>>11957

e-celebs were chosen as an example because they demonstrate how absurd group selection can be.

I really do think polygamy would be far worse. It's better for kids to have a father figure, but when a father has 60 children he's probably not going to be very close to any of them.

What do you mean by group selection?

>>11960

Selection by a group.

I don't really stand by any notion that it's arbitrary which people become well liked or romantically successful, though. Fame can be arbitrary, but there are obviously positive (or at least adaptive) qualities which are selected for. Anyways it's a minor point.

>>11957

Really shows how narrow his worldview is when fucking Youtubers are his idea of successful

The only reason you're lamenting the loss of monogamy is because the Fantasy of locking down a woman into marriage with you is the only way you could possibly get any pussy. If you don't feel as if you could juggle ten women at once and keep them all happy, then that's your problem, buddy. Not ours.

I fully intend to be there for all of my children. Don't shove your own insecurities onto me.

>>11962

>Really shows how narrow his worldview is when fucking Youtubers are his idea of successful

They aren't my idea of successful, they're my idea of people who could have thirty wives without really deserving to.

>The only reason you're lamenting the loss of monogamy is because the Fantasy of locking down a woman into marriage with you is the only way you could possibly get any pussy

I'm not an alpha male but I am not a virgin either.

>If you don't feel as if you could juggle ten women at once and keep them all happy, then that's your problem, buddy. Not ours.

It's a function of math that not every man will juggle ten women at once and keep them happy, even if all men could do so.

>I fully intend to be there for all of my children

If you intend to have ten wives, thirty kids, and a job, then no, you won't be there for all of them. It's retarded and narcissistic to think you could pull that off, unless you have a very minimal understanding of being there for people (such as existing and being within shouting range for two hours a day).

It's an anthropological fact that most human societies have been polygamous while monogamous societies have outcompeted them. Nearly all great civilizations of the last five hundred years have been monogamous (Ottomans aren't really an exception because harems were restricted to palace culture). In polygamous societies, parents have more distant father figures, a ton of men are left over and contribute little or nothing economically to the next generation, and crime rates skyrocket as men take up risky behavior to attract women or find enjoyment in their empty lives.

Insulting me or pompously claiming to be an individual exception to the insecurities I'm projecting is not arguing with me.

OP might be a faggot but he's not wrong.

>>11956

The solution is to get women from other races, one white woman + however many Latinas, Asians and so on that you might want.

>>11965

>>11956

Oh and I suppose you could convert the surplus asian men into /cuteboys/ if that's your thing.

>>11956

COCK OR GTFO

O

C

K

O

R

G

T

F

O

Some crazy-ass catastrophizing going on here. Monogamy as an institution isn't going anywhere, anon, and most people here aren't advocating that. And really, if we were to become a society where men can have multiple wives as a norm, you've got bigger problems than whether or not you're getting pussy, because you're almost certainly living in an authoritarian hellhole wherein you have no civil rights. Look no further than countries where this is the norm.

Having a polygynous system requires the enforcement of a cultural standard in which women are regarded as inferior. And while people here might fantasize about that, just like they might fantasize about polygamy, they don't actually want themselves or their women to be treated as second-class citizens. This is not to mention that going to such a system would inherently also cause the devaluing of most men and humanity in general.

For polygamy to show up in a western country, without some sort of Mad Max societal breakdown and rejection of enlightenment values, would mean that we allow both polygyny and polyandry, and that it's just a legal change, not necessarily a major shift of values. And in that case, there's no reason to expect that women will flock to multiple marriages just because they can. Or that most men would want that. Would there be rich men with multiple wives who only want his money? Sure. Just like there would be cases of groups of weird masochist men all marrying the same woman.

Even if legislatures decided to allow that, it still probably wouldn't be real polygamy, rather an in-name-only thing (which would make one wonder why it's any of the government's business to start with). Our society is built on monogamy, rewriting laws to make polygamy function would be a fucking nightmare. Who's your next of kin? Do employers have to provide health insurance for all your wives. Do you get to claim them all as dependents on your taxes? The government and the society that puts it in place isn't going to allow you to abuse the system and get special benefits just because you want multiple spouses.

And I wouldn't expect thirty wives. Even polygynous societies today always put a hard number on the amount of wives you can have. The only places where unrestricted polygyny, like what you're talking about, exists are weird religious cults, like the fundamentalist mormons. And they generally are the weird hellscape that you're catastrophizing over. Thing is, everyone knows that and we aren't in any danger of taking on their terrible system. And if we did, it would self-correct in a generation or two, probably quite violently.

