>>1034

You're Muslim? Forgive my ignorance, but how can you be here when this board is so full of pornographic imagery and text?

>>1076

I assume she'll not be accessing it from Brunei without a VPN, since they're phasing in sharia law.

Being the first wife in a polygynous marriage is kind of my dream. I fantasise about helping my husband find, pick and marry the best possible girls for his next wives. I imagine the younger wives training themselves to please my husband's every sexual whim and coming to me, the more experienced wife, for advice on how to please him better.

I imagine cuddling on the couch with my husband after a long day, when one of the younger wives comes along, straddles him and starts to grind against his crotch. I keep warmly cuddling one of his arms as things proceed to impromptu cowgirl couch sex. Once they've both cum together and my husband is nice and relaxed, I gently remind her to clean him up with her mouth the way he likes. As she shyly does so, he turns to me and murmurs a casual "thanks".

I have one final recurring fantasy, this one a little strange. In it, my husband, myself and the other wives have all become old, too old for sex. But we're all still together, happily (if crotchet-ily) living together in companionship with many years of happy debauchery behind us and crowds of grandchildren from our many children being brought through to visit.

Late to this discussion here and just passing by since I only openned this board out of curiosity, but this might be an interesting antropological discussion.

> Why are so many Western women so viciously opposed to polygyny, even when all parties consent?

Historically, it's due to jewish-christian heritage. Christianity is strongly monogamous, these are the two most monogamous religions in human history, except for mormons, and this kind of marriage has been enforced ever since its spread in late roman empire. Not even kings and emperors in europe escaped this rule, while in china the emperor had many concubines and wives, and one of his main role was to provide children to keep the dinasty going, in Europe if the royal couple couldn't have offspring then their heritage would just die out and another close family would take the throne. This is one of the main reasons for why Europe was so full of succession wars while monarchies all over the world were comparably more stable.

As for our modern society, you can't overlook the economical side of a partnership, and the truth is that in the West it's already becoming too hard for a man to provide for one wife and children alone. You must be very healthy to provide for more than one family (though this is what happens in practice with many divorced men who marry again latter). Monogamous marriage in western society is one of the main factors for the distribution and accumulation of wealth among non-priviledged classes and the emergence of the middle class, it leveled the field in a way that no woman would suffer poverty for being a lesser wive and no man would behave YOLO for having no wife, both were stimulated to work in benefit of the financial stability of their union.

And the truth is that poligyny is historically associated with patriarchal power indeed. It might not be the particular case of your marriage, OP, but it certainly is the case of 99% of polygynic societies out there. The thing is that poligyny is typically the priviledge of a rulling class of men, while the lower classes remain unmarried and uncapable of having children. This rulling class concentrates the power, excluding both lower men and all women from power decisions, the very act of possessing many wives in these societies is typically a demonstration of status.

>>1334

>the truth is that in the West it's already becoming too hard for a man to provide for one wife and children alone. You must be very healthy to provide for more than one family

>no woman would suffer poverty for being a lesser wive and no man would behave YOLO for having no wife, both were stimulated to work in benefit of the financial stability of their union.

That seems to assume the man as the sole breadwinner in a polygynous situation and both partners working in a monogamous situation, which isn't a fair comparison. Wouldn't a modern polygynous household of a working man and multiple working women be more prosperous in total disposable income terms (plus the ability to perform income/time trade-off) than a monogamous marriage in which both spouses work?

> this kind of marriage has been enforced ever since its spread in late roman empire.

>Monogamous marriage in western society is one of the main factors for the distribution and accumulation of wealth among non-priviledged classes and the emergence of the middle class,

Romans practiced monogamy even in the Republic stage, which pre-dated the spread of Christianity. But even that aside, we'd expect the European middle class (which type of middle class?) to emerge and remain emerged once monogamy was enforced, correct? Then why didn't the middle class as we know it emerge until the 16th-17th century? No, monogamy didn't do that.

Also in practice, high-status Romans and later Europeans were socially monogamous but polygynous in mating. The maintenance of mistresses or concubines at a certain level of status was accepted, even mandatory for social standing.

>And the truth is that poligyny is historically associated with patriarchal power indeed. It might not be the particular case of your marriage, OP, but it certainly is the case of 99% of polygynic societies out there.

So, wait, are we saying that monogamous societies are somehow less patriarchal than polygynous ones? I thought most of Western European society throughout history was classed as being patriarchal? So *gamy can't be a factor, especially since you've argued that Western european society was monogamous for most of post-AD.

This might be a discussion, but it's not anthropological or interesting yet.

