincentives that I know of (at least for men, but there's also some women who have to pay their lousy ex-husband alimony for no good reason except how their divorce settlement turned out, so it's not helping them either in those cases).

Japan too: A perfect example of a wonderful ancient nation at risk of going down the drain because its full of beta males whose society says to default to monogamy, yet they also have a giant sleaze porn industry and legalized sleaze prostitution, so all the betas sneak off to waste money for no good reason but enriching pornographers and pimps, and completely dropped the ball on even keeping the birth rate of their ancient nation at replacement level going after their own women, and now Japan's disastrously being flooded with foreign invaders. Total disaster! If their alpha males with good $$$ had built large families and they'd even encouraged it at the societal level, they never would have this tragic dark and degraded fate Japan is now facing. I still hope maybe patriots and nationalists there can turn it around, but it's not going to be easy......

Anyway, both there and in the West, all the married people cheating and getting divorces already make a travesty out of the "institution" of marriage, so it doesn't make sense (except as a really traditional romantic gesture for people who REALLY love each other a lot, but I'm not convinced that's even common even if most married beta males and some of their sexually frustrated wives develop co-dependency relationships).

I myself am an extreme idealist. I'm only willing to consider monogamy if I find my perfect soulmate in a relationship based on deep love on a spiritual level and genuine compatibility. Outside of that I am not willing to marry just any girl I can get just for the sake of having a wife and producing offspring. If I never find my perfect soulmate and true love then I'd rather just be alone.

I have no interest in traditional marriage if it isn't with a perfect soulmate. Indeed I believe that monogamy in the context of traditional society is simply an overrated dud anyway and always has been. In the case that my own idealistic conditions aren't met I want no part of it at all.

Beyond all of the idealization of monogamy on the part of traditionalists of various kinds, a large number of marriages are actually just miserable deadwood marriages among people who are not really compatible or who don't really love each other and are together only for the sake of the kids or economic reasons. I'm sure we all know of cases like this. I know I do. Many married men who I know hate their wives. They talk shit about them all the time and admit that they don't get any sex from her in their loveless marriage. Some of them who are more honest about their situation satisfy their sexual needs through prostitutes and plenty of the dissatisfied wives have affairs of their own too. Often the wife sees the husband as merely the breadwinner/cash cow. When he's not around she's sleeping with other guys who she finds more physically desirable. Traditional marriage is plagued with dissatisfaction and frustration. No wonder divorce rates are so high today!

But the social stability aspect of monogamy which Outcast mentions is undeniable. In modern industrial societies monogamy contributed greatly to social harmony, productivity and the guarantee of offspring. Droves of dissatisfied couples just had to take one for the team or so they supposed.

In the case that I don't find my perfect soulmate or a marriage based on true love and I desire to have children, I'll just get a decent Latin American woman knocked up and then pay her child support and have the kid at my house on certain days of the week, ideally with a woman who wants kids but who at the same time doesn't care about having a man. This almost happened to me in real life. A few years after separating from my Peruvian girlfriend she called me on Skype and told me that she wanted me to impregnate her because she was desperate to have a kid. She explained to me that she would impose on me no responsibilities whatsoever if I did for her this favor. She didn't even want child support since her family are loaded anyway. Anyway, I'd rather do it this way. I don't want to be married to a woman whom I don't even love just for the sake of the kids nor do I wish to answer to a woman at all. I want to be able to do whatever I want, to f**k whomever I want, to be free from financial obligations to any wife, and not to run the risk of losing any properties of mine in the case of a costly divorce. I don't want to sacrifice myself to some deadwood marriage. I'd rather leave that shit to the slavish normie betas!

As for the future of marriage on a societal level, I don't think that society is going to collapse any time soon due to its incel problem. The incels and wifeless men of today have been stripped of their masculine warlike instincts and are now just too pussified to lead a full-scale rebellion or commit acts of violence barring a few rare incidents of incel violence. In most cases all they do is bitch about women on manosphere websites. Those men are virtually no threat whatsoever. Most of them will just continue to play videogames while the desirable alphas bang chicks left, right and center.