Living with multiple women, wherein it's the personal choice of all individuals involved, is a far cry from institutionalized polygamy in society at-large, and is not a risk to monogamy as a standard value of society. This is like worrying over whether BDSM relationships will take over as the new norm and we'll see a return to legal slavery.

>>11968

>Monogamy as an institution isn't going anywhere, anon

It's already crumbling among the service economy working class, particularly in America.

Women settle down with men when they have careers, and the loss of manufacturing and high paying manual labor jobs has made the economic foundation of marriage increasingly tenuous among most of the population. Also, the ballooning health care sector is making millions of women into doctors and nurses, who will likely be making more money than most men do. Women rarely marry down financially.

Marriage has been steadily giving way to single parenthood for half a century.

>Having a polygynous system requires the enforcement of a cultural standard in which women are regarded as inferior

I'm genuinely not sure about this. A lot of people see polyamory as a liberating force and monogamy as necessarily proprietary and restrictive.

>Living with multiple women, wherein it's the personal choice of all individuals involved, is a far cry from institutionalized polygamy in society at-large

I believe your lifestyle becoming acceptable and visible will probably lead to far, far more people engaging in it. Norms can slip quickly with popular media and digital communication, and it may be exceptionally difficult to recover them.

The legal recognition of polygyny is unnecessary for its de facto practice.

>>11970

>Most people are naturally monogamous

Historically speaking this is false.

Cuckqueans are exceptional, but cuckqueanery taps into a lot of stereotypically female sexual impulses- the partner demonstrates himself as sexually competent, you have to compete with other women for his attention, etc.

>Does he even lift?

A knee problem made me back off of it.

>>11967

This doesn't work as a deterrent for guys.

>>11971

>It's already crumbling

Conflating marriage and monogamy is dishonest and you're putting words in that anon's mouth. How many people do you personally know who are in a relationship with more than two people?

>A lot of people see polyamory as a liberating force

This is liberal bubble nonsense. It's not how normal people think.

>Historically speaking this is false.

Do you have any evidence of this?

>>11972

>It's not how normal people think.

True. It's just that poly people are a reasonable candidate for liberation, and recent Western history demonstrates the volatility of social norms.

>How many people do you personally know who are in a relationship with more than two people?

Only a handful, but there are plenty of men in poor neighborhoods who support children from different mothers simultaneously. This is not the same as polygamy, but in practice it can be fairly similar, and as a trend it has the potential to develop into something somewhat more formal.

>Do you have any evidence of this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3260845/

Most things I've read have somewhat similar numbers. By the way, it's worth noting that polygyny being acceptable does not equal monogamous marriages being nonexistent.

>>11973

>reaching extremes in the earliest empires whose rulers assembled immense harems

Same old shit of applying what the elite did to the entire population. What bullshit. So once again, zero evidence. Try reading that article you linked because it completely invalidates your argument.

>>11974

Poor reading comprehension.

That sentence said that more economic and status inequality leads to higher partner count polygynous pairings. It did not say that only the ruling class of empires engaged in polygynous pairing- rather, only the ruling class of empires engaged in two hundred wives levels of polygyny. Societies with less status differentiation, such as hunter gatherers, had fewer polygynous marriages, although still some.

The most widespread version of polygyny today is among subsistence farmers in Africa. Although polygyny does correlate with disparity in male status, it's not merely a luxury of the ruling class.

>>11975

No, what happened is you got proved wrong by your own link. The vast majority of humans since ever have been, are, and will be monogamous. It's not a social construct, it's human nature. It is a liberal fantasy to believe people are secretly non-monogamous, that they are all gay, that there are more than two genders, that race doesn't exist. It's all bullshit. All of it.

Get a grip. Stop trying to construct a narrative to explain your own life.

While yes, the practice of unrestricted polygyny has been the most common in human history (or pre-history, if we are to make the distinction), compared to monogamy, we're talking pre-civilization tribes here.

And when I say monogamy, I don't mean what we usually mean today. Modern monogamy involves fidelity to the spouse in both parties. Historically, it's often only involved fidelity of the woman. The distinction is that the wife is the only one that 'counts', as far as society is concerned. The only one who's children count as legitimate for hereditary purposes, and the only one that the man can claim sole sexual access to (i.e. another man sleeping with her is a crime). Depending on the society, he may be able to have sex with whomever he likes, provided it is not another man's wife, but those relationships are not considered relevant to the rest of society.

The shift towards monogamy and restricted polygamy started happening around the same time civilization did. ~10k years ago. When people started building permanent settlements, living in large numbers, having more advanced agriculture, having systems of writing, etc. This is not a coincidence. Whether it was a prerequisite for civilization, or a result of it isn't all that clear, but what is clear is that you can't run a civilization without some fucking ground rules. Men in constant competition on an individual level means that they can't cooperate for larger goals. So you decide everyone can only claim one woman as his, and you move past that petty bullshit. Bromance is the foundation of modern society.

