The Polygamy/Village Question

LatinaOfHearts said:

So if we're using those passages to justify male polygamy, we could also use them to justify female polygamy.. which is something no man seems to like but we should be ok with it being done to us.

AryanSuperSoldier said:

That would be polyandry, and the reason no one really argue for it except for feminists is because of biology. 9 months to wait for a baby is a long time to then ‘get your turn’ if your in a polyandrous relationship. Most guys see it as essentially a form of cuckoldry, I mean depending on how many men are with one woman, you’re all gonna be supporting each others kids and that’s if the woman is ‘fair’ and has children with each of the men (which is so unbelievably doubtful and uncharacteristic), whereas in polygamy it’s less so effecting to both the men and the women. All in all though, monogamy is superior for creating fair and stable relationships and then also societies.

What he said, and also polyandry was never acceptable in the bible. This is completely different than saying polygamy was acceptable in the old testament and jesus and the disciples never said anything about it changing and being a sin in the new testament. Those passages don't justify polygamy, the point is they dont ban that which was acceptable in the old testament. Rather the only ban they put on is divorce.

AryanSuperSoldier said:
That would be polyandry, and the reason no one really argue for it except for feminists is because of biology. 9 months to wait for a baby is a long time to then ‘get your turn’ if your in a polyandrous relationship. Most guys see it as essentially a form of cuckoldry, I mean depending on how many men are with one woman, you’re all gonna be supporting each others kids and that’s if the woman is ‘fair’ and has children with each of the men (which is so unbelievably doubtful and uncharacteristic), whereas in polygamy it’s less so effecting to both the men and the women. All in all though, monogamy is superior for creating fair and stable relationships and then also societies.

Tibetan Buddhists (Gelug) practicing polyandry is probably why so many White girls larp like they follow the Dalai Lama now.

AryanBreeder8 said:

Tibetan Buddhists (Gelug) practicing polyandry is probably why so many White girls larp like they follow the Dalai Lama now.

Not just white women, but all liberal women will do anything to escape the warm and loving embrace of Christ lmao. Like I get it gals, astrology is super accurate half of the time, Buddhism is so trippy and peaceful yada yada, but come on Christ is literally King. He’s also the only Christian I respect and all us Based and Redpilled Aryan GIGACHADS need to return to worshiping DYEUS PITR and drinking pasteurised milk riding our GLORIOUS CHARIOTS to HYPERBOREA

I’m only half joking lol.

AryanSuperSoldier said:

Not just white women, but all liberal women will do anything to escape the warm and loving embrace of Christ lmao. Like I get it gals, astrology is super accurate half of the time, Buddhism is so trippy and peaceful yada yada, but come on Christ is literally King. He’s also the only Christian I respect and all us Based and Redpilled Aryan GIGACHADS need to return to worshiping DYEUS PITR and drinking pasteurised milk riding our GLORIOUS CHARIOTS to HYPERBOREA

I’m only half joking lol.

Always reminds me of Job's wife

AryanSuperSoldier said:

That would be polyandry, and the reason no one really argue for it except for feminists is because of biology. 9 months to wait for a baby is a long time to then ‘get your turn’ if your in a polyandrous relationship. Most guys see it as essentially a form of cuckoldry, I mean depending on how many men are with one woman, you’re all gonna be supporting each others kids and that’s if the woman is ‘fair’ and has children with each of the men (which is so unbelievably doubtful and uncharacteristic), whereas in polygamy it’s less so effecting to both the men and the women. All in all though, monogamy is superior for creating fair and stable relationships and then also societies.

Hell, I'd argue that it's equally affecting for the same reasons. The women in polygamous circles still feel cucked, like a second option etc. Especially since a woman can cum multiple times in the span of an hour or less (meaning she can have sex with all the men in her circle daily) but a man can cum only once every couple of hours (if you wait any less than that the cumshot is gonna be watery and contain basically no sperm cells). The nasty taste in your mouth of raising another womans kid is still there, you'd get less financial support, your children would not have a present father figure etc.
While I'm completely monogamous I honestly think that polyandry (I had forgotten the word, thank you) is 100% better than polygamy.