Moreover, we no longer live in the kind of developing industrial societies which thrived due to monogamy and self-sacrifice. We now live in advanced post-industrial societies in which technology is evolving at an exponential rate, automation is right on the doorstep and the masses of beta male wage drones are becoming increasingly superfluous in the labor market. The more society advances in this direction the less women need a regular beta breadwinner to support them. This means that less women need to put up with unsatisfying deadwood marriages for economic motives like they did in previous decades. In this day and age beta provider game is becoming increasingly less viable. Now if men want to attract women they need to make themselves attractive to them in other ways (I personally favor gym-maxxing/developing an attractive athletic body in order to tap into their primeval female instincts).

That leaves us with the ethical concern of large numbers of men being left without a wife. It's sad and I feel bad for such men. I admit that I don't have the answer to this problem. Maybe all that an incel guy can do right now is take WilliamSmith's advice: learn how to attract women as much as you can.

I've often thought from a futuristic perspective about what form sexual selection will take once civilization becomes so technologically advanced that it enters a condition of post-scarcity and automation. I myself believe that in the event that we achieve such a condition sexual selection will be based primarily on more fundamental virtues (e.g., physical fitness, beauty, intelligence and creativity). With beta wage drone culture reduced or made obsolete there will probably be a revival of virtue ethics similar to those of the aristocratic cultures of the ancient world. Those who focus more of physical improvement, sexual desirability and interesting creative pursuits will be the ones to get the girls. This is an idea which I've still not fully fleshed out but which I might write more about later.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88 and @WilliamSmith Forget about the concerns regarding women being tied to undesirable betas. The low status women in harems are treated 10x worse. Many times, the ancient kings and aristocrats who amassed these giant harems ended up completely neglecting 90% of the women in their harem and paid almost all their attention to their favorite wife. This happens even in smaller harems of 2 or 3 girls. The favorite wife ends up hogging the vast majority of the man's attention. This gets bad enough in some harems that the lower status wife either miserable knowing she's the unfavored wife. Jealousy issues are virtually impossible to avoid in a polygamous arrangement because women are very competitive and will not be satisfied with the idea of being second or third place wife. They will seek to undermine or defame the favored wife. In extreme cases, the low status wives will even end up murdering the favorite wife out of jealousy. Ramesses III may have gotten murdered by his own wife because she was angry that the favorite wife's child was going to inherit the throne instead of her child.

This is part of why I've argued that monogamy actually is natural to men and that the desire for multiple sexual partners is not a sexual thing but rather an egotistical thing. When men feel secure and are not looking for approval or respect from other people, they become monogamous because there's no reason to have sex with other women when your favorite woman is the most attractive to you, responds the best to you, and pleases you the most in bed.

WilliamSmith's belief that monogamy is unfair to women does not reconcile with the fact that polygamous societies are the most notorious countries out there for violently misogynistic marriages and cultural practices. This study found that even if you control for personal beliefs like justification of violence or education, that polygamous marriages were still more likely to result in domestic violence. Even this underestimates the correlation between polygamy and domestic violence, however, given that it doesn't account for the fact that widespread polygamy often results in a culture that justifies marital violence more often in the first place... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7321000045

In Ethiopia, 37% of women involved in a polygamous marriages displayed suicidal behavior... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8544854/. This means that women in polygamous marriages are just as suicidal as transgender people are. Traditional societies like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia usually have very low suicide rates despite their relatively high rates of poverty compared to liberal countries. This does not apply, however, to African countries who's suicide rates are among the worst in the world.

To sum up my argument, I think it says a lot that both feminists and Western/East-Asian traditionalists think polygyny is a terrible idea. For low to medium status men, it renders them eternally single and miserable resulting in widespread violence, depression, and instability. For women, most women in polygamous marriages end up neglected at best or outright abused at worst. People are only meant to satisfy the needs of one other person. Any other arrangement will result in neglect.

[MrMan]

Polygyny can't really be widespread unless a lot of men are dying for some reason, like warfare, or if a lot of men are left without wives if they are on the bottom rungs of society. If a society is half slaves, slaves can go without wives while the rich have them.