>>1336

>Wouldn't a modern polygynous household of a working man and multiple working women be more prosperous in total disposable income terms (plus the ability to perform income/time trade-off) than a monogamous marriage in which both spouses work?

Assuming each woman would have the same number of children that they would have if they were in a monogamous relationship, the total outcome per member would still be considerably smaller.

Like say, 3 wives with 6 children vs 1 wive with 2. You'd have 4 income for 10 members vs 2 income for 4 members.

>>1336

>Romans practiced monogamy even in the Republic stage

Monogamy has always been practiced in our species, but not as stong as in jewish-christian societies. Neither was reprovation of any form of poligamy, which was legally official and the very god's rule in the holy book. PLus, monogamy in JC societies is related to the formal prohibition of infanticide, something widely practiced by romans as well as many other socities. Monogamy in JC societies meant to be together indefinitely since this union must be the basis of a family that doesn't know how many children it'll have. In roman and other societies, on the other hand, marriage was constrained by other economical and power/status related circunstances, baby girls were killed if the father didn't feel like he would want to trade daughters for influence through marriage in the future, the child's role was pre-determined by the parent's (mostly the the father's) plans for how the family would affect his businesses and his political networking.

> Wouldn't a modern polygynous household of a working man and multiple working women be more prosperous in total disposable income terms

It seems you can't into basic economics and maths. Plus, what I said is simply what Hayek said about the role of nuclear families in the emergence of middle class in Europe, something very accepted by most specialists in how the middle class emerged in the west.

Plus, "modern poligyny" mostly consists of a situation where there's no hierarchy between wives, in this situation it's common that each wive will care first to provide for her children. So the common configuration fo many poligynyc families is that they are actually nuclear families where the father transits between them, each wife and their respective children set some barriers to where her family begins and the other ends, because they're not forced to obey hierarchy.

>So, wait, are we saying that monogamous societies are somehow less patriarchal than polygynous ones? I thought most of Western European society throughout history was classed as being patriarchal?

Not gonna waste my time arguing against obvious intentional misinterpretations

>>1340

>Assuming each woman would have the same number of children that they would have if they were in a monogamous relationship, the total outcome per member would still be considerably smaller.

But the share of fixed expense and overhead per family member would also be lower, since e.g. cost of housing does not scale linearly with space (as anyone who's moved in with a significant other will attest). Wealth isn't a simple matter of $ per person, but rather the function gained.

>>1341

You've not addressed the substance of my questions, but instead widened the remit of your argument to dilute them. I'm not intentionally misinterpreting you - your argument(?) is murky at best and contradictory at worst. You place monogamy up as a primary factor in social developments that it was only an enabler of, then change your thrust to new factors when challenged on definition. (Oh, we're actually talking Judeo-Christian monogamy? It was about whether or not infanticide was allowed?) You can start by addressing the 1500-year gap between enforcement of monogamy in Europe and the rise of the middle class, and the 400-year gap between the nuclear family being common in e.g. parish England and the rise of the middle class.

To be clear: I'm not arguing that the agility and flexibility of the nuclear family unit was not a factor in the emergence of the middle class - but rather that monogamy isn't the same thing as a nuclear family, that the nuclear family was an enabling factor that must be weighed against significant technological and other factors rather than a causative one, and that this is largely irrelevant to the question at hand because…

Actually, you never even properly addressed OP's question either. She asked in effect, "why does my being okay with my husband having multiple wives cause a strongly hostile emotional reaction in Western women?". Holding forth about polygyny's suitability in modern society and its historical role in the emergence of the middle class doesn't answer that. Did you just decide to blow in because you saw an opportunity to lecture, or what?

>>1347

> I'm not arguing that the agility and flexibility of the nuclear family unit was not a factor in the emergence of the middle class

>You place monogamy up as a primary factor in social developments that it was only an enabler of

The way I argued looked like saying that what led to the emergence of middle class was the same of what sustains it today. WHen I said it was "one of the major aspects" I was talking about what keeps it today, which is what Hayek argued. Hayek was a proselitizer of Libertarianism, and as it is usual of these thinkers, they try to justify moral costumes in terms of economy, and so he tried to demonstrate how monogamy was important in keeping individual accumulation of wealth, the defence of private property and so on. Since the nuclear family setting allowed for both men and women to seek in partnership what most men and women commonly desired, and also allowed them to save money and plan according to these same individual interests, whereas in former societies such as the Roman, an influential man would try to accumulate wealth basically for the sake of either trying to keep or expand his status and political power, where family and child raising was just one more factor in his business calculations, in the christian society that followed the parents would try to improve their situation as much as possible because they didn't know how big their families would end up being and also because the family itself was now seen as something that should be socially and legally respected, so property (as we understand it today), merit, and accumulation of wealth now had an institutionalized umbrela under which they could be cultivated, but this was nowhere enough to trigger the emergence of the middle class, societies were still rural, the concept of intelectual ownership of ideas was weak, the concept of individual human rights were weak, etc. And although this is mostly propaganda for individualism and libertarianism, the point still stands that the one-man-one-woman western family worked as a way to accumulate wealth and defend private property independently of heritage.

