What's wrong with polygamy again?

⠝⠕⠏⠑

Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
21,950
Reputation
26,510
Daps
116,809
nikka Please. That bullshyt you just posted is nothing more than these new age feminists and fakkits creating shyt to try and make men and women seem the same. We are NOT. Men and women are different. And the truth is in the biology.

Men produce millions of sperm a day. Hence we are biologically programmed to want to fukk as many women as possible. And since we can keep shooting loads every day we have no impetus to be very choosy. Basically the more bytches we impregnate the better because it increases the likelihood that our seed is born.

Women produce only one egg a month. They are not biologically programmed to be whores. They are biologically programmed to want to pick out one man who is the best. And unlike men who only go for looks (AKA the best genes), women must balance the man with the best genes (AKA the most attractive) with the guy who is the best provider. Why? Because its the woman who becomes pregnant for 9 months and must give birth to the child. So the woman has more reason to look for the provider than the best looking guy. Because we evolved in the African Savannah, it was impossible for a pregnant female to survive on her own without a man to take care of her. That thinking has progressed to the modern era where women look for men with money to support them financially.

The only women who are whores are those who want to deceive their provider mate. They basically want the benefit of the best genes with the best provider. And hoes like that eventually get exposed. Which is why hoeing is not selected for in the female character.

So please stop spreading these lies by feminists and fakkits to try and make men and women seem the same. We are not. We are different. Men are programmed to be with multiple women. Women are programmed to be with one man who can take care of them. PERIOD.
Lmao! I didn't make this stuff up. I got that STRAIGHT from evolutionary biologists. Lol!

You might wanna go and yell at them. Please don't shoot the messenger simply b/c the message doesn't say what you want to hear. Apparently female promiscuity is a natural evolutionary process b/c it assures fertility (ya know just in case one dikk can make a baby another one will), and because female hypergamy pushes women to constantly look for and sleep with the best mate around.

Apparently human testicles and the male penis is even shaped and primed for female promiscuity because sleeping around assures fertility and diversity of gene pool.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver

I'm sorry that what these scientists are finding doesn't support what ur saying but im just makin stuff known.

These are the dangers we get into when u try to use contrived evolutionary theory to justify social norms. If you really wanna deal with men and women in the raw natural world you will have men sleeping with everything and women constantly moving to the next best thing due to biological impetus.

However monogamy and courtship ensures that there are enough sexual partners for all males without causing p*ssy shortages and also provides females reassurance that they are getting the best male according to their needs.
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,881
Daps
84,297
Reppin
NULL
Nikah Ijtimah - Wikipedia

there were four types of marriage during the ancient Arab period. One ... type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relations with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them could refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her she would say to them "You (all) know what you have done and now I have given birth to a child. So it is your child O so and so!" Naming whoever she liked and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him.[1]

Y'all bouta fukk the game up for everybody being greedy smh.


You may think it's p*ssy but the Massai for centuries clearly don't agree.


Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[3] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in the Himalayan mountains (28 societies). More recent studies have found more than 50 other societies practicing polyandry.[4]



Polyandrous behavior is quite widespread in the animal kingdom. It is prominent in many species of insects and fish (for example pipefish; see Polyandry in fish). It is also found in other animals such as birds (for example dunnocks), whales, and in some mammals such as house mouse.

Among the whales, polyandrous behavior has been noted among the bowhead,[75] harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),[76] and humpback whales.[77]

Among the relevant insect species are the honeybees, the red flour beetle, the species of spider Stegodyphus lineatus, the crickets Gryllus bimaculatus, and Drosophila pseudoobscura.

Polyandry also occurs in some primates such as marmosets, and in the marsupial genus' Antechinus.



Polyandry - Wikipedia

To say Polyandary is not "natural" doesn't stack up. Maybe it's not as common, but it always has existed.


there were four types of marriage during the ancient Arab period. One ... type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relations with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them could refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her she would say to them "You (all) know what you have done and now I have given birth to a child. So it is your child O so and so!" Naming whoever she liked and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him.[1]


Nikah Ijtimah - Wikipedia

Please cite where I said polyandry was unnatural in nature. I said it was unnatural to the human species. I cited SEXUAL DIMORPHISM specifically. We studied it in my biological anthropology class. It typically determined whether a species was polygamous or monogamous.