If a lot of men had harems, the supply of reasonably thin pretty women would shrink and a man seeking another wife would be left with the hefty unattractive ones.

And if you think one woman is difficult, think about how 4 or 20 of them would be. It sounds like a headache. Women who live together in one house tend to get synched up periods, so if a man had two and they had periods at the same time, what's the point of having two from a sexual perspective? I'd imagine periods were one of the motives for the development of polygamy, that and warfare.

[WilliamSmith]

@Lucas88
@Outcast9428
@Cornfed
Awesome, thanks for your contributions so far guys! I will read the rest offline and get back to you tomorrow or soon.

Let me just clarify one thing:

WilliamSmith argues that institutionalized monogamy unfairly ties many women to undesirable beta males and ultimately results in mass dissatisfaction for many. He also asserts that those women would be better off with worthier and more viable men not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the future offspring while the beta lowlifes who occupy the lower rungs of masculine desirability should just be abandoned to loneliness.

Partly, but I wasn't as merciless on the betas, especially not if they're just in the learning phase where I tried to encourage them that they can learn it and succeed with women bigtime: What I actually tried to throw in there first and foremost was that getting really good with women as a HIGHLY LEARNABLE skill, whether individual men want to get involved in learning it or not.
So I wanted to encourage the guys who are currently incels not to be hard on themselves, but believe in themselves that they definitely CAN learn it. And I think I threw in the mention that if they're going to use the BS excuses like claiming 100% of PUA/dating/seduction materials is all a "scam" if someone somewhere out there is charging money, then DON'T PAY FOR IT THEN GUYS! Get it for free. I suggest a solid review of the literature, but you could get same results just from understanding women's bodice ripper romance novels, looking for good roles models (I like James Bond with Connery or Dalton or Moore the best, but there's zillions of choices in films as long as you stay away from newer stuff with feminine men).
However, if the betas won't do anything and insist on coming up with endless excuses to not do anything, then there's no reason why "society" should have this big livestock barn full of women withering on the vine when an alpha type guy should've roped anywhere from 2-3 or maybe even 5-6 women in to build a big tribelike family. (I wouldn't presume to say exactly how many, but that's what I had in mind, roughly. It depends how many women the man actually can in fact handle harmoniously with everyone being happy about it. I've seen some macho castizos with like 6 wives (LOL) and they all looked happy. I've seen guys with anywhere between 3-5 girlfriends on rotation where the girls are all welcome to leave, but a lot stick around.

The lowlifes are different than just the betas, if they already actually want to treat women like shit, they're not being "abandoned to loneliness" because they're not actually seeking romance at all. A guy who actually wants to harm or has nil respect for women shouldn't be having children, IMO.
Some guys, of course, are frustrated right now and are sounding off being dicks but not actually harming women, so they might actually turn into successful ladies men later and then change their views, whether they become successful monogamy hodlers or successful ladies men with multiple girlfriends, or maybe even polygamists.

Oh, also, I didn't exactly say abandoned to loneliness either, because I said even the worst of them should get AI girlfriends and dolls, and soon they can also get Japanese AI sexual robot companions and other companions being designed for lonely people as we speak.
The women will also be able to get them. They may be even more avid consumers than the men!
The design of the AI will be a big deal there, because more of the men just want an object to masturbate inside of (and tend to treat real women that way too), whereas the women tend to want to at least get convincing fantasy with more lead-in that fires up their creative imagination and emotions, as well as wanting to physically get nailed after the right buildup of tension.

[Outcast9428]

This is more information on polygyny and male mortality rates...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 1000800205

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 2719859636

[Pixel--Dude]

@WilliamSmith

I've been observing this thread on and off and contemplating whether or not I should respond with my own views on this topic or let this one slide by. After some thought I've decided to share my opinion on things like monogamy and polygamy etc.

I don't have a very positive view on marriage, especially marriages encouraged by the Christian Church. They tell people that God will only approve of their relationship if they are married with his approval etc. Which presents a problem because then what happens is the system and the church make a commodity out of this couples love for one another with extortionate fees which set the couple back thousands and thousands of pounds. What I don't understand is, why do most people marry through the church with a proper Christian style wedding ceremony if the West is apparently becoming more secular? I suppose the church doesn't care as long as someone is paying for their rubbish.