> You can start by addressing the 1500-year gap between enforcement of monogamy

Cultures don't change from one day to another, it took centuries until women would stop killing their children just because they didn't have the means to raise them and instead give them to abbeys and monasteries that latter would become the stereotypical catholic orphanages. Neither did christianity spread from one day to another through europe

>Oh, we're actually talking Judeo-Christian monogamy? It was about whether or not infanticide was allowed?

I tried to explain to you how there's more to marriage than simply social norms or love, and that there are different motives and this different kinds of monogamy, marriage in Roman society had a good deal of economical and social motivation to it, while in JC society marriage was idealized as God's rule, you cannot compare both.

>Actually, you never even properly addressed OP's question either.

Now you're just trying to do polemics. You don't need to defend your honor here, you know, it's an anonymous site, you can just stop posting. Are you trying to argue or are you just trying to find holes that can be misinterpreted like a lawyer?

>>1349

And you've switched from addressing the question or subsequent arguments to implying I'm arguing out of petulance. I argued because your initial explanations were written self-contradictorily. I pointed out that you hadn't addressed OP's question because I wanted to know how the context you were outlining (eventually) related to the current context and people's reaction to it. The explanations you've (now) given could be useful towards answering that, but you haven't yet done so.

She (and I) want to know why such a hostile reaction bubbles to the surface almost immediately when it seems to make no sense for it to do so. OP was pissed off at what she saw as a double standard being applied to her marriage, despite it being "more successful" than those of the monogamous detractors.

If you're using the question to springboard into a demonstration of knowledge of historical context in general or to hold forth on an assessment of its suitability as a social institution in general without linking it back to the question actually asked, you're engaging in wankery. That's hardly a polemic idea.

>>1334

>Historically, it's due to jewish-christian heritage.

But that's wrong you fucking retard, Germanic tribes were strictly monogamous long, long before the jew's foul religion infected Europe.

>>1341

>jewish-christian societies

something likke this doesn't exist

>>1035

If the Chinese-American was his first wife, have you ever talked to her about how she felt when he met, courted, and married the second? Did she go into the marriage knowing there would be co-wives in the future? Did her american upbringing pose a challenge?

>>1398

Wait, America doesn't exist?

Holy shit! My entire life is a lie!

>>1361

Go back to /pol/.

What's the ethnic/national background of your husband? Did he convert to Islam?

>>1034

He's white? From where?

With a white wife as well?

Can any couple move to Brunei and have multiple wives? If I move myself and my two girls there, could I marry both and pick up 2 more if I chose or is it a citizen thing?

>>1578

>Can any couple move to Brunei and have multiple wives? If I move myself and my two girls there, could I marry both and pick up 2 more if I chose or is it a citizen thing?

I searched around for an answer to this but information is very thin on the ground.

I do know that in order to have additional wives, one must convince the authorities that one can adequately support them. That sounds like proof of income, which is probably a citizen or resident thing - tax returns and whatnot.

I wasn't able to find out if it's restricted only to Muslims either.

Wow! I'm amazed that this is still here, all these months later! I will try to respond to at least a few of the questions here, but we only recently got into the United States and the massive time difference wrecks my sleep patterns for days later. Also I apologize if my English comes across a bit garbled at times in my excessively sleep-deprived state.

>>1562

Oh, too right! I would never post from home; I only browse this website when in a certain part of America. Sorry for the delay!

>>1474

>If the Chinese-American was his first wife, have you ever talked to her about how she felt when he met, courted, and married the second? Did she go into the marriage knowing there would be co-wives in the future?

Oh yes, we've spoken at length about this. I'd rather not give too many dirty details, but simply put, my husband has a high volume of physical needs and his first wife could not adequately meet all of them. Neither intended to become polygamous; it just became a reality a few months into their marriage that they were not sexually compatible in terms of how much he needed it. She was actually the one to suggest he take a second wife, and he wound up meeting his future second wife online some time later. I asked her (the Chinese-American) once, before I became married as well, how she viewed her husband having romantic and sexual relationships with other women. She said that she didn't mind the sexual part as he has his needs, but that the romantic aspect bothered her at first, though she eventually got over it.