LatinaOfHearts said:

Hell, I'd argue that it's equally affecting for the same reasons. The women in polygamous circles still feel cucked, like a second option etc. Especially since a woman can cum multiple times in the span of an hour or less (meaning she can have sex with all the men in her circle daily) but a man can cum only once every couple of hours (if you wait any less than that the cumshot is gonna be watery and contain basically no sperm cells). The nasty taste in your mouth of raising another womans kid is still there, you'd get less financial support, your children would not have a present father figure etc.
While I'm completely monogamous I honestly think that polyandry (I had forgotten the word, thank you) is 100% better than polygamy.

I can't believe I'm saying this on a porn site, and I'm going to sound like a prude, but sex isn't only about pleasure. Women's sexual strategy is qualitative, men's sexual strategy is quantitative. It is this way because it guarantees the survival and continuation of the species. High status men are able to attract multiple women, and there are plenty of women that will share the man due to the fact he is of high status. We are not as concerned with survival nowadays, but you can't really get rid of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of evolutionary psychology. Plus, I'm not sure if you've checked what people in polyandrous relationships look like. Most women belong amongst farm animals and most men 5 km away from any school. They look horrid, and it's not suprising.

I'm not defending polygyny, I'm just sharing why it's made sense historically, though I understand why as a woman you'd be opposed to it. I still think monogamy is the way to go. It's best for all parties involved, even the children.

Polyandry was probably more common in societies that were just entering the agrarian neo-lithic era. Before (in the paleo-lithic) that it likely would’ve been a mix of monogamy for the whole tribe (which would’ve consisted of like 10’s of people to maybe around a hundred or so) where the tribal Chief would have around 2-4 wives due to the nature of being the highest status man in the tribe. A single chief wouldn’t have the sheer amount of available food and resources to take care of a massive harem and their offspring, as he also has the rest of the tribe to take care of, hunting game and foraging the land (not farming or staying put for too long). These tribes pre-agrarian, would’ve been hunter gatherer societies that actually formed the backbone of our biological psychology and likely remains the strongest root cause of our evolutionary development and impulses. Hunter gathers make up a bulk of our evolutionary history and farming, and greater societal shifts are relatively new to the species in terms of genetic timeframe. Because people didn’t really know about how paternity/maternity worked back then precisely and they only had the fact that they only had the fact that women gave birth to children to go off of, they would’ve idolised the fertility of the female in these harsh times, and followed a matrilineal model of succession, and this is shown in the Venus figurines popular around this time, with all these exaggerated buxom ‘stone babes’ around the Middle East and Europe as well as their religions which were more earthly and nature oriented as opposed to the later sky-father that would soon come. They likely (like in some cultures today) would’ve also believed that several men ‘impregnating’ one woman would’ve given her kids the traits of those men who seeded her making the kids stronger or more varied (this is obviously untrue in hindsight but this is literal early societal humans here). These sedentary matrilineal early agrarian societies would be superseded by an eventual pastoralist nomadic patriarchal society that migrated in and essentially conquered them and created the current reigning worldview, that of monogamy for the avg and polygamy for the elite returning as opposed to the traditional polyandry for the matriarchs and possible monogamy for the avg. That’s just my theory, but it also tracks well with the actuality of historical facts and context.

TallWhiteAndHung said:

I can't believe I'm saying this on a porn site, and I'm going to sound like a prude, but sex isn't only about pleasure. Women's sexual strategy is qualitative, men's sexual strategy is quantitative. It is this way because it guarantees the survival and continuation of the species. High status men are able to attract multiple women, and there are plenty of women that will share the man due to the fact he is of high status. We are not as concerned with survival nowadays, but you can't really get rid of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years of evolutionary psychology. Plus, I'm not sure if you've checked what people in polyandrous relationships look like. Most women belong amongst farm animals and most men 5 km away from any school. They look horrid, and it's not suprising.