Marriage is bullshit I think. At least in the traditional sense. I know others will feel different here. Maybe this is my eternal pessimism shining through, but it just seems like a robotic process where a couple exchange some vows and everyone sits in silence and it costs a fortune. Plus a contract with the state. This to me just appears robotic and unnatural and let's be frank: f***ing boring.

Compare that to a Pagan style wedding, which more people should have, especially if the West is becoming more secular now, which it is supposed to be. I'm not advocating Pagan ceremonies because I think everyone should be Pagan, but just because they feel more natural and fun.

I went to a Pagan wedding in London and honestly even though I barely knew anyone there I really enjoyed it. There was a brief ceremony where the couple's hands were bound by a ribbon (joining of the hands ceremony) They linked arms and drank mead from two goblets and then went off into the woods to consummate their marriage. Lol. Then there was food out and people smoking pot and drinking mead lol it was mint. Better than the rigid and monotonous church wedding we have encouraged by Christianity.

I don't have anything against monogamous relationships, if two people love each other and don't want anyone else I think that is very nice. Good for them. It's just the traditional sense of marriage and the commodifying love that I am opposed to. And we see this everywhere with Clinton's cards, expensive engagement rings, ridiculous church fees and florists and catering and all the other expensive shit that comes hand in hand with the traditional church wedding.

I know @Outcast9428 argues that married people function better than promiscuous people etc. He even provides evidence which suggests this is the case. But I however, don't blame promiscuity or believe marriage is the answer to such high levels of dysfunction in society. I think the problem is society itself. Especially in western cultures now where this cut throat work ethic is instilled into so many. This idea that you need to get ahead and be the best etc. In America I read that 50% of marriages end in divorce? Why is that? Did they not really love each other? Or is it more likely that pressures of society as well as unrealistic expectations about marriage from both partners cause disillusionment. This is all because of society. Not promiscuity.

I don't have an opinion on polygamy. I can't cope with the hysterical ramblings and possessive attitudes of one woman, let alone several! But I see the point about this not being conducive to normal men with lower SMV who will find it even harder to find a wife. Plus, I spoke with @Lucas88 who told me that in some cases in polygamous marriages some wives are neglected and can even end up murdering the favoured wife. I can't say too much about this, but the problems it could cause are pretty much apparent.

Eliminating marriage from the equation altogether I would like to ask what differentiates a monogamous couple who love each other and a monogamous married couple? What changes aside from a contract?

With polyamoury I think this is actually an interesting outlook. A relationship with several partners, who are all consenting partners would be ideal for some people and I see no problem with it at all. If everyone went into life believing that there is a soul mate out there for them then there would inevitably be lots of people left out since the ratio between men and women isn't equal. Plus some people can't be arsed with all the shit that comes with living with a partner and doing everything together all the time. Some people value their own space and individuality as well as time shared with a significant other. This isn't something which should be seen as a negative, but rather a difference of opinion and alternate preferences. I see nothing immoral about polyamoury at all. In fact I don't see why we couldn't live in a society where monogamous relationships and polyamourous relationships exist together. Something which suits everyone.

[WilliamSmith]

Good post from @Outcast9428 with another word in favor of monogamy (brought it in from a different thread where I went off on a drunk tirade about jews in the 1950s thread, when I ended up without a woman on a night I expected to have one and was a little lost as a result, LOL):

@WilliamSmith It wouldn't be much of an internet forum if we couldn't go on ill advised, crazy rants every now and then would it

I don't like waking up or going to bed without a woman either. There's a reason why I've become more grumpy since my girlfriend broke up with me.

underscores how monogamy definitely isn't a good idea for me

Quite the opposite. It underscores exactly why you need monogamy. A wife is the ultimate "live in girlfriend." The way monogamy works is that one person is in charge of satisfying all your needs, and you're in charge of satisfying all their needs. You go to bed with her every night, wake up with her every morning, and come back to her every evening. You never have to go without your partner unless you are at work. The promiscuous/polyamorous lifestyle on the other hand, is built for people who want to pursue other things in life and aren't obsessive about their romantic partner the way monogamous people are. Promiscuity/polyamory is designed so that the women you're with can put you on a back burner and prioritize other things like their career and hobbies. Monogamy is designed for people who prioritize their romantic partner above everything else.