>Did her american upbringing pose a challenge?

Not at all! She was adopted from China as a baby and raised in a loving Christian household. She has wonderful values, and is very polite and considerate. We're good friends. One thing that has inhibited her though is the language hurdle. It seems to me that Americans have a hard time learning other languages - they tell me that this isn't something that is emphasized in school, so that might be why. She and our husband speak the least Malay (the predominant language in our home country), while his European wife (who speaks 4 other languages) has picked it up quite well.

>>1161

>I fantasise about helping my husband find, pick and marry the best possible girls for his next wives. I imagine the younger wives training themselves to please my husband's every sexual whim and coming to me, the more experienced wife, for advice on how to please him better.

I love this as well!! Though I wanted to be in the very situation I'm in now - with other, more experienced wives to go to. I'd kind of dreamed of being the fourth wife, but three isn't bad, and honestly I'd have settled for any slot.

>crowds of grandchildren from our many children being brought through to visit.

Oh, how I long for this as well! I made a chart once of how we could space out having children so two of us could give birth each year while the other (hopefully soon to be others!) recovers from last year's pregnancy and has time to help out in the latter stages of pregnancy. I was counting out the number of children we could feasibly have before we got too old, but my husband thought that was silly and that I should just let fate take its course rather than actively trying for a certain number of children.

>>1334

> in Europe if the royal couple couldn't have offspring then their heritage would just die out and another close family would take the throne. This is one of the main reasons for why Europe was so full of succession wars while monarchies all over the world were comparably more stable.

This is something that I enjoyed reading about, both in this thread and outside of it. Brunei has historical ties to Britain, so we wind up learning about its history, and all the wars due to intermarriages, and the insanely long…well, I forget its proper name in English, but the waiting list that basically all the royal families in Europe are on, showing what position in line they are for the British throne, though of course nearly none of them will ever come to it.

>And the truth is that poligyny is historically associated with patriarchal power indeed.

Can someone explain this phrase to me, "patriarchal power"? I do not quite understand it. Is it merely men being in charge? It feels like I'm missing something because everyone I've met that talks about this does so in a negative way, but it is not a negative concept to me at all. Shouldn't cuckqueans like this?

>>2284

>>2285

Welcome back! It's great to see you post again!

I believe >>1334 is referring to male-led societies like you said. However in some radical feminist or "progressive" circles the word patriarchy has become a derogatory term of sorts. These groups view any male leadership as inherently harmful and oppressive to women.

>>1578

He's from the southeastern U.S. originally, which is where we are now.

>Can any couple move to Brunei and have multiple wives?

Almost; it is a religious thing. You should be of a religion that supports polygamy, preferably any sect of Islam or Christianity. You'll find life easier here if that is the case.

>If I move myself and my two girls there, could I marry both and pick up 2 more if I chose or is it a citizen thing?

I'd recommend being at least religiously married to them beforehand; get a priest or some other holy man to conduct a formal ceremony and give you some kind of proof that it occurred. You needn't be legally married, of course. You can get married to additional women after immigrating, assuming we let you in and approve you for residency. Citizenship isn't like in America and other Western countries; there are people that were born here and have lived here their entire lives, and are now elderly, and are not citizens. Many want to be, but just aren't. I'm a citizen, but my husband isn't, and likely won't be for years (at least) due to his lack of command of Malay. You must be able to prove fluency in our language, both written and spoken, in order to become a citizen, in addition to the other requirements.

On the bright side, if you are American, you'll be streamlined through basically every step. I'm not entirely certain as to why this is, but we give preferential treatment to American tourists, immigrants, and businesses. There's a long list of countries we favor (including the UK), but our government is just so much more generous with Americans. An American visa to visit here is valid for 3 times as long as anyone else's, for example.

It also becomes easier to live here permanently if you a) secure employment before attempting to move, or b) are independently wealthy already and invest in our country's economy. My husband was option B; few countries will turn away someone willing to invest in/start businesses, and Brunei is no exception. Option A works out especially well for medical specialists; we have a wonderful healthcare system, but we lack in-country doctors for more obscure situations, and anyone with these severe ailments is sent off to Europe or America for treatment.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and you should expect some additional surprises somewhere in the immigration process that I have not accounted for.)

>>1598

>I do know that in order to have additional wives, one must convince the authorities that one can adequately support them. That sounds like proof of income, which is probably a citizen or resident thing - tax returns and whatnot.