If men and women in the species are the same size on average, then they are monogamous. If they are different sizes, they are polygamous.

If the men are larger on average than the women, they are practice polygyny. If the women are larger on average than the men, they practice polyandry.

In the human species, men are larger than women on average, thus polygyny is NATURAL for us not polyandry.
 

Lotsford

All Star
Joined
Dec 26, 2016
Messages
607
Reputation
120
Daps
3,077
Reppin
DMV
Please cite where I said polyandry was unnatural in nature. I said it was unnatural to the human species. I cited SEXUAL DIMORPHISM specifically. We studied it in my biological anthropology class. It typically determined whether a species was polygamous or monogamous.

If men and women in the species are the same size on average, then they are monogamous. If they are different sizes, they are polygamous.

If the men are larger on average than the women, they are practice polygyny. If the women are larger on average than the men, they practice polyandry.

In the human species, men are larger than women on average, thus polygyny is NATURAL for us not polyandry.

Polyandary existed and exists in multiple human societies throughout our existence though. So you can't say it's unnatural to us. We been doing it.

Also some of the animals listed are sexually dimorphic species and still practice polyandary. They listed 2 primates. Turns out humans are primates too. You cannot argue polygamy as completely sanctioned natural human behavior while claiming the opposite for polyandary without religion.
 

⠝⠕⠏⠑

Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
21,950
Reputation
26,510
Daps
116,809
Nikah Ijtimah - Wikipedia

there were four types of marriage during the ancient Arab period. One ... type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relations with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them could refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her she would say to them "You (all) know what you have done and now I have given birth to a child. So it is your child O so and so!" Naming whoever she liked and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him.[1]

Y'all bouta fukk the game up for everybody being greedy smh.


You may think it's p*ssy but the Massai for centuries clearly don't agree.


Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[3] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in the Himalayan mountains (28 societies). More recent studies have found more than 50 other societies practicing polyandry.[4]



Polyandrous behavior is quite widespread in the animal kingdom. It is prominent in many species of insects and fish (for example pipefish; see Polyandry in fish). It is also found in other animals such as birds (for example dunnocks), whales, and in some mammals such as house mouse.

Among the whales, polyandrous behavior has been noted among the bowhead,[75] harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),[76] and humpback whales.[77]

Among the relevant insect species are the honeybees, the red flour beetle, the species of spider Stegodyphus lineatus, the crickets Gryllus bimaculatus, and Drosophila pseudoobscura.

Polyandry also occurs in some primates such as marmosets, and in the marsupial genus' Antechinus.



Polyandry - Wikipedia

To say Polyandary is not "natural" doesn't stack up. Maybe it's not as common, but it always has existed.


there were four types of marriage during the ancient Arab period. One ... type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would assemble and enter upon a woman, and all of them would have sexual relations with her. If she became pregnant and delivered a child and some days had passed after her delivery, she would send for all of them and none of them could refuse to come, and when they all gathered before her she would say to them "You (all) know what you have done and now I have given birth to a child. So it is your child O so and so!" Naming whoever she liked and her child would follow him and he could not refuse to take him.[1]


Nikah Ijtimah - Wikipedia
Shhhhhh! Shut up! These dudes don't wanna know about the dark side of human evolution.
Chicks screaming during sex to ALERT other dudes to come thru and incite sperm competition...

The very way the dikk is shaped was evolved based on female promiscuity.

"On the other hand, women tend to seek to increase sperm competition risk by engaging in polyandrous extra-pair copulations, typically with males who are of a higher genetic quality than their usual partner, especially when women are in periods of high conception risk.[3][40]"

:russ: That "higher genetic quality" got me hurt! Lmao!

So lemme get this straight. Ya'll can barely keep up with one chick cheating on you.

But you're trying to support a system that will
a.) take mate opportunities from the average man
b.) increase the likelihood of cheating (why the hell do u think there were so many Eunichs around guarding the many wives...)
c.) increase the financial, emotional, socioeconomic burden on blk males by giving him even more mouths to feed in the form of taking his resources and dividing them amongst even more responsibilities?!