That's why I want my future wife to be a housewife so badly. Because a girl being a housewife is the ultimate act of saying "you're the most important thing in my life and I am putting myself in your care." I don't like the idea of a career coming before me or even being a close second. Cause I'm never going to be putting my career or hobbies above my wife. She'll always be #1 to me, and the only kind of girl who would like that is a girl who makes me her #1.

I like the sentiment, I respect the philosophy here.

Strictly speaking, though, I don't think it quite proves I need monogamy: As always I am still open to romances escalating to a level of true romantic love, despite feeling it's a mistake to try to force that to happen or "roleplay" based on pure idealism, even if the idealism is positive.......
But also, having multiple women is partly a compromise so that a passionate man like myself doesn't get "obsessive" about women, which isn't necessarily what they or I really want, deeper down: Women want to be desired and appreciated as well as getting their brains screwed out by the man they like, but the dynamics of your psychology really change a lot if you have at least 2 women at a time even if you have deep romance with one of them. With only one woman, the "hunger" gets a little more intense and moves things away from total appreciation of the woman toward a "projection" of more intense desires and also opening the door to the negative sides like possessiveness or jealousy, which do not enter the picture if you accept multiple girlfriends have their own lives and aren't bothered by that since you have enough other women, LOL. (Not to mention the damn high risk to your own emotional well being getting smashed up if things don't work out well or you somehow lost each other)....

But on the more mundane side: If it had been my one wife who had an issue and wasn't able to get over to my place, then I'd still have ended up cast adrift like I was the other night anyway, messing around on the internet late at night and then being triggered by 1950s types talking about the supposed desirability of keeping women subservient or "in the kitchen", and going on a giant drunken rant about jews conning anglocucks into mass-murdering for them in the world wars prior to utterly destroying anglo society like they've now done......

I mean, you can't argue with the #s: If I'd had more girlfriends living in or near at hand in the location, not less, then I'd have been unleashing my passions to please them, rather than being at a loose end and going off an a late-night tirade against war-mongering satanic jews, then waking up along with a splitting hangover...

I've got a feeling @Outcast9428 is going to find a good future in Asia that fits his values for traditional culture. I myself have just had my life path go so heavily into the much-reviled "rugged individualism" that a more collectivist path doesn't seem likely: Starting with my separation from the surrounding culture, my ardent Robert E Howard barbarian man passions, also possibly some stuff that's "in the blood" (speculative, but I have pioneer fighters and prospectors in my ancestral tree to be sure), and then even more when I started reading PUA stuff and studying bodice ripper romances and studying the early James Bond films to hone my skills to get women (and always wanted to do that alone only, not with male partners), reading success books and embracing the lone wolf lifestyle... there's no going back at this point!

I'm so into it at this point that I'm planning to live fulltime on a catamaran or trimaran (or maybe a monohull, but let's make that: a boat) so I can sail around trying to stay free.

On that note, though, Outcast9428 could say monogamy is superior if you live on a boat, since the space belowdecks is so tight that you'd better have truly warm and harmonious relations with your 1 (or maybe 2 ) women in there since you don't have much room, and would probably drive each other crazy otherwise, LOL.

But if I'm into the chips and so are my women, we can get ourselves a whole fleet though, then each woman can have her own boat too and we can race each other over the high seas for fun.

