What's wrong with polygamy? If a man is so successful that he can care for multiple partners at once he should pass on his superior genes to as many women as possible.
1 man for 1 woman creates scenarios where people with inferior genes still get to reproduce because people have to end up 'settling'.
the stupid bitches start chimping out at each other
>What's wrong with polygamy?
Nothing. A man can own as many cunts as he can afford to support. Me, I've got two. I didn't plan to but they're twins so they were a package deal.
What do you mean?
If anything women would be LESS upset because it means that the most eligible men don't disappear after their first marriage. A woman might have a shot at being 2nd or 3rd tier in his harem. The women in the harem would naturally sort themself out in a pecking order.
It would be bottem tier guys that would chimp out because their dating status would go from "fall back plan" to "unthinkable". I think most women would rather be second pick to a strong husband than 1st pick to a loser.
Kids
Kids are easier to manage with more women because they can coordinate things.
For example if there are two women they could agree to split duties in the most efficient way or least stressful way.
Polygamous wives are just single mothers that have a timeshare investment on your cock. Might as well throw your offspring in the trash, OP.
Women hate each other, they can't stand being around each other. Do you know why most polygamists have a house for each wife? Bitches can't share a kitchen.
There's no "time lose" for the male. It doesn't take long to impregnate a woman. Biology is fucking designed for this. A woman spends 6-8 months to birth a kid preciously so a man can impregenate multiple ones in a short course of time. The only limit is if he has enough money to care for all the children.
And it's nothing like single mothers. It would be YOUR kids, not someone else's (assuming you were a genetically fit enough man to be worthy of 2-3 women).
Monogomy as we know it isn't how society always was. Women are SUPPOSED to establish a fucking pecking order and that involves some conflict.
What's next you are going to say that men shouldn't fuck women because the competition makes the guys compete?
Competition is the fucking life blood of eugenics!! We want it as competative as possible.
In polygamy it's even more brutal for the men than women. There will be way more kissless virgins because many women would rather be at the bottem of a picking order to an alpha male's harem than in monogomy with an omega male.
>There's no "time lose" for the male.
Same logic applies to deadbeat dads.
>It doesn't take long to impregnate a woman.
Same logic applies to deadbeat dads
>The only limit is if he* has enough money to care for all the children.
>Switch "he" with "the government" and the same logic applies to deadbeat dads.
>It would be YOUR kids, not someone else's
Same logic applies to deadbeat dads. Your argument is trash, OP.
Did you not read the other post I made? I was just replying to his confusion about what problems women have with each other, not saying polygamy is bad because of it. Polygamy is great.
Dead beat dads are not providers. They don't serve as role models for kids (or if the kid does meet him he only learns bad habit) and they barely support their women at best. Most of them are probably from the shitty side of the gene pool so you wouldn't want them touching the women anyway.
This is about eugenics. There's correlations between money earned and pretty much any measure of intelligence you can think of. The genes of someone able to provide for 2+ women at once are much better and much more deserving than a guy who can't even provide for 1 single woman at all.
The only reason to be not like polygamy is that if you knew it was implemented you would become undateable. Only the extremely clever, the extremely hard working, or the extremely lucky men would pass their genes on.
O great. Another thread that uses words like "breeding" and "reproducing" and thinks marriage is the only way to make babies.
What is the demograph here? Just curious if you're all a bunch of devote hardcore christians or just a bunch of neets that read too much here every day
t. guy who doesn't think "breeding" is a word any normal, level-headed human should use this frequently in conversations or debates
You are the first person to use the word "breeding".
>The genes of someone able to provide for 2+ women at once are much better and much more deserving than a guy who can't even provide for 1 single woman at all.
By that logic, Gabe Newell must have the best genes on Earth. Your argument is trash, OP. Here's actual logic that will be going through your child's head if you lead such a degenerate lifestyle:
"Dad can't commit to Mom" = "Mom must be low value" = "I'm the child of a low-value woman" = "Therefore I must be a low-value child" = "This is why Dad is unwilling to provide me with the best life possible" = "Proof that I am a low-value child."
Polygamy is equivalent to single-motherhood. If you can't embody a strong model of masculinity for your children, then you can't provide. Polygamy is just an inability to commit to a woman, (with some shit-tier culture thrown on top.) Your children will carry the scars of your effeminacy for life, OP.
I have a question. Why is OP so concerned with this? Polygamy is not needed. You're only reason is because of superior genes or something? Holy fuck OP is stupid.
Chad gets all the women. We don't want a bunch of Elliott's running around it causes disorder. 1 man 1 woman is the way to go.
Monogamy is nice and I have a lot of feelings that I only want to share with one person
who has all of the money?
Your first sentence is a terrible, terrible piece of writing that shows you have no idea what correlation means.
As a result I'm not going to bother reading the rest.
It's good from a eugenics perspective. The reason we don't do it now is because people believe the biggest part of marriage isn't eugenics but "love". So since two men can love each other they can get married, and eventually people will argue a man can love a dog so they can get married.
I don't have anything against love BTW, I just think 'marriage=ultimate expression of love' is a lousy idea.
There's nothing wrong with that. It's your life and your genes. You can do whatever you. I'm just saying polygamy should be an option for people that want to approach it from a eugenic angle.
Blue = Polygamy is legal; Green = Polygamy is only legal for Muslims; Dark Blue = Polygamy is illegal, but practice is not criminalized; Black =Polygamy is illegal and practice criminalized
>but I have no idea what correlation is tho lolololol
Are you inbreed? First you were rambling about how finical success doesn't have anything to with genetics because of Gabe Newell. Now you are posting some random ass chart.
*Inbred. Verbs and adjectives are so tricky sometimes. But according to your logic, your terrible first sentence now permits me to ignore the rest of your argument!
Which is all the same because you're probably just some effeminate piece of trash who values the fantasy of "muh genetic value" over actual facts about how much it fucks over your entire family.
>As a result I'm not going to bother reading the rest.
Effeminate.