:mjlol: Ya'll saying we got a polygamous society now on the low-key. And u see how THATS working. So why would u wanna go and codify fukkery?
To be really honest, I actually have nothing against this b/c from a female standpoint it benefits me.

I'm just worried about the bros. All three wives sync up like a menstrual Voltron, risk getting ur ass whooped by three chicks, supporting 3 stay at home wives b/c if one ain't working the rest surely aren't.
The main chick that's all quiet and sweet and docile getting her back blown out by the gym trainer on nights u with wifey #2. Have kids and none of em look like you.:mjlol:

Please commence. Bring on the polygamy in African-American culture. The fukkery will be legendary!:blessed:
:russ:
 

Street Knowledge

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
27,771
Reputation
2,688
Daps
67,027
Reppin
NYC
Average men and top men don’t compete for the same women. They don’t roll in the same circles. If polygamy was legalized and a rich man wanted 5 wives they would all be dimes.
 

⠝⠕⠏⠑

Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
21,950
Reputation
26,510
Daps
116,809
Hell I didn't even think about the capitalist problems with polygamy for men. Women divorce and take half all the time. You setting it up where there is a lower time between establishing relationships for women to take advantage of men.

:russ: Women bout to marry dude for 2 months, divorce and get that paper.
"He couldn't fulfill my emotional needs" asses.

Polygamy makes this type of fukkery EASIER.

I REALLY don't think ya'll want polygamy in a modern capitalist society with the social norms and laws we currently have in place. Ya'll bout to set it up so more women can cheat and get the bag, while simultaneously ensuring that average guys NEVER have a chance.
--------------

But on a real note here are some issues outlined with polygamy that shows which economic and social strife go hand in hand with the marriage practice.

The Perils of Polygamy

Recent empirical research suggests that, in virtually every respect, polygamy is socially detrimental—to society in general, to men, to women, and to children.

In human reproduction, slightly more male than female babies are born (approximately 105 boys to 100 girls). As boys are more likely to die of natural causes as infants and from violence before they marry and reproduce, ceteris paribus, at any given marriageable age, there will be approximately 50% males and 50% females. Given roughly equal numbers of males and females as found in nature, polygamy and monogamy shape society in radically different ways. In a monogamous society, for each man there is a corresponding woman. William Tucker notes that this gives “every man [and every woman] a reasonable chance to mate.” By contrast, in a polygamous society, some men take multiple wives, but this leaves other men with greatly diminished prospects of marriage or an exclusion from mating altogether. The question under consideration, then, is what social effects does this arrangement bring?

In their 2012 article, “The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage” appearing in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, and Peter J. Richerson used converging lines of evidence from the social sciences to compare polygamous and monogamous societies. They found that polygamous societies differ from monogamous societies in terms of violent crimes, female educational attainment, domestic violence, parental investment in children, and economic productivity.

A wealth of sociological information points to the fact that single men commit the vast majority of violent crimes. Women and married men seldom murder, rob, rape, and assault in comparison to single men. So, since there are many more single men in polygamous societies, polygamous societies have higher rates of violent crime. As Henrich and colleagues note:

Faced with high levels of intra-sexual competition and little chance of obtaining even one long-term mate, unmarried, low-status men will heavily discount the future and more readily engage in risky status-elevating and sex-seeking behaviors. This will result in higher rates of murder, theft, rape, social disruption, kidnapping (especially of females), sexual slavery and prostitution.
(This shyt seems like common sense to me.)

With little reason to invest in the established social order, single males are more likely to turn away from activities conducive to long-term productivity and turn toward the quick thrill, if not a violent overthrow of the established social order. These tendencies are detrimental to society as a whole, including to single men who are the most common victims of theft, violent assault, and murder.

In a polygamous society, the age of marriage will be lower for females than in a monogamous society. With a relative scarcity of possible mates of their own age, men seek wives among women of younger ages. Early marriage in turn leads to much higher rates of reproduction. Rather than delaying marriage and childbearing until their twenties or thirties, women marry and have children as teenagers. In modern social conditions, teen motherhood is detrimental for both these young women and their families. For a female teen, marriage to a much older man makes it unlikely that she will have an equal partnership with her husband and makes the completion of her education difficult, if not impossible. Indeed, marriage at a young age to a much older man is also linked to lethal domestic violence. In the words of one study:

The larger the age gap, the more likely it is that a husband will kill his wife, and vice‐versa (the young wife murders her husband). … This suggests that polygyny is relatively (potentially) much more dangerous than monogamous relations because age gaps of 16 years are not uncommon when accumulating young wives.