I really don't see that it could become mainstream. Most people, men and women alike, don't really approve of it. Broach the topic anywhere that isn't a place inherently sympathetic to it (like /cuckquean/), and you'll see what I mean.

I know it seems like we're on a liberal downslide to degeneracy sometimes, but these things wax and wane. There's already signs that the post-millenial generation is going to be noticeably more conservative. Most polyamorist people don't stick with it, because they're attracted to the novelty more than the reality, and some are just snowflakes that want to be different, anyways. Men who can't keep it in their pants and have kids with tend different mothers are not exactly trendsetters, and aren't going to influence the rest of society. And us at /cuckquean/? We're just a bunch of perverts, and should not be used as a litmus test for societal shifts.

>>11977

>The vast majority of humans since ever have been, are, and will be monogamous

Most people probably have engaged in monogamy. That does not mean that will always be true, and even a sizable minority (say, 15%) of men engaging in polygyny has a profound impact on the dating game.

>It's not a social construct, it's human nature

You don't know what you're saying.

It's not human nature, because it has widespread historical incidence and a lot of guys here want multiple wives. Human pair bonding cannot be easily separated from its cultural background or economic incentives. Monogamy dominates under economic egalitarianism, polygyny has a sizable niche under economic inequality.

>It is a liberal fantasy to believe people are secretly non-monogamous, that they are all gay, that there are more than two genders, that race doesn't exist. It's all bullshit. All of it.

Do I even seem particularly progressive? What is wrong with you?

>Stop trying to construct a narrative to explain your own life.

Again, what is wrong with you? My own life is relevant only to the degree that I relate to men and don't want a third of them winding up alone.

>>11978

You're extremely reasonable.

>I really don't see that it could become mainstream… I know it seems like we're on a liberal downslide to degeneracy sometimes, but these things wax and wane.

I think polygyny is potentially dangerous, and it's difficult to speculate on trends. Contemporary gender relations- made distinct by the welfare and child support apparatus, single parenthood, information technology, and female economic empowerment- are unparalleled in human history. It's cocky to be certain about this stuff.

More than just being culturally adaptive, I think strict monogamy causes less suffering. It extends romantic companionship to the majority of people, ensures that nearly everybody exists in a relation where they're irreplaceable, guards individuals from continual sexual selection and older women particularly from sexual and emotional replacement by younger women, and gives children greater access to their fathers. Norms against polygyny ought to be protected, even if rare and quiet cases may be overlooked.

>>11971

>This doesn't work as a deterrent for guys.

You'd be surprised how effective it is at reminding muh-dickers and milquetoast 'wow hey there are girls here :)' posters that they don't have any business here. You, on the other hand, are sincere in wanting to discuss your topic.

These issues have been discussed a lot on /cuckquean/. You may find the cuckqueaning history thread at >>310 interesting, though that's more about explicit cuckqueaning in literature and art. There have been several threads that diverted into very robust and interesting discussions on the biological and social stability of polygyny/cuckqueaning, though I'll leave it to an anon with a better archivist's momory than I to dig them up.

The conclusion that we usually reach is that while it might jump more than a few panties past dew point, it's something that would be pretty disastrous if implemented on a wide social scale by normalfags. We have several accounts from those living in successful polygynous relationships, but those are either in countries where they're explicitly permitted or where the relationship is being concealed from society at large. All of these accounts reveal that the relationships need unusually high-end people in them and that the majority of men and women are simply not suited to polygyny.

That said, sometimes people can surprise you.

For consideration by my peers, I would like to gently point out that as the social contract continues to burn to ash, fewer and fewer people are forming lasting relationships anyway. This forms a vicious demoralisation cycle where society and the sexes become further alienated instead of pulling together. Polygyny would not make this any better but it does illustrate that the problem of lonely men and barren "career" women whose careers are often anything but is larger than a few cuckqueans on a Sri Lankan closet construction examination forum.

>>11985

I would guess you're either a redditor or the board owner.

>All of these accounts reveal that the relationships need unusually high-end people in them and that the majority of men and women are simply not suited to polygyny.

You may have had other things in mind, but imo the emphasis on communication is the most AIDS thing about polyamory generally. Going around in a circle and talking about feelings subjects the individual to moralism, group dynamics, and informal hierarchies. It has a veneer of positivity but it's smothering. I hate when people adopt the tone of a life coach in order to control each other.

