There have been a number of cultures throughout history that encouraged men to take multiple wives. What did they have in common besides that? What conditions led to that being acceptable?
>>6603123Thanks in advance.
>>6603123Huge levels of wealth inequality.
>>6603241What do you mean? How does wealth factor into it?
>>6603253Rich men can afford multiple wives.
>>6603253I mean that to support multiple wives and all the children produced with multiple wives, the head of the household needs some pretty serious money lying around, probably some large sources of income to keep up with the expenses. Systems with polygamy tend to have extreme concentrations of wealth among the same social class (or classes, but usually there's only one polygamist class in these societies) that are marrying multiple women.
>>6603253Not him but only rich men can support and feed multiple wives. There also needs to be a barrier to reduce the number of men who practice polygamy as there won't be enough women for all men to do so.
>>6603241Not really though since there are cultures with "good" wealth equality who do take on extra wives or have frequent affairs.
>>6603273>There also needs to be a barrier to reduce the number of men who practice polygamy as there won't be enough women for all men to do so.Just because you can take a wife doesn't mean you have to. Let's not mention the many families with one wife.
>>6603279Serial marriage however is not the same bank-stretcher that multiple simultaneous marriage is. Frequent affairs are even less so, unless a majority of these affairs produce children and these children are fully supported by the father in a way that legitimate children are.
>>6603288Did any cultures have that?
>>6603123More than normal culturally acceptance of inbreeding/homosexuality/child raping/goat fucking/ homosexual child raping/etc. because everyone understands what will happen if it isn't allowed. If the above isn't allowed: constant warfare, raping, and infighting as lower members desperately try and capture/impress women to procreate.>>6603525The French are pretty hardcore about their affairs, so much they outlawed genetic testing of children without consent of the mother and a bunch of other laws to make sure the husband will raise the child.
>>6603723Yes. They do this to hold onto their Parisian culture of casual affair making (that is at the very least from before the enlightenment era, pic related), but it's not very effective.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/french-men-s-insecurity-over-paternity-of-offspring-creating-a-society-of-doubt-1.773569https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-French-culture-accepts-love-affairs-out-of-marriagehttps://www.irishexaminer.com/world/the-french-really-are-different-when-it-comes-to-extra-marital-sex-255677.html
>>6603818What about in other cultures, both modern and historical?
>>6603288 Why DO people have affairs so often, anyways?
>>6603273>There also needs to be a barrier to reduce the number of men who practice polygamy as there won't be enough women for all men to do so.Lol, no. Many men died earlier in life - there was always overabundance of women, even in polygamous societies. 19th century and before there was no such thing as a male virgin - except celibacy, but old virgin women was a classic.
>>6605577Do you have any sources?
>>6605577>Many men died earlier in life - there was always overabundance of women, even in polygamous societiesGraveyard analyses indicate otherwise; women tended to die younger than men.
>>6605534I never thought about that before...
>>6605534Retards that thought getting married would fix all their problems. Turns out they were wrong and looked elsewhere for the happiness they still couldn't reach.
>>6603619>homosexuality>goat fuckingName one>inb4 Islam
>>6607408I meant, why do they hook up with people who are married and/or cheat on their spouses?
>>6603241literally not truethe quran specifically talks against large levels of wealth inequailty, and is a bad thing in the bookthats why charity is one of the most holy things
I just want a harem of qts like in my animes
>>6608542We all do...
>>6603253People who owned multiple wives/concubines were usually rich or very rich. That's because having a wife means financing her needs.
>>6606642>Noooooo please don't name the Islamic countrieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny_in_Islamhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Afghanistanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_baziSuck it, they've known for decades that they are watched from the sky by American helicopters and drones and they STILL fuck goats out in the open, see liveleak. At least Afghans only gang rape children inside, reportedly too stupid to do it out of earshot of the American troops through. Even in more peaceful countries like Thailand polygamy creates more of the weird sex shit like ladyboys and transsexual individuals. You decide if traps are gay or not.
A few cultures in history have also practiced Polyandry (A woman having more than one husband) which included the Hephthalites, many cultures in India subsequently continued the practice until recent times.
>>6603123Name of huge anime tiddis, please? For paizuri hentai research purposes
>>6608461>the quran specifically talks against large levels of wealth inequailty, and is a bad thing in the bookDamn Islam is pants on head retarded.
>>6609520Did cultures that allowed polyandry tend to have anything in common?
>>6609988Mata Hari from FGO.
>>6603123military orientation. Multiple wives allows the population to reproduce faster after loosing a lot of man in a war.