The difference in age exacerbates gender differences, and, for men, is more likely to give rise to jealous fears that their young wives will be unfaithful.


The phenomenon of "co-wives": (a misnomer since polygamy typically involves a hierarchy among the wives) also undermines the well-being of women. The senior wives worry that they will be replaced by younger wives, and the younger wives in turn worry about the power exerted in the home by senior wives. Research indicates that levels of domestic strife and violence are higher in polygamous homes than in monogamous homes as wives seek to preserve their place with their shared husband as well as struggle to secure resources for their own biological children. As Henrich and colleagues point out:

Co-wife conflict is ubiquitous in polygynous households. From anthropology, a review of ethnographic data from 69 non-sororal polygynous societies from around the globe reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious, and no hint that women’s access to the means of production had any mitigating impact on conflict.
Yeah like we didn't see that one coming. Pretty obvious stuff right?

These conflicts lead polygamous family units, particularly those with three or more wives, to have in general higher rates of divorce than monogamous couples. In the supplementary materials to their article, Henrich, Boyd, and Richerson point out: “Systematic and controlled analyses from polygynous societies generally show higher divorce rates for polygynous vs. monogamous marriages in the same society. … Relative to monogamous families, polygynous families with more than two wives are five times more likely to divorce.”
(YIKES!)
As bad as polygamy is for women, it is perhaps even worse for the well-being of children. Because the polygamous wives tend to be younger and less well educated, their children suffer in not having more mature mothers, as would be more typical of their counterparts in a monogamous society. The children suffer also from having multiple stepmothers involved in ongoing struggles with each other. Half-siblings must compete for limited resources while having weaker genetic bonds to mitigate the conflict. While these extended-family relationships could in theory be a source of support, more often they endanger children. Henrich’s study explained:

Much empirical work in monogamous societies indicates that higher degrees of relatedness among household members are associated with lower rates of abuse, neglect and homicide. Living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect and homicide of children. Stepmothers are 2.4 times more likely to kill their stepchildren than birth mothers, and children living with an unrelated parent are between 15 and 77 times more likely to die "accidentally."
(How the fukk are people not smart enough to anticipate this shyt being a problem?! Just ignore human nature b/c u wanna codify getting ur dikk wet?!)

Polygamous families are also more likely than monogamous families to be in poverty, since typically only one breadwinner supports numerous children.

Polygamous societies also dilute the investment of fathers in their children in at least two ways. First, because marriage to other young women is still an option, a husband’s resources of time, attention, and money are diverted away from his own children and toward finding new mates. Secondly, in virtue of the greater number of children in the polygamous family, it becomes increasingly difficult to give each child sufficient time and attention. Indeed, some fathers of polygamous families have so many children that they do not even know each child’s name. This dilution of paternal investment is similar in effect to being raised by a single mother with all its attendant risk factors (especially for males) for drug abuse, trouble with the law, and dropping out of school.

A final harm brought on by polygamy is economic. Henrich’s study notes:

When males cannot invest in obtaining more wives (because of imposed monogamy) they invest and save in ways that generate both reduced population growth and more rapid economic expansion (increasing GDP per capita). Thus … the nearly threefold increase in GDP per capita between Comparable Monogamous Countries and Highly Polygynous Countries is partially caused by legally imposed monogamy.

Economic well-being contributes in turn to the stability of families which is a benefit to men, women, and children alike.

Finally, even aside from the sociological data, there is an inherent inequality in polygamous marriage. In monogamous marriage, spouses give themselves as spouses to each other unreservedly, unconditionally, and entirely. Now, giving oneself as a husband or wife to one’s spouse does not exclude giving of oneself in ways that are not distinctly marital to other people (such as playing tennis with a business partner, or going to the movies with a group of friends). Part of the marriage vow is the promise of sexual fidelity, the bodily manifestation of one’s commitment as spouse entirely to the spouse and to the spouse alone.