I mostly answered this already, but I wanted to add that we don't have any income taxes here. Again, make sure you have secured a job before coming! There are English-language websites that you can use to search for them. We have no patience for unemployed bums.

>I wasn't able to find out if it's restricted only to Muslims either.

It isn't - though make sure your religion is friendly to polygamy!

>>2286

>>2291

>>2293

It's really scary and depressing that people actually believe these things.

>In modern use, the term is used to designate a society in which all women and young men are cruelly oppressed

I hadn't heard that part of it before. I didn't realize that even men here were pretending to be victims. When I was a young girl, all I wanted was to live in America, Britain, or France. The more I see of modern Western culture, the more I'm glad that I don't live here after all.

>past social structures in which women did not have any power of self-determination or self-actualisation.

Has such a thing ever even existed?

>>1577

He is American by birth, and calls himself "a typical American mutt". Looking at his family tree, he is of mostly German and Irish ancestry. Europeans mixed so much once they got to America! And yes, he converted as a young adult, long before I met him.

>>2296

>Has such a thing ever even existed?

Usually when people say things like this, they mean a society where women had limited opportunity for direct control in politics, property management, or the like.

This gripe usually betrays their ignorance of actual history. For instance, in Medieval Europe, women dominated the beer- and bread-making industries. Domination of these industries was so complete that they essentially acted like miniature cartels, holding their industries hostage if the bosses got upset at something.

In either Elizabethan or Victorian England (I forget which), taxation was based on household income, not on individual income. This meant that a man could simply yield his entire income over to the crown while his wife used her tax-exempt status to grow her own business enterprise.

In ancient Rome, a woman's property might legally revert to her nearest male relative, but if she had none, she got to keep her property. This included any direct interests and management thereof. In Athens during the same period, a woman might present a dowry to her husband, but the dowry reverted to her upon a divorce.

Arranged marriages were almost never as awful as you hear about in popular literature. Very rarely would a woman be expected to marry a man she had never met, and almost never to a man she absolutely couldn't stand. This would be for obvious reasons; convincing someone to spend the rest of their lives with someone they can't stand is going to be harder than it's worth.

Many times, the "arranged" part of the arranged marriage was just a formality: the man and woman honestly liked each other, and the parents simply hashed out the politics.

Some cultures didn't even have an understanding of fidelity! In pre-Shogunate Japan, it was almost expected for both husbands and wives to have affairs.

I could go on, but I won't. I will say it's fascinating that for a group that obviously subscribes to cultural relativism, feminists forget all about tolerance and acceptance when it comes to how other cultures expected women to behave.

>>2285

>Oh, how I long for this as well! I made a chart once of how we could space out having children so two of us could give birth each year while the other (hopefully soon to be others!) recovers from last year's pregnancy and has time to help out in the latter stages of pregnancy. I was counting out the number of children we could feasibly have before we got too old, but my husband thought that was silly and that I should just let fate take its course rather than actively trying for a certain number of children.

That's so sweet, even though I can see most men running for the hills once that level of planning and logistics comes into maximising his family size. I hope you get at least some of your wish, OP.

>I forget its proper name in English, but the waiting list that basically all the royal families in Europe are on, showing what position in line they are for the British throne, though of course nearly none of them will ever come to it.

It's called a Line of Succession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne

>>2337

>That's so sweet, even though I can see most men running for the hills once that level of planning and logistics comes into maximising his family size.

Haha, I know! I am lucky that my husband likes children.

>I hope you get at least some of your wish, OP.

Thank you! Lately, I have been helping his first wife, the Chinese-American one, around the house with various tasks - she is pregnant! She is expecting in January. She is surprisingly mobile for a pregnant woman, especially one so small.

Also, he and his white wife have been talking a lot with this cute waitress that we met in Poland, so we may be getting another co-wife! She is the first well-endowed woman that he has taken a serious interest in (I keep suggesting women like that, the top-heavy ones, but he usually declines to pursue them), and she has a desire for a large family herself. The only downside to her is that she is so unintelligent! She can only talk about movies, celebrities, and pop culture, and knows nothing about history, geography, or literature. On the other hand, it really appeals to me that my husband might start making babies with her; I love the idea of him forsaking me for a girl like her!

It reminds me of how Orwell described "doublethink"; I want to be fulfilled as a woman and have children with my husband, yet I simultaneously want the humiliation of being denied while he brings beautiful, all-white children into the world with his other wives. Does anyone else experience something like this?

>It's called a Line of Succession.

That was the phrase! Thank you.

We'll be leaving the U.S. again in a few days, so no more /cuckquean/ for however many months. Hopefully when I come back, I'll have many cuckqueaning adventures to report on with a new co-wife!