>>6610271i remember seeing that concept in a hentai
>>6610201Many thanks, Leroy
>>6603123>What conditions led to that being acceptable?Big disparities between men and women who were eligible for marriage. If a significant portion of your male population is abroad fighting wars, dead from previous wars, enslaved or otherwise undesirable then you'll have an insignificant amount of women who will end up unmarried and produce no legitimate children unless a minority of powerful, wealthy men are allowed to take multiple wives. It's a pragmatic solution to the problem of having a shortage of men.
>>6610276A lot of hentai have that plot, considering jap declining birthrate
>>6610719Is the rate that bad?
Mormons after the Mormon Wars because their male population had been depleted considerably
>>6603253Women are expensive
>>6609520What led to that practice?
>>6603273Your problem can easily be fixed by engineering human reproduction to yield a glut of women relative to men (say a 2:1 ratio for discussion), so that women are obliged to share men-even, at the macro-societal level, beta schlubs. The problem is the 1:1 sex proportion itself, when put next to the asymmetric differences of male and female sexual desire. The 1:1 schema advantages alpha men and women generally (it should, someone will say-a discussion for another thread).The Indian cultural practice of aborting girls, for example, is exactly backward from proper social engineering. Surplus women don't go on shooting sprees, they just sigh and eat their pint of Haagen Dasz, possibly making a cry-for-attention suicide "attempt" (which is never actually meant to succeed; Christine Chubbuck is the exception that proves the rule) at the extreme.>>6603723Yes, the French did pass this morally unjust law to uphold their cuck culture.
>>6613904High IQ post, instead of aborting females, males should be aborted. China did the same shit and now there's a scarcity of women, so chinese men look for wives outside china or become gay
>>6603123In my country, it was encouraged between the 16th-17th century due to most of the male population having moved out to look for bigger fortune elsewhere and there having been more women left than males. It was mostly done to encourage population growth, and more often, they allowed soldiers stationed here to take four wives, much to the church's dismay.
>>6610012Yes, their rarity. I forget where exactly but I once read something to the effect of: out of 900-ish (several hundred) surveyed world cultures, only 4-10 or so had significant cultural polyandry.Men do not want to share women with other men, nor do they want to put up with looking at naked men. This, because most men are straight and have the misfortune of not being bisexual. Women, of course, are constitutionally more bi-flexible about this sort of thing, and for obvious reasons that are rooted in reality.
>>6614291>Women, of course, are constitutionally more bi-flexible about this sort of thing, and for obvious reasons that are rooted in reality.What did he mean by this?
>>6614413It was his retarded way of referencing apsych study that showed men are more likely to be either gay or straight but less likely to be biWomen are more likely to be straight or bi but less likely to be lesbians. Like all psych studies however, it suffered from design issues that can't take into consideration of mental mishaps and and coincidences that can happen within people.They made conclusions based on their reaction to different types of porn.
>>6614413>>6614595well arousal, more like.
>>6603123Did the emperor of china really fuck all his concubines and wives? Like was there some autistic thing going on where one wife would just be the person he plays games or writes poetry with while the other would he actually fucks?
>>6614595So the results are not very accurate?
>>6603273>There also needs to be a barrier to reduce the number of men who practice polygamy as there won't be enough women for all men to do so.Just draft the bachelor males into a raiding party and tell them they can have all the wives they can catch.
>>6603123Well actually nonmonogamic relationships are/were pretty common around the world and it usually didn't have anything to do with scarcity of resources. In fact it was quite contrary - non-commercial economies or as anthropologists and ethnologists tend to call them - human economies (as the value of human life is of highest importance and can't be measured, accounted for or paid for) - possess intricate marital systems involving deepening community relationships via debt of life (as one family "gives" life to the other). Although important and powerful men (or women) may have right to be related multiple people of different sex. Also worth noting is the fact that such systems are in place to keep peace in and outside the community - they figured that it's in common interest to solve vendettas and conflicts with marriages (as in paying for taken life with life given in form of bride, slave or groom). So as some warfare may be involved those societies tended to be much peaceful then their commercial counterparts (ie western civ). Not sure how common human economies are today as a spread of Europeans, slave trade and various genocide wiped good bunch of them out of the face of earth or greatly influenced they social structure (good example would be demise of western African communities in the wake of colonial expansion)
>>6615232ISIS tried that with Yazidi women, the women either killed themselves and their children or escaped and told the Kurds all about ISIS and their weaknesses. Death is better for a woman than being a wife to her rapist.