>fewer and fewer people are forming lasting relationships anyway

I agree that this is a problem, but I think it's for political, structural, and economic reasons, so it ought to be addressed at a political, structural, and economic level. Monogamy is worth preserving.

>>12021

>I would guess you're either a redditor or the board owner.

You seem to be grasping at straws and talking past everyone else, though I can't see why.

>>12025

The person I replied to was very intelligent, but I had that hunch and was wondering if it was accurate. Maybe I was off beam, but if the guess was correct it would be cool.

If you felt I was talking past you/her, I apologize. I have a bad habit of omitting all the things that I agree with and trying to voice disagreements or observations which build on the conversation, and in response to very reasonable posts it can be borderline nonresponsive.

My reply was unnecessarily abrasive and I don't mean to upset, have a nice day.

>>11963

You sound like the sort of person who unironically worships Peter Molyneux. If you don't think you have what it takes to survive then that should push you to make yourself better.

>>11968

>rejection of enlightenment values, would mean that we allow both polygyny and polyandry

Do you understand that you just contradicted yourself? If we reject the poison of the 'enlightenment' then that is an implicit rejection of equality and a return to the natural hierarchy of our race.

>>12137

>Do you understand that you just contradicted yourself? If we reject the poison of the 'enlightenment' then that is an implicit rejection of equality and a return to the natural hierarchy of our race

No idea what you're talking about, since you only quoted a fragment of a sentence, I'm not sure what ideas you think are contradictory. Also, the post did not talk about race, so I'm not sure where you're pulling that from. Or why a cultural revolution of science and reason, led by white men, which rejected religious domination and rule by hereditary monarchs, and might I add, saw the domination of the world by european powers, is somehow 'poison'.

>>12137

You sound like total cancer. Naturalistic evo psych morality is retarded and so are you.

Also this board's awful, it's like a bunch of thirsty prospective alpha males trying to get the attention of red pill women who've let their sexuality command their entire world view. Wanting to be a harem tradwife to save the white race is genuinely not a good way to get attention from sane or likable men, and I say that as somebody who's not particularly hostile to /pol/ stuff.

>>12981

>this board's awful

Try reading any other thread.

>>12998

>perverted

Not a problem on this board.

>>12982

I have read other threads. When people talk about politics or sociology it generally devolves into redpill women autism.

>Any woman who wants to be a "tradwife" is indistinguishable from any other woman 99% of the time

Generally true, but not when it comes to romantic expectations. When a guy finds out you're looking for an alpha male rather than a soulmate, he will likely feel like he has to LARP for the rest of his life to keep your interest. You can certainly find men willing to LARP for you like that, but it will generally be men whose desperation has led them to abandon any concern for intimacy or authenticity.

>>12984

>or you will be dead or in prison

This is why polygamous societies fail.

Progressing societies demand hierarchy, and everybody must have some incentive to participate in a hierarchy. If everybody's just trying to be top dog, the result is degraded social cohesion (if I can't be a CEO I'll be a cocaine dealer, because I'll get nothing out of being a clerk). Stable institutions become less attractive and men resort to bare aggression in order to appear to have status.

>There is no shame in this path either

Loneliness sucks. It's not an issue of shame or stigma. Polygamy will lead to life being worse for many, many people, men and women.

>>12999

>>13000

Regardless of any arguments, the trips must be acknowledged.

>Generally true, but not when it comes to romantic expectations. When a guy finds out you're looking for an alpha male rather than a soulmate, he will likely feel like he has to LARP for the rest of his life to keep your interest.

Making some serious leaps, which seem to be more based on your assumptions, rather than evidence provided. Putting aside phrases like "alpha male" and "soulmate", because they're fucking stupid, who said that women here are looking for dudebro Chad-types, rather than a well rounded partner?

Just because you like the idea of your man fucking other women, or even having other women being partners in his life, doesn't involve expecting him to be some highschool jock stereotype. That you have assumed this of them says more about you than them.

>>13001

>who said that women here are looking for dudebro Chad-types

Nobody, including me. I'm not saying that cuckqueaning is necessarily a fixation on the pop biology alpha male concept, I'm saying that a lot of the redpill women stuff here is.

I'm also aware that alpha males, as an ideal type, aren't football players or dudebros, and many women who imagine alpha males imagine successful guys in suits who have good abs. It's just that piddling around in that sphere means you spend a fuckton of time sorting male behaviors into different echelons of desirability, and being aware of that makes men feel self conscious. If you're a woman and you spend a bunch of time on reddit talking about alpha and beta traits, men will think you're a judgmental bitch (and you probably are).