I'm not defending polygyny, I'm just sharing why it's made sense historically, though I understand why as a woman you'd be opposed to it. I still think monogamy is the way to go. It's best for all parties involved, even the children.

It depends on how you define high status. Technically, the men with the highest status, in terms of resources are Jews and Asians. Both of these groups are lacking in the fertility department. If you go off of fertility then the high status men are white, but most wouldn't be able to financially, emotionally and physically take care of not only a harem but multiple families. In contrast with having a family where a single woman mothers multiple kids and takes care of them (like most housewives do) and multiple fathers provide financial, emotional, physical and educational support and proper role models.

Again, to me, it just doesn't fit... It's either multiple women get kosher'ed and yellowed, multiple women get bleached but starve to death and their kids grow up without fathers or we agree polygamy/andry is completely stupid and monogamy is the only way.

LatinaOfHearts said:

Hell, I'd argue that it's equally affecting for the same reasons. The women in polygamous circles still feel cucked, like a second option etc.

Historically women arent as likely to feel cucked, because they literally arent being cucked (in the actual original evolutionary term). No woman can "accidentally" give birth to another woman's child. Men on the other hand have gotten tricked throughout history.

Especially since a woman can cum multiple times in the span of an hour or less (meaning she can have sex with all the men in her circle daily) but a man can cum only once every couple of hours (if you wait any less than that the cumshot is gonna be watery and contain basically no sperm cells).

Men can come multiple times, especially when they have a harem. The refractory period is decreased in the presence of multiple women. And even if the sperm count drops, you only need to get a woman pregnant once every 9 months at most.

The nasty taste in your mouth of raising another womans kid is still there, you'd get less financial support, your children would not have a present father figure etc.
While I'm completely monogamous I honestly think that polyandry (I had forgotten the word, thank you) is 100% better than polygamy.

Once again, women cant accidentally give birth to other women's children. Also harems tend to form when the man has a lot more resources than other men.

In contrast with having a family where a single woman mothers multiple kids and takes care of them (like most housewives do) and multiple fathers provide financial, emotional, physical and educational support and proper role models.

Once again, this ignores the evolutionarily aspect of what getting cucked actually is. Having other men raise stepkids greatly increases the risk to the kids than biological parents. Not to mention the massive risks and uncertainty coming from not knowing who is who's father. Also women working is a thing in harems.

LatinaOfHearts said:

It depends on how you define high status. Technically, the men with the highest status, in terms of resources are Jews and Asians. Both of these groups are lacking in the fertility department. If you go off of fertility then the high status men are white, but most wouldn't be able to financially, emotionally and physically take care of not only a harem but multiple families. In contrast with having a family where a single woman mothers multiple kids and takes care of them (like most housewives do) and multiple fathers provide financial, emotional, physical and educational support and proper role models.

Again, to me, it just doesn't fit... It's either multiple women get kosher'ed and yellowed, multiple women get bleached but starve to death and their kids grow up without fathers or we agree polygamy/andry is completely stupid and monogamy is the only way.

I would say high status is an amalgamation of things. It's basically having all your stats maxed out, or as close to it as possible. You can have one singular stat maxed out but it doesn't matter if your lacking in others. You can be a wealthy crypto nerd but have women disrespect and take advantage of you because you're a socially inept retard. You can look like a supermodel but women lose interest in you because you have nothing going for you in your life. That's why I think definitionally, being succesful with women is not only about fucking them, but retaining them.

TallWhiteAndHung said:

I would say high status is an amalgamation of things. It's basically having all your stats maxed out, or as close to it as possible. You can have one singular stat maxed out but it doesn't matter if your lacking in others. You can be a wealthy crypto nerd but have women disrespect and take advantage of you because you're a socially inept retard. You can look like a supermodel but women lose interest in you because you have nothing going for you in your life. That's why I think definitionally, being succesful with women is not only about fucking them, but retaining them.

