Thread 521291444

Is monogamy truly good for the human species, or is it just something that the government/society has imposed on us?

Throughout history, the most successful of men (usually kings) all had multiple wives/girlfriends, sometimes hundreds. Why is that frowned upon today by society?

>>521291444 (OP)
The most successful men still cheat on their wives, usually with twinks and trannies but with women too
Nothing has changed
Most guys marry an evil bitch who they dont love is why they cheat and stuff

>>521291444 (OP)
Hindu rape rat thread.

Polygamy, or top guys getting all the hot girls could be human's natural grouping. It is in many mammal societies.

Christianity attempted to break this and it helped civilisation happen. But nowadays we're getting a regression to this world, in secret. With less marriages, women are happy 'their ' guy has other hoes and seeing him infrequently. We're talking young women here, the relevant ones. Women love that you have other girls it's the opposite of how guys see it.

>>521291444 (OP)
Polygamy creates extreme social instability in any large society which is why it was either limited to a tiny minority of nobles or only sustainable in small frontier societies with a surplus of women because the men often die in battle or trying to survive in a homestead.

Hypergamy can work if it is somewhat regulated and “feels” fair. Just look at Bonobos. In humans it only becomes a big problem when it feels like a rigged system.

For example in the book Ringworld everyone has an allotment of 1 child but they can possibly gain further allotments for various reasons, or even lose their allotments if they are deemed unworthy.

For example genetic issues or low IQ could lose your allotment, but so can extreme poverty, losing a combat challenge in the arena, and other reasons.

There is also a lottery which can randomly give anyone additional child allotments regardless of other circumstances.

Humans in this world can live well over a century or two and this often have multiple partners over a lifetime, but some might just have one.
Because everyone lives so long and the population is growing but stable you even have some characters who end up in a relationship with like the great granddaughter of their former ex girlfriend.

>>521291841
Christian marriage comes from Roman tradition.
While divorce was common for Romans, they were not polygamous and few large societies were because it’s innately unstable.

>>521291841
Polygamy fails everytime because society needs beta males to pick up the slack and they won't do it for free

>>521292677
That's why we have Indians now

>>521292677
It only works in societies with excess females.

Maybe brutal tribal societies where young men are expected to go off and fight/work and then bring women back home if they survive, often stealing them from other tribes.
Alternatively in frontier societies like the Bedouin or the Mormons when the harsh survival situation often leads to excess male deaths and men collecting the extra women in their household to protect them (often the wives/sisters of friends and relatives who died)

Otherwise in Asia you’d sometimes see it amongst the highest nobility only because they simply could and the vast majority had no say.

Monogamy ain't a gov psyop, it's evolution's compromise. Hunter-gatherer bands were tiny. Cheating equated drama, which means dead tribe. Pair-bonding kept babies alive and dudes from killing each other over pussy. Kings with 300 wives? That's resource hoarding, not "success". 99 percent of their kids died, concubines were slaves, and empires collapsed from inbreeding/jealousy. Modern data: polycules have 2-3x breakup rate, STD roulette, and kids with 0.5 dads. Society "frowns" bc equal rights, and women aren't property anymore. You want 10 gfs? Cool, but they get 10 bfs and your wallet splits 10 ways.

>tl;dr
Monogamy equals stable kids, less violence, actual equality. Poly equals chad's wet dream, everyone's nightmare. Choose ur fighter

>>521291841
>It is in many mammal societies

Ahh so. Because horses do it. This also means that it is normal for humans to engage in the behavior?

>>521291841
>Christianity attempted to break this and it helped civilisation happen

Hmmm so you're saying that before civilization existed humans didn't form pairings. Could you show us why you believe that?

>>521291444 (OP)
>Throughout history, the most successful of men (usually kings) all had multiple wives/girlfriends, sometimes hundreds.
>1pbtid
>spouts this kind of nonsense that retards take as fact
Monotony is the foundation of civilization. Without wives and families, men either revolt or lay down and rot.

>>521292677
>Polygamy fails everytime because society needs beta males to pick up the slack and they won't do it for free
Beta males should be paired with bottom tier women in shared relationships, say 6 men to 1 woman.

>>521293584
ChatGPT: 90-95% of mammals are polygamous

>>521293945
.. as in male with multiple female mates while females go with one, and many males on forest internet

>>521291444 (OP)
Literally anyone of either gender who has a remotely developed consciousness wants to be in a loving devoted relationship with one person.

>>521293945
Okay but we are humans. We are not other animals.

Jeet's ai fantasy

>>521291444 (OP)
white people prosper under monogamy, non-whites aren't good enough parents so they have lots of kids and only a couple may live past 18, but every white kid is expected to live to old age

whites are human, non-whites just aren't

>>521294171
We are humans. Des morris had a book called the human ape which shows the similarities we have with apes and there are tonnes, from road rage to touching our noses to chest puffing, we're not too dissimilar, especially you

>>521291590
Drumpf is pushing this

>>521294171
Are we human?
Or...