In a polygamous marriage, the man does not give himself qua husband entirely to his wife. A polygamous husband gives himself qua husband to however many wives he has. Wives, by contrast, are expected to reserve themselves in a sexual way for their husband alone. Moreover, wives face inequality among themselves as “senior wives” enjoy rank above “junior wives.” The polygamous relationship can never attain the mutual and complete self-donation of spouses in monogamous marriage because it is intrinsically impossible to reserve oneself in a sexual way entirely for one person and at the same time reserve oneself in a sexual way entirely for a different person (or persons). Marriage understood as a comprehensive union can exist only between two persons, and never more than two persons. Society, therefore, has good reason not simply to proscribe polygamy, but to endorse monogamy.
Yeah sounds like a GREAT idea for our community!:rudy:
 

Doomsday

Superstar
Joined
Feb 19, 2014
Messages
10,492
Reputation
2,655
Daps
25,275
a.) take mate opportunities from the average man
b.) increase the likelihood of cheating (why the hell do u think there were so many Eunichs around guarding the many wives...)

Where did these dumb ass rocks females crawl from? That's already how it is stupid fukk!
 

Mountain

All Star
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
4,121
Reputation
730
Daps
8,674
Reppin
more money
How is it complicated? The male:female ratio is just about 1:1; if certain men are allowed to marry more than one woman then certain men will not have any women to marry. And we have documented evidence that such an arrangement leads to strife and civil war. What am I missing?

A fukking brain.

Since millions of people can and do already have closed relationships with multiple people without being married ( it's called cheating :ohhh:), I guess we should punish cheaters by law.

Yea let's make it so if you get caught cheating you serve the same jail time and pay the same fine as a polygamist, you know so your bullsht excuse of a 'ratio' can be maintained. God damn idiot.
 

Dwayne_Taylor

Superstar
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
8,149
Reputation
1,172
Daps
34,832
And that's the way shyt has always been. Its called survival of the fittest for a reason.

We are products genetically of those few alpha males that were able to procreate with most of the available women.

Look up the genetic studies. The male line of most humans is much less diverse than the female lineage. This lets us know that our history was filled with polygyny. A few men fukking all the women and producing the kids.

Link to the studies ?

Lol Gates, Trump and Zuckerberg are not alpha males. They are white guys who had opportunities and connections and privileges other men didnt. Some just got where they are through nepotism.

Those are the types of wealthy men who would end up buying all the wives in a polygamous society, while most men would end up fukking goats or doing closet gay shyt
 

⠝⠕⠏⠑

Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
21,950
Reputation
26,510
Daps
116,809
Where did these dumb ass rocks females crawl from? That's already how it is stupid fukk!
Oh no babe! You don't have to get this hoemotional about it with me.
:russ:
I've looked at all the research and examples of polygamy around the world. I've looked at all the "logical" explanations and the math and common sense and I'm going to completely ignore the implications of no benefits for women, men or children just b/c an E-commando c*nt is cursing at me.
The Perils of Polygamy
The Problems with Polygamy
Negative Consequences of Polygamy
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/19573/7/19573 AlSharfi Pfeffer Miller 2015.pdf

Yep! Totally gonna ignore scholars and psychologists and take the word of a stranger online. You convinced me! Bring on the polygamy!:rudy::camby:
 

⠝⠕⠏⠑

Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2015
Messages
21,950
Reputation
26,510
Daps
116,809
when one of your wives wants to marry her boss at work what are you gonna say?
Better yet when wifey #3 is strangely VERY friendly with ur homeboy while u with #1, but u can't let her go b/c she's a wife and if she leaves, she takes a third of ur wealth.

Can't keep up with #3 on a #2 day.:mjlol:
I'm tempted just to watch this shyt play out just for the sake of fukkery.:lolbron:
Ignore common sense if u want to. Ya'll in for a WORLD of trouble.
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,881
Daps
84,297
Reppin
NULL
Polyandary existed and exists in multiple human societies throughout our existence though. So you can't say it's unnatural to us. We been doing it.

Also some of the animals listed are sexually dimorphic species and still practice polyandary. They listed 2 primates. Turns out humans are primates too. You cannot argue polygamy as completely sanctioned natural human