Bonus metaphysical stuff:
I actually think we all have *spiritual* gender opposite soulmates that are linked to our energy bodies, and that a lot of the issues with anima projection onto individual women is often a manifestation of our inner spiritual knowledge of that.
I don't have any religious beliefs or see the logic in "faith," personally, but got close enough to an NDE once and had some other experiences where the old Germanic or Norse concept of the "Fylgja" became convincing to me.
Do you happen to know anything about that from your knowledge of Europe, by the way? It's a theoretically thorny issue when religion comes into the picture, but that stuff comes from our early pre-Christian pagan lore to be sure (the goddess Freya and the kundalini and so on where this was known to the ancient Indian/Aryan traditions as well), but I think there was a strong amount of lore that got carried over via what's been termed the Germanification of Christianity, where the old traditions and metaphysical lore got woven in to new forms inside the Vatican and Europe to avoid total eradication...
@Lucas88 and @Pixel--Dude sound like they studied more of that old lore vs the agenda of Abrahamic religions. (I'm in favor of us all getting along with the "people of the book," in theory, as long as they're not in the psychotic synagogue of satan anti-gentilism camp, but still curious what each of the independent thinkers here might know on the subject...)

[Lucas88]

Bonus metaphysical stuff:
I actually think we all have *spiritual* gender opposite soulmates that are linked to our energy bodies, and that a lot of the issues with anima projection onto individual women is often a manifestation of our inner spiritual knowledge of that.
I don't have any religious beliefs or see the logic in "faith," personally, but got close enough to an NDE once and had some other experiences where the old Germanic or Norse concept of the "Fylgja" became convincing to me.
Do you happen to know anything about that from your knowledge of Europe, by the way? It's a theoretically thorny issue when religion comes into the picture, but that stuff comes from our early pre-Christian pagan lore to be sure (the goddess Freya and the kundalini and so on where this was known to the ancient Indian/Aryan traditions as well), but I think there was a strong amount of lore that got carried over via what's been termed the Germanification of Christianity, where the old traditions and metaphysical lore got woven in to new forms inside the Vatican and Europe to avoid total eradication...
@Lucas88 and @Pixel--Dude sound like they studied more of that old lore vs the agenda of Abrahamic religions. (I'm in favor of us all getting along with the "people of the book," in theory, as long as they're not in the psychotic synagogue of satan anti-gentilism camp, but still curious what each of the independent thinkers here might know on the subject...)

NDEs are a topic which has interested me for over a decade. I first came across NDEs in a well-made old-school documentary which I found on the internet in the very early 2010s and have read various books and listened to various talks on them since then. I believe that those experiences are real supernatural encounters with a more subtle spiritual world from which the soul incarnates and to which it returns upon bodily death as evidenced by the many instances of veridical perception of physical events from an out-of-body perspective.

While I believe that NDEs do indeed provide us a glimpse into nonphysical reality beyond the material world, I wouldn't trust any of the beings who appear to the departed on the other side whether they come to you as Jesus, Buddha or some deceased relative. I'm of the view that the Earth's astral is controlled by hostile malevolent entities (the Judeo-Christian "angels" or the New Age "Pleiadeans") and that our best bet is to flee from the tunnel and the white light!

Did you have a NDE of your own, @WilliamSmith?

If so, how did it happen? Did you crash your car after driving around town drunk as hell and dropping some truth bombs about the Jews? Just kidding!

Seriously though, it would be interesting to know more about your experience if I've understood you right.

I believe that what Norse people called Fylgjas and what some modern people conceptualize as "guardian angels" or "spirit guides" or some variation thereof could be anthropomorphic manifestations of our own oversoul or higher self (the part of our soul which remains on the spiritual plane and above our incarnated ego and which as a result still has access to more transcendental spiritual awareness) which sometimes appear in our material lives in some form or another in order to reveal to us some advice or wisdom necessary for our growth and advancement on the physical plane. Such manifestations can appear in dreams or altered states of consciousness. I believe that this is what happened to me when I saw in a dream which acupuncturist I needed to see in order to receive help for my messed-up meridians following my premature Kundalini awakening. My higher self revealed to me where I needed to go for the best treatment. But since we as humans in the material world tend to interpret everything in anthropomorphic terms our higher self often manifests itself to us as a personal entity or a spirit animal or some other easily recognizable form. This is my speculative explanation for the phenomenon and the accompanying mythos.

[Pixel--Dude]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/8saU6LaMwQU[/youtube]

Here is a video of a guy who was an incel and then he met his perfect woman and married her. Later they had the idea of bringing other women into the bedroom and now they're a married couple with 7 girlfriends lol. What do you guys reckon to this?