I mean in the case of wealthy engineer nerds and stuff, that's just cause women arent actually sexually attracted to men with wealth, they are attracted to the character and personality traits that men with wealth usually have. Sure there are gold diggers, but those women arent actually attracted to the men, just want his wealth, so marry/date him then cheat on him. the beta bucks/alpha fucks thing. You can just have one trait and get a lot of women, as you see with gangsters and stuff. essentially if you have that perceived alpha factor as a personality trait, or just really good looking you can pass with just one stat. Also just being really famous works too. If there is one thing you could be to get a lot of women its famous. I dont think there a single famous person who is an incel.

TallWhiteAndHung said:

I would say high status is an amalgamation of things. It's basically having all your stats maxed out, or as close to it as possible. You can have one singular stat maxed out but it doesn't matter if your lacking in others. You can be a wealthy crypto nerd but have women disrespect and take advantage of you because you're a socially inept retard. You can look like a supermodel but women lose interest in you because you have nothing going for you in your life. That's why I think definitionally, being succesful with women is not only about fucking them, but retaining them.

Then the point still stands, the men getting the most women are going to be either Jewish or Asian. It just wouldn't work. Plus, I don't you're gonna be able to retain women when you're cuckqueaning them, forcing them to work to support other women's children, denying them affection and sex etc.

LatinaOfHearts said:

Then the point still stands, the men getting the most women are going to be either Jewish or Asian. It just wouldn't work. Plus, I don't you're gonna be able to retain women when you're cuckqueaning them, forcing them to work to support other women's children, denying them affection and sex etc.

Why it would be that? jews and asians tend to be more beta. Also, history and modern era shows women are willing to share a wealthy and powerful man, or even prefer that over a normal man. Also you dont force women to work to support other women's children or deny them affection or sex in harems. Look up the term aloparenting. It's evolutionarily beneficial to the woman. It's like how men coming together to build a skyscraper or factory is beneficial. None of them can do it by themselves but they all contribute and it achieves greater benefit than any single individual worth. the concept of synergy. in a polyandrious structure it's opposite. It's parasitical not synergetic and it's evolutionarily beneficial to ur genes to compete with the other men. Polyandry cultures are essentially forms of slave cultures, where the inferior men and made servants to the children of the higher status men.

fkiblaze said:

I mean in the case of wealthy engineer nerds and stuff, that's just cause women arent actually sexually attracted to men with wealth, they are attracted to the character and personality traits that men with wealth usually have. Sure there are gold diggers, but those women arent actually attracted to the men, just want his wealth, so marry/date him then cheat on him. the beta bucks/alpha fucks thing. You can just have one trait and get a lot of women, as you see with gangsters and stuff. essentially if you have that perceived alpha factor as a personality trait, or just really good looking you can pass with just one stat. Also just being really famous works too. If there is one thing you could be to get a lot of women its famous. I dont think there a single famous person who is an incel.

Yeah I really don't think you truly understand how women behave at all.. we're biologically, mentally set to pick the partner with the most resources. That can mean a lot of things, good genes, wealth, personality, fame, connections etc. Plus, you're using words from a study in wolves that was proven to be completely misunderstood and flawed, women don't want "Chad" or a guy with a "alpha factor" (don't even know wtf that is) it's a much more grey subject. Some of us look for personality, others look for wealth, but ultimately all end up attracted to someone.

fkiblaze said:

Why it would be that? jews and asians tend to be more beta. Also, history and modern era shows women are willing to share a wealthy and powerful man, or even prefer that over a normal man. Also you dont force women to work to support other women's children or deny them affection or sex in harems. Look up the term aloparenting. It's evolutionarily beneficial to the woman. It's like how men coming together to build a skyscraper or factory is beneficial. None of them can do it by themselves but they all contribute and it achieves greater benefit than any single individual worth. the concept of synergy. in a polyandrious structure it's opposite. It's parasitical not synergetic and it's evolutionarily beneficial to ur genes to compete with the other men. Polyandry cultures are essentially forms of slave cultures, where the inferior men and made servants to the children of the higher status men.