>>6616065Vikings didn't take wives, they took slaves that they killed.>they figured that it's in common interest to solve vendettas and conflicts with marriages (as in paying for taken life with life given in form of bride, slave or groom)What if the bride, slave or groom don't agree and don't want to be married and don't care to solve a vendetta they didn't personally cause? If I were one of those I would kill the person I'm being forced to marry, kill them and any children I was forced to have out of this marriage too, kill their family, set the house on fire and kill my own family too in revenge. They deserve it for not giving a shit about me.
>>6615338>Those societies tended to be much peaceful then their commercialNot at all. The conflict was simply moved inside the family rather than outside. Inb4 you don't care if a man beats and kills his wife.
>>6616135Well it's arguable, I'm gonna need to check the sources for any estimations but those communities were usually tight enough for people to care for each other, either for they were living together in big house (or houses) or father/brothers cared enough for their kin to make sure that nothing wrong happens to her (as the wife wasn't property or her husband, the very idea underlying the system of bride prices was immeasurable value o human being thus payment was only token of acknowledgment of lifelong debt and bond between the groom and father-in-law). How this worked of course varied between cultures, Dobu had their edgelord customs, Samoans complex hierarchy and the same goes for African, American and many others native cultures.
>>6616115Not a realistic option in circumstances of the Vikings in Europe after the fall of Rome. Do your homework, do your research. Lol. Imagine if you tried to do with during the era of the Viking invasions. Where ya gunna run lil missy ? Why are you fucking with my buddies war booty ? Are you crazy bitch ? You'll get killed, do you think Rollo and his friends will let such an act slide ? I'm not convinced the women of this era were particularly rebellious minded, when they saw the war power of Vikings taking over Europe, and then I bet you dollars to donuts some women started siding with what they saw as winners taking land and resources. I bet you a million dollars there was no resistance. Woman want winners. Sure some women don't like shitty conditions, and so who are the breadwinners of good living here ? The vikings. I'm not convinced its as bad as youre illustrating it to be.
>>6603123You just made this thread to wank off to ideas of marrying anime girls?
>>6616461The graves of the viking slaves show heavily damaged skeletons, so either the vikings killed their slaves before they got any chance to rebel, or their slaves rebelled and died fighting. Either way if escape and victory aren't possible, death is still better than being a slave.
>>6616857Is there something wrong with that?
>>6603123Polygamy is bad OP, it allows the extremely rich to monopolize the sexual marketplace.
>>6616888They probably had a hierarchy of obedience Nothing new here ! Lol
>>6617000What do you mean?
>>6608973Beastiality is some fucked underground shit in Afghanistan as is bacha bazi. The Taliban outlawed both.
>>6605998Because childbirth was lethal for many.
>>6616966>, it allows the extremely rich to monopolize the sexual marketplaceNot it doesn't lol. that shit happens outside of polygamy.
>>6609520Draupadi's polyandry was an exception and it's clear if you read the story that the arrangement was caused by a misunderstanding where the Pandava mother ordered her sons to share everything they aquired when they were away from court, without knowing that one of them got married
>>6617602What do you mean?
>>6615169Probably. I will look it up and see if I can post it here later.They basically measured vaginal wetness and erections by the males in response to the different types of porn.But sex in itself is sexy/titillating so how to you account for that fact?
>>6619083He has no idea what he's talking about. Pay him no mind.Polygamy legalizes side chicks/dudes within marriage making promiscuity worse. This is even worse since it's onesided(only men an get multiple partners). Thus a lot of women are taken off the sexual market place with more men still on it(adultery in the past was simply sex with a married WOMAN)Otherwise, promiscuity and multiple partners is mostly between the unmarried and a nearly 1:1 ratio of men and women are still in the sexual market place.
>>6614595I wrote the post that you attempted to interpret, and you've completely missed the point. I was not referring to that. You are dumb.
>>6619761>Thus a lot of women are taken off the sexual market place with more men still on itYou are implying that everyone woman wants to enter a poly marriage or that the number of men who can afford it is high.
>>6620477or that every man on the "Sexual marketplace" is viable or desirable
>>6620484You lost me.
>>6605998Does this include the cemeteries which were emptied out over the course of industrialization?
>>6621824What are you talking to?
>>6620477>or that everyone xan afford it.I was not implying this at all. That is what the guy i was talking about was. Im argguing against him.
>>6603123-income inequality: mostly rich men can afford to do it and it helps bypasses lack of attractiveness -Patriarchy / less female independence: women cannot work and need husbando/sons to provide.-A lot of wars: helped women not be widows while indirectly keeping the gender ratio stable( women can then get prego and have kids, likely dying)
>>6624037Lack of attractiveness?
>>6624139ok sorry that was stupid:it helps by pass the fact that they are ugly.