>>2348

>We'll be leaving the U.S. again in a few days, so no more /cuckquean/ for however many months. Hopefully when I come back, I'll have many cuckqueaning adventures to report on with a new co-wife!

Belated godspeed, OP.

>>1001

OP, thank you so much for relating your experiences. You really struck a chord with me and I the different perspective and background you bring to things is tremendously invigorating.

My cuckqueaning kink has expanded into curiosity about polygyny and, because I am a huge nerd who can't helpn but make things, I'm hoping to produce a work examining polygyny from all the angles I can with the objective of producing a "user's guide" for it in the modern world covering aspects legal, cultural, emotional, sexual, et cetera.

If you see this the next time you're able to access /cuckquean/, please email me at non.euclidean.path@gmail.com - your own day-to-day understanding of a marriage like yours would be absolutely invaluable.

I recently watched a video that made me realize I was so into this. A guy was getting his dick sucked and said "She's a good little cocksucker, isn't she?" then a voice in the background said "Yeah she is. Go on, take it all the way." I got so fucking turned on as soon as I heard that. Then after a bit it went:

GF: I think you should bend her over and fuck her.

Guy: Go on then, bend over.

Girl, to GF: You sure?

GF: Yeah. (pause) Go on you know you want it.

I came so fucking hard.

>>1001

>Why are so many Western women so viciously opposed to polygyny

Because since their vagina is their only bargaining value they get upset on the prospect of losing their monopoly.

>>1001

OP, did your husband have to convert to Islam? (Or volantarily did so?) Did his other wives? You mention that it's necessary for polygynous marriage members to be part of a religion which officially sanctions polygyny, but AFAIK no mainstream branch of Christianity or any other religion I can think of does so.

I can see maybe getting around this by belonging to sects that either do not forbid or who allow polygyny, but I assume there's some kind of standard applied as to what is and is not considered a religion. How do the authorities determine whether a person's religion is compatible with polygyny?

Also, I find it very sweet that you all live under one roof. From what I've read, that's not very common - it's more usual for a husband to split his time equally between wives in separate dwellings. How did it come about that you all decided to cohabitate? Do you know of any other families that do this? What do the neighbors think?

>>2804

Not a problem, anon. Polygyny is perfectly legal under the Law of Moses, and despite what a lot of churches would tell you, nothing in the New Testament overruled that. It's perfectly possible to be both a polygynist and a Christian.

https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/the-top-5-things-christians-believe-that-arent-true/

>>2803

>>2804

late reply is crazy late but i'm gonna catch that for you in that if you actually read either the old or new testament, they either sign off on or say nothing against polygyny

>>3720

Probably monogamy in the end triumphs as civilizational system because if followed adequately it provides stronger civilizational body that outcompetes and erases the polygenous one.

Also drills extra mental discipline that later is reflected on military performance should military showdown come to it.

See monogamy as a contract between men, it means more tribes cooperating, the other tribes keep quarreling for dominance. Guess which one has higher chances of imposing itself and writing history.

>>3722

PS - to contextualize on this board - even in more monogamous contexts it is often allowed for victorious soldiers to fuck and sometimes take enslaved women of other tribes even if married already.

Which here would be seen as "vixens" in genetic reflex.

>>3720

It's also worth noting that even in strictly monogamous societies, the practice of keeping mistresses stayed around. This meant that a women kept as a mistress effectively acted as a second or third wife to the man who kept her, but received no recognition or protection afforded to a wife by law or custom.

Writers from polygynous cultures frequently point this out and criticise it as hypocritical and a raw deal for the mistress. The phrase African writers use is "white man's polygyny" and Muslim writers refer to "polygyny Kaffir-style". I also know that in Thai culture, a "major" wife is recognised and heads over several possible "minor" wives.

As you say, we're in a transitional phase where the collective advantages afforded by monogamy are giving a competitive advantage at a societal level, but these sorts of memetic-to-genetic evolutionary transitions take tens of thousands of years to have an effect at the genetic level, so we're still working it out. Only a long stretch of time will tell.

>>3723

>even in more monogamous contexts it is often allowed for victorious soldiers to fuck and sometimes take enslaved women of other tribes even if married already.

Interestingly, this hybrid structure seems to provide a boost to a young and aggressive society that makes its gains through conquest.

This is exactly what the Romans - who were a strictly monogamous society - did. Slaves bought or conquered were property and therefore fucking one's own slave was not a violation of marriage vows. (Of course, if you fucked your slaves too much and it got in the way of keeping your shit together you were socially scorned because the Romans valued maintaining strict control over urges and maintaining a will to power.) So that was a kind of sexual polygyny, albeit without social or legal recognition.