>>521294239
Muslim fantasy, comes true every Friday night at the mosque ;)

>>521294496
Are we dancer...

>>521294424
Okay but you're in here saying that

Other animals engage in certain mating behaviors.

Humans are animals therefore they also engage in these same mating behaviors.

But that isn't true right. Because each species have different mating behaviors. This varies from animal to animal.

>>521294424
Does this thing look like it gets road rage?
https://youtu.be/5ExNX7iVxt8

>>521291444 (OP)
>i would have totally been the king ya'll
you know there is usually only one king and the rest are not kings.
also not every king is the same. there were good kings and bad kings. a king is not necessarily a dictator or sultan with a harem. a christian king most certainly was expected to only have one wife (at a time).

>>521294753
Yes. Humans are different, maybe even we're naturally both with all the blends of genes etc. in fact the term human nature is amorphous. Are humans psycho killers or peaceful monks

>>521291444 (OP)
fuck off ahmed

>>521294753
If you look into history, you'd see humans DID act like this in the past. Historical records show men of renown had many wives, this was even permitted by the God of the Bible. Likewise, genomic analysis has shown that in some time in the somewhat recent past (thousand to hundreds of years) something like 9 women were impregnated for every one man that reproduced (the rest did not reproduce). Monogamy as the only choice is recent and arguably against human nature. However, only polygyny is human nature

>>521295155
* Only polygyny is human nature when it comes to polyamory. This is why Stacies are ok with sharing Chad

Monogamy is impossible due to the female nature. Women are trash. Avoid them.

>>521291841
It's also not common in the most intelligent animals.

>>521292677
Incels can be sent to expand the Chad's Empire and acquire their own wives, through Jihad

>>521293945
>appeal to nature
What does your AI god say about rape and eating of their young in mammals?

>>521295155
Could you show me what has taught you that that was the norm?

>>521291444 (OP)
handling one woman is already dangerous

Good for society, bad for the general health of the species. Fewer, better men procreating make better people in the long run. This comes with the inverse effect though that you have much, much lower male participation in society. Monogamous coupling aids this but introduces weaker genes into the species, but ensures men will work.

I personally think the Aztecs had a good system, where your amount of wives depended on the amount of men under your control/supervision. So something modest like a supervisor at McDonalds would be attainable and allow you to have a wife, whereas the general manager may have two wives depending on the size and success of the store/franchise. It increases so on and so forth, and would inspire men to get promotions or start businesses.

>>521296488
So you're saying it should be common in Europe and the US

>>521297009
The aztecs aren't around anymore so their system was not good enough...

>>521291444 (OP)
>Is monogamy truly good for the human species, or is it just something that the government/society has imposed on us?
The sex ratio at birth is nearly perfectly 50/50. If there is no monogamy, many men will go without having the chance to find a wife. In those societies where they take multiple wives, like Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, sons are often given $20 to stuff in a pocket and abandoned at the side of a road in the middle of nowhere at the age of 15. Everything you hate about our society now, anons, would become even worse.

>>521297281
Yeah, yeah, man. Fuck off with your retarded ahistorical views and read a book instead of chest pounding your own failing civilization.

>>521293290
This

ever since we have abandoned polygamy, civilization began to develop in a positive direction. Basing our culture off of our lowest animalistic instincts and sexual fetishes is guaranteed death. The alpha/beta hierarchy does not exist in human societies, its a made up lie designed to turn you into an animal who is subservient to which ever morally degenerate idea the kikes want to inoculate you with. Its all a psyop and uneducated morons are eating it up because they dont want to admit ignorance in history and anthropology

>>521292601
Yea not sure why people overlook increased competitiveness increasing antisocial behavior, the opposite of what you need for larger civilizations and social ordering

>>521296915
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success/

You can't get numbers like this without it being normal. Sorry bro, macro data trends trump your lived cultural experience

>>521291444 (OP)
Tailless women are bad for human species.

>>521297802
Irrefutable.

>>521297711
>https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success/

Holy crap! When whole villages of men would be killed and slavery was the norm! Damn their societies must have been great!

nu/pol/ hates polygyny and weed, ere go, I am pro polygyny and weed. Simple as.

>>521298382
>>521297711
"Humans" have only been existing in "civilization" for the last 10k years at most, before that we lived in small tribes.

What we should be asking is questions like "What exactly was the normal day-to-day life o a person 30k years ago?"

This is important because of how our minds developed. In each of us there is a freeman and then there is a "civilized enslaved" man which came not because of the want, but because of the necessity of "civilization".

The same way people today go to "work", which is a nonsense and never existed before agricultural revolution. All we knew was play... the whole day was a day of play of joy. You would play with the tribe and then you would go to hunting which is another expression of play.

But suddenly, we invented "work" for some reason after we figured out that you can enslave other people and force them to plow land, most likely because this gave more opportunity for getting pussy.

If you don't believe me, look into phallus cult.