>>6620443Ok, then I'm going to need you to explain what you mean by "biflexible" and why it is obvious?That women are more likely to put up with cheating or another person? Only, when in a society where they have little independence/ power. Women have been compliant about these things historically because they had no choice if they wanted support. As for men more heterosexual, that goes back to the study I referenced.
>>6625168what I mean is, income inequality, with some men having a shit ton of money, is a major component of what made polygamy in societies acceptable and what those societies have in common.With lots of money, you're able to bypass the issue of being ugly/undesirable that would have otherwise prevented you from getting a wife, let along multiple.That and the other two conditions I mentioned
>>6621824Why were they emptied?
>>6625222What about wives with multiple husbands?
>>6603123You will die a virgin.
why do christians hate polygamy when king soloman had 700 wives
>>6629744Technically, he only had 300 wives and a vast number of concubines.
>>6603123They were not tainted by the White Man. Most civilizations, Native American, African, Chinese. Middle Eastern, traditionally had some form of concubines, multiple wives. It is the fault of the White Man's crazy ideas of Feminism that is the true evil of colonialism
>>6628421why was he supposedly wise then decide to have 700 wives?
>>6629782He was high test and could satisfy all of his wives>>6628421 Isn't the law about polygamy from Paul? Seems like he's everywhere
>>6629782he wasn't gay, you fag
>>6627366uncommon but creates problems since neither of the guys know if the kid born is theirs or the others. It would have to be a system where guys either fuck off, aren't the ones investing/ raising the kids, but instead the child's extended family(uncles, grand fathers) like that one culture(forgot the name) OR things are completely materalineal. OP asked specifically about polyGYNY though(multiple wives specifically)>>6626625Naw, the 3 things I mentioned is basically it if you're asking what all these polygyny societies had in common.
>>6609991t. Capitalist bootlicker
>>6613913Or just make immigration for females only lol
>>6613913China is now mass importing women from Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia and Pakistan.
>>6631395Why those places?
>>6631290Why would that happen?
To all the guys wanting polygamy enjoy raising the children of multiple men who aint you btw. If you one slut is unfaithful then just lol.
>>6610201It's a mobile game.
>>6632262I don't know.
>>6629766Greeks had wives and concubines though.Romand might as well with all their affairs and bunch of female (sex)slaves.For most of Europe though, christianity has already spread by this time which was monogamist.
>>6632662good point but, I always find it funny how men have always been able to talk at length about polygany and concubines while calling any women who sleep with another man or just sleep around, sluts with a straight face.Men truly do love projection. I guess it's easy when you get to arbitrarily set the rules though.
>>6634479What were the rules for concubines back then?
>>6634502because men and women arent equal? thus equal standards dont apply?
>>6608461Doesn't mean Islamic societies didn't have wealth inequality.Islam also forbids drinking wine but there's a whole genre of Arabic poetry dedicated to it
>>6613851I think it was practiced in Tibet to prevent having to distribute the family land among all the sons, which would lead to everyone having too little land to live from
>>6603818>>6603619Anglos with their cuck fantasies again
>>6628421Many of the old patriarchs of the bible were polygamists, but the usual thing I've heard from Christians as to why it's not allowed anymore is that in many of the cases in the OT it was shown that being polygamous led them into sin. Solomon is one example. David is another, and of course, the famous example of Abraham not trusting God and impregnating Sarah's servant. It's an interesting subject. Jews don't practice polygamy anymore either, and Muslims only do so sparingly.
>>6639142>http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2014/07/Stoltz-Tibetan-Polyandry-final1.pdf>The eighteenth century Jesuit missionary Ippolito Desideri, who lived in Tibet from 1715 to 1721, offers two explanations for the presence of polyandry in his writing on the topic.The first point he makes is that the harshness of the land makes earning one’s livelihood difficult in Tibet, and thus to divide land between male offspring would make everyone “miserable and quickly reduced to beggary” (Desideri 288).The second reason he offers is that in areas where polyandrous marriages are practiced it is due to “the large number of males and the much smaller number of females” (ibid.).
>>6637070>women and men are kind of different in some ways>that means women are ok with it when their husbands sleep around.>only men get mad about women sleeping around>This is so because we(men) said(forced it) so.your logic and hypocrisy is still ridiculous though. >A guy toying with the idea of multiple sex partners calling another woman for sleeping with another partner.
>>6613904> more women> even greater social imbalance because betaschlubs STILL can't get laid and feel even worse> also the women then all collectively vote for open immigration to access new foreign penisesThey will not settle for Eugene. I don't think you understand.