>>13003

>I still don’t understand this ‘redpill woman’ accusation.

Think of a girl who consciously wants to date alpha males with superior genetics, who longs to be a traditional wife, who worries about corroding masculinity and feminist subversion, who is most likely associated with the alt right in some capacity, and who posts about this stuff on the internet.

That's roughly the redpill women archetype. I said reddit because I've seen people make fun of the redpill women subreddit, and the posts seemed similar to what I saw here.

>>13004

>most likely associated with the alt right in some capacity

Ah, well, there’s the problem. That definition of redpill seemed a little watered-down and now I know why.

Please keep the Reddit mentality where it belongs and contribute to board hygiene by refraining from posting if you are infected.

>>13004

>the alt right

Some people on 8chan and such places take that as an insult because they don't want to be associated with people like Richard Spencer, Milo, and so on. A lot of the figureheads are opportunist talking heads and seem to be setup as clowns for the lugenpresse. I think traditionalists, the ultras and the natsocs are quite different from the alt-right, and each other. Do most posters here care about any of that? Probably not.

>alpha males with superior genetics

If a guy is around normal height he will appear to have "superior genetics" if he simply eats right and lifts. Not relevant to this discussion but I wanted anyone who reads this to know that.

>>13005

When I was researching various things I did look at reddit even though it made me sick to my stomach. "redpillwomen" seems to be more along the surrendered wife / reclaiming femininity lines. Overall I thought it was positive. "theredpill" on the other hand has lots of stuff about straight men acting like promiscuous gay men. Only a part of it is positive, the core ideas. That's not down to the intent of the mods but because many of the uses are redditors obviously. I mean, who could post on that site given the political censorship? (same deal with cuckchan) Neither board had much to do with the political redpill idea although I can see the relation.

>>11956

You're seeing this at the wrong angle OP.

This is a fantasy ground.

Also the fact that this type of fetish and other related ones exist at least give me some hope that there's way out to not be emasculated in the relationship.

While plunging another fem might not be adviseable, the fact that you may not end up on jail for infidelity but have it solved thanks to a fetish is a relief from an otherwise big nightmare.

Sure if she forgives you and relationship goes on you just lost some power, but at least this is very distant from the warped emasculated hellhold being pushed around.

And no Islam won't takeover.

You're too blackpilled OP. Learn to see the Asset of things, mainly when speaking in about Fantasy realm.

>>13173

>What are you talking about?

>No one is emasculated in a normal relationship.

What you describe is too idealized. Maybe a few decades ago it could've worked that way.

The new normal being pushed is the emasculated male.

>>13209

This is /cuckquean/ not /cuckold/. Stop trying to force your dumb ideas. It's off topic. And by the way, in real life outside of your leftist/media bubble almost no women wants a relationship like that.

>>13173

>don't worry guys

>the turkroaches are just peaceful immigrants they will never pose a demographic threat to us

>the turks are our allies, we should thank them for making a buffer state between us and those pesky perzuns who mess with our Imperial elections #ImpreachMarcianos

t. median Byzantine circa 580AD

>>13230

>making irrelevant off topic posts

t. you

>>13173

Just how assblasted can one person from a single opinion? If you don't like, you should ignore it and move on.

You achieved nothing other than namecalling.

>>13211

You made me a question, I replied your question. I was replying to your question, not forcing ideas whatsoever.

Protip: If opinions leave you so triggered, just don't engage them.

>>13336

Your posts were clearly awful and I called you out because of that. They were so bad they got the thread bumplocked. The day I don't get mad over bad posting will be the day I die so you can shove your advice right up your arse.

>>13352

I'm the OP, and even ignoring those posts there were good reasons to bumplock this thread. There are several posts where I explicitly call this board a pile of shit.

>>13005

>>13007

To be fair both of you sound like you fit the redpill woman archetype.

You're as pathetic as male feminists who are into femdom. In fact, that analogy sums up almost everything I could say to you, so spend a lot of time thinking about it.

No, I'm not from reddit, I actually saw people talking about redpillwomen on lolcow of all places.

By the way, the Board Owner here is a redditor and a cutie.

>>14480

>so spend a lot of time thinking about it

Instead of making this type of lame hand waving post why don't you actually explain your ideas?

>>13352

If they were so bad as you say, it should be easy to refute them, but such a thing didn't happen. For some reason you considered them important enough to warrant the bumplock, as if implying the OP and your posts were very high quality to begin with.

it's almost like you forgot this is a chan in the end, and not a reddit.

>>14641

Why don't you and/or your sad friend make some more posts about being emasculated followed by some islam shit, you absolute soy boy.

>>14517

Evolve.