Islam was also very big on encouraging men to fight and expand by encouraging sexual use of slaves. Society is instructed to help find men find their first wives (including discounts on dowries, social incentives to families, etc.) so that the fabric is maintained but any wife after the first is far more "expensive". But there's a safety catch: Almost every reference to sexual rules in the Qu'ran gives the green light to sex with wives and what translators euphemistically render as "what your right hand possesses" - your slaves. So a man is sexually incentivised to help Islam spread through conquest and Islam in turn tries to maintain an element of monogamy's social fabric by "discounting" first wives.

>>3724

Mistresses served in a sexual role, but the fact that she did not have the same position as the wife is sort of the point. A man may have a mistress, but he doesn't 'own' a mistress in the same way that a wife belongs to him (either figuratively or literally, depending on the time period).

As a result, she did not have the same obligations that a wife would. While a man may be angry that his mistress decides to fuck someone else, society does not have his back on that. She wasn't his to claim to begin with, thus there is no actual rule broken.

If society afforded the mistress the same protections and obligations that a wife had, a man could claim as many women as would have him, and it brings us back to the stupid endless competition caveman shit that monogamy was invented to put a stop to.

In some cases people might interpret it as unfair for mistresses to be in a sort of second-class like that, but this utterly denies their agency as human beings. And indeed, a mistress would have more freedom than a married woman would have. She could have married someone, but chose to be a hanger-on instead. The reasons for this could vary, from wanting the aforementioned freedom, to affection for the man, to wanting to place herself higher in the social system - since a higher placed man may take a woman as a mistress that he would not consider as a wife, granting a social mobility that lower class men did not have.

And this has actually had net advantages for some women, historically. Classical Greece had situations wherein prostitutes were afforded certain social rights that married women would be denied. Almost like a jester's privilege, since nobody owned them, what they did was not considered to matter in the same way that it would for a wife.

It might sometimes be a 'raw deal' for the mistress, but it's something that they know they're getting into and it has its advantages. In contrast, it's always detrimental to most men and by extension to the function of society in general.

>>3725

>In contrast, it's always detrimental to most men and by extension to the function of society in general.

Whoops, I mean the inverse is detrimental.

>>3725

To be clear, I don't agree with the writers referred to before - they're using the mistress comparison in a rhetorical way to segue into an explanation of their own polygynous systems rather than to deeply compare the mechanisms of either.

My point was more that even in societies nominally arranged around strictly monogamous lines, powerful men still find a way to practice sexual and emotional polygyny - often with the willing co-operation of the women on the side. In some periods of history (e.g. late middle-ages France) and even now (e.g. China) this sort of thing was practiced so semi-openly that a man's mistresses were/are a status symbol, deliberately held out as such.

Interesting discussion. Why hasn't anybody said anything about concubines? They are different than a mistress and I believe that some of this discussion is about them rather than mistresses.

>>3727

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you were agreeing, I was just responding to the idea itself.

>>3730

Well, concubine is a term without a real strict meaning. In *can* mean the same thing as mistress.

A concubine is generally a man's not-wife, or at least not his 'primary' wife, if he's in a polygamist society.

'Concubine' is commonly used to describe a woman that a man has a personal and sexual relationship with, which he is not able to marry for legal or social reasons. This can be because he's already married and in a monogamist society, but it can also be for other reasons - a man does not have to be married to have a concubine.

It could be, for example, because of social class. If a nobleman has a romantic relationship with a commoner, he can't really marry her, either because it isn't allowed or because it would be detrimental to himself and his family to do so. So that might be considered a concubine.

It could also describe women who are slaves kept for their owner's sexual needs. In this case, he owns them, but in a different capacity than a wife. I don't think prostitutes would count (not that all prostitutes are necessarily slaves, but it is common, even today), because even though they might be owned, they serve primarily to fulfill the owner's financial interests, not his sexual ones.

It can be used to describe a legal wife in a polygamist system, but it always describes a 'lesser' wife in some manner of legal definition or pecking order, one that lacks some sort of rights or respect that the main wife enjoys. This could mean that her children are not considered legal heirs to their father in the same way that the main wife's children are, or it could be something as simple as not being socially recognized and respected in the same way as the main wife.

>>3741

DAMNIT CARLO- oh, hey, that's Hades.

Is Carlos feeling okay? Nothing's happened to him, right?