Because Jews and Asians have more "maxed out stats" (connections, wealth, intelligence, physical health (not good genes, mind you) etc.) that'd put them at the top of the ladder. Again, women (gold diggers) would not mind sharing a wealthy man and getting mistreated while driving around in a Ferrari. Doesn't mean that a mechanic is gonna have 10 babes lined up just cause he has blue eyes 🫠

LatinaOfHearts said:

Yeah I really don't think you truly understand how women behave at all.. we're biologically, mentally set to pick the partner with the most resources. That can mean a lot of things, good genes, wealth, personality, fame, connections etc.

All those things are generally things that fall under alpha men.

Plus, you're using words from a study in wolves that was proven to be completely misunderstood and flawed, women don't want "Chad" or a guy with a "alpha factor" (don't even know wtf that is)

Anyone who says that 100% got it from that stupid liberal beta guy, adamruinseverythign or whatever. No, that is completely false. Alpha isnt a "wolf thing" every species has it. In fact chimpanzees are the ones people use most as examples cause they are closest to humans. TFM made a good video debunking that lie.

LatinaOfHearts said:

Because Jews and Asians have more "maxed out stats" (connections, wealth, intelligence, physical health (not good genes, mind you) etc.) that'd put them at the top of the ladder. Again, women (gold diggers) would not mind sharing a wealthy man and getting mistreated while driving around in a Ferrari. Doesn't mean that a mechanic is gonna have 10 babes lined up just cause he has blue eyes 🫠

Yet jews and asians dont actually get the most partners so no, they obviously dont cause like i said they have more beta personality traits. Black people get more partners despite being broke and the bottom of society, because they are more "alpha"/masculine.

LatinaOfHearts said:

Because Jews and Asians have more "maxed out stats" (connections, wealth, intelligence, physical health (not good genes, mind you) etc.) that'd put them at the top of the ladder. Again, women (gold diggers) would not mind sharing a wealthy man and getting mistreated while driving around in a Ferrari. Doesn't mean that a mechanic is gonna have 10 babes lined up just cause he has blue eyes 🫠

Edit: why would they be made servants? Each man works to support his child in everything they need. In polygamy, it's either some women would need to work 9-5 to support all the children while the others raise them or they'd all need to work part time and raise each others kids. In polyandry, each man works 9-5 while the women takes care of all the kids, when they leave work they'll each spend time with their own kids and buy what's needed for them. If a man doesn't wanna work and pull his weight then tough shit, his child is starving and the other men will resent him.

LatinaOfHearts said:

why would they be made servants? Each man works to support his child in everything they need. In polygamy, it's either some women would need to work 9-5 to support all the children while the others raise them or they'd all need to work part time and raise each others kids. In polyandry, each man works 9-5 while the women takes care of all the kids, when they leave work they'll each spend time with their own kids and buy what's needed for them. If a man doesn't wanna work and pull his weight then tough shit, his child is starving and the other men will resent him.

Who is his child? When multiple men are having sex with one woman how do you know who is what child? Why would they work together for the bottleneck. the most evolutionarily benefit would be to monopolize the womb by trying to compete and subvert the other men, then have the most children with her and have the rest of the men raise the children. Once again, you are not looking at things on the evolutionary or genetic way. The most evolutionarily beneficial thing to be is spend all your time trying to get the most access to the womb, and then do the least amount of work while the other men raise ur children

And no, most harem is each women raise their own child and get help when they need it. No one is forced to do one thing or another, they work for their own households or they work together as a team.

fkiblaze said:

All those things are generally things that fall under alpha men.

So a man that has a nice personality but is a 1/10 on a good day is an "alpha"? No, of course not, we don't guide ourselves like wolves or monkeys. We're much more evolved.

Anyone who says that 100% got it from that stupid liberal beta guy, adamruinseverythign or whatever. No, that is completely false. Alpha isnt a "wolf thing" every species has it. In fact chimpanzees are the ones people use most as examples cause they are closest to humans. TFM made a good video debunking that lie.

Yeah I don't know him, but the creator of the study itself came out saying he had fucked up and confused parents with "alphas" chimpanzees and gorillas both have that "alpha/beta" structure, with a catch.. all gorilas will be silverbacks and all chimpanzees will have harems at least once in their lives.