That makes more sense. Because ithe could effect the dating pool if many men are taking high quality mates out of the dating pool.
How many women vs men are in the US
Are These Good Reasons For Polygamy?
- Thread starter Poitier
- Start date
How many women vs men are in the US
In western socitey what defines a "high quality" mate in respect to women?
Beautiful
Beautiful and submissive.
beautiful with money
Beautiful submissive with money
Marriage isn't broken.
It would change the number of mates that are available.
You really wanna know? Ask some of your parents. Many people "settle"...no one likes to admit it.
Its not good public policy and it will have detrimental social effects
Look at countries that allow it...they have hoardes of shiftless and angry men who can't find mates who end up filling their time with drugs, crime, terorrism, and other societal ills.
This is about the best policy for the best number of people. Polygamy does not bode well for societal stability.
Thats a ridiculous statement. How stupid can you be?Newsflash that's already happening, alls fair in love and war. If a nikka can convince 3 women to marry him and some poor schmuck can't convince 1 then
The 3-to-1 scenario doesn't presently exist...the 1:1 scenario exists and its already hard enough.
You're going to end up with a massive shift in wealth and societal upheaval.
This isn't about millionaires either.
It doesn't even have to be someone with 6 figures.
If you're more charismatic with the next dude, the guy in the neighborhood that everyone likes can easily steal his neighbors wives....and theres nothing they could do to stop it.
At least with monogamous marriage (gay or straight) they have some "barrier" to disrupting existing homes and individualism that results from a larger number of individual couples.
Show me a example of a polygamist culture where the wife or wives are more than just domestic servants
Women DONT have that choice.
Co-habitation is not the same has having legal obligations to that same partner.
Taxes, health benefits, property, assets etc.
Its far more than just poly-AMORY.
Having kids has never changed this...and thats not polygamy. Many times the man is only responsible for the child's welfare, not also alimony...alimony is usually for people with the assets to be able to afford it. And even then, thats limited to MARRIAGES...rarely cohabitation.
Theres like 51% women...but that doesn't matter.
Look...everyone has someone at their level for them. Whether or not people want to "go up or down" on that scale is up to them...but fact is, theres generally someone for everyone out there.
If theres more high capability mates (male or female) sucking up other mates (male or female/gay or straight) then you just leave that many more people out of relationships.
If 100,000 people who would have been in 1:1 relationships take up just one extra partner to become 2:1 relationships...thats an extra 100,000 people who are left without mates.
Thats astronomical. and thats one 100,000 people...imagine the effect that has on small cities.
And we're talking about a nation of 350,000,000 people.
1% of 350,000,000 is 3.5 million
If 1% of Americans went from 1:1 partnerships to 2:1 partnerships by taking in an extra mate (because it'd be 3.5m men + 3.5m women...and then add an extra 3.5m women in the additional partner per relationship), you'd have 3.5 million men who DO NOT HAVE/LOST MATES immediately.
And those are just the people who were "in the running" or had a chance.
You do NOT want that shyt to come to the United States...
You a damn fool if you think the current child support system doesnt take into acount the womans situation.
Lets define domestic servant.
doesn't have to be male getting women.
Theres a lot of boss women out here who dudes would have no problem sharing...
You telling me Oprah can't find 5 dudes she could "husband" right now?
Doesn't matter though because you're talking about ultimately child support, a concept that has nothing to do with marriage status, but ultimately deals with support for the child. The status of the mother is a factor, but it does not come from a place of marriage to multiple women.
And truth be told, child support doesn't handle all of the other issues that marriage does or entitles you to with legal protections, access, or status.
There are already way more then that single and not wanting to be in a relationshop so I doubt it would have a big effect. if anything it will get more people out of single relationships.Theres like 51% women...but that doesn't matter.
Look...everyone has someone at their level for them. Whether or not people want to "go up or down" on that scale is up to them...but fact is, theres generally someone for everyone out there.
If theres more high capability mates (male or female) sucking up other mates (male or female/gay or straight) then you just leave that many more people out of relationships.
If 100,000 people who would have been in 1:1 relationships take up just one extra partner to become 2:1 relationships...thats an extra 100,000 people who are left without mates.
Thats astronomical. and thats one 100,000 people...imagine the effect that has on small cities.
And we're talking about a nation of 350,000,000 people.
1% of 350,000,000 is 3.5 million
If 1% of Americans went from 1:1 partnerships to 2:1 partnerships by taking in an extra mate (because it'd be 3.5m men + 3.5m women...and then add an extra 3.5m women in the additional partner per relationship), you'd have 3.5 million men who DO NOT HAVE/LOST MATES immediately.
And those are just the people who were "in the running" or had a chance.
You do NOT want that shyt to come to the United States...
I'm just not sure how they would work out tax deductions.
Dudes refuse to admit that their current partners SETTLED for them and ignore that they could be one of the legions of men whose partners have gone on to the "greener grass" 
Lol if polygamy is an issue shouldnt homosexuality be an issue too? As these are even more people who will not mate with a population of the opposite sex?
So people only get with people they settled for and not choose?Dudes refuse to admit that their current partners SETTLED for them and ignore that they could be one of the legions of men whose partners have gone on to the "greener grass"
Speak for yourself on that one.