>>3747

clearly Carlos is Hades' human persona

>>17315

It's actually a simple process of natural selection. The ratio of men to women is 1:1,1 or thereabout, which pretty much means that for every man there is a woman. Now, if you introduce polygamy you really start to mess up the social fabric of a given nation/culture. This is because older, richer and better established men snag up all the women, leaving those that "came late" with nothing, and if you live in a society that tells men they are expected to marry and establish a family (and that's pretty much every society on the planet) but take away their ability to do so, this will lead to stress on their part, which will sooner or later transfer into destructive behavior.

That being said, even in the West polygny is tacitly accepted for rich men that usually have a wife and a few mistresses. This is usually tolerated because there's not all that many rich men that can afford such a setup so they are not impacting the rate of available mates too much.

Now, polygny was more prevalent in the past because it is a great way to motivate men to go conquer shit. If you have a bunch of restless young men you can very easily turn them into highly motivated soldiers with promise of conquering some other country and stealing all their women. Even better, warfare will ensure many of these young men will die, thus relieving pressure on society and having less men that need to be given their "reward". This is all fine and dandy so long as you have clay to conquer and the momentum to do so, but once you have expanded as much as possible and there are no more outsiders to take women from is when problems start to occur.

I stipulate that a large reason why most Middle Easter countries are so unstable is that they haven't eliminated polygny out of their culture. You'll note that all major world powers, past and present, or at least those that tended to last longer than a century, phased out polygny in favor of monogamy, simply because monogamy ensures a far more stable society and a loyal pool of men that will work diligently and defend the borders because they have a stake in the society (in the form of a wife and children) or a motivator in the form of a promise they will get a wife if they work hard enough.

>>2297

>I will say it's fascinating that for a group that obviously subscribes to cultural relativism, feminists forget all about tolerance and acceptance when it comes to how other cultures expected women to behave.

That's because you take Marxists such as them at face value, which is a mistake. Feminists hate men, and specifically, they hate white, heterosexual men (and now faggots too). Their only goal in life is making sure white men are as miserable as possible. I'm not even exaggerating, this is basically why they come across as hypocrites when they shit on Western men for one thing while simultaneously turning a blind eye to what Muslim men get up to.

>>17319

Men fight in wars. Many die.

Men do dangerous work. Many die.

Both lead to bad health. Many die early.

This leads to a surplus of women for there are no men to wed them in a monogamous society unless they become mistresses.

You do have an argument assuming a peaceful world and an egalitarian work load between the sexes.

>>17319

You clearly haven't done any research on these cultures that allow polygyny. It was something that was allowed, not a widespread practice. It was already hard enough being responsible for one wife, imagine having ten?

I am currently living in a GCC Arab country that allows polygyny and most of the men are still monogamous because they simply don't want to have many wives, even though they aren't poor. These countries are more stable and prosperous than some European countries that only permit monogamy. What's more, for some reason the women here are usually the ones who are left unmarried, not the men, maybe this is due to a lot men getting married to immigrants.

>>17328

The further in history you go the less this is true. Also, you only saw massive losses in battle during antiquity and past the Middle Ages. Feudal societies could never hope to scrape together armies numbering tens of thousand (10,000 was already pushing it even for the most powerful kingdoms) and conflict was usually avoided if possible because armies were expensive. By the time you go back to battles with actually massive casualties you already have population numbers to sustain them. There's a reason we didn't go back to polygny despite Europe bleeding itself dry throughout the whole of the 19th and 20th century.

>>17329

>These countries are more stable and prosperous than some European countries that only permit monogamy

Now you're just being retarded. If you're talking about the shitholes on the Arabian peninsula they are only "stable" because the government is beyond draconian, the ruling families bribe any and all radicals to keep quiet and also bribe the populace not to start shit. Once the oil money runs dry they'll descend into the same savagery they came from. We are talking about populations with a nigger tier average IQ.

>>17333

>There's a reason we didn't go back to polygny despite Europe bleeding itself dry throughout the whole of the 19th and 20th century.

Quite the statement. care to expand?

>>3732

Personally, I always thought of a concubine as something distinct from a wife or a mistress. My idea of polygyny has always been something along the lines of a primary wife at the top, with secondary wives in the middle, and concubines at the bottom, along with maybe one or more mistresses existing outside the official hierarchy.

Loving this thread OP. Very fascinating insight. I’m American myself and am not entirely sure if I will ever get married because of how society views this kind of interest.

I'm bumping this thread just to say that everything stated in here has been super interesting and also hot, being honest.

Especially that one muslim lady up there. Her stories were really endearing and the way she speaks about her husband and co-wives was cute.

Makes me wish to find multiple wives too but that's really unheard of here where I live, and finding women into it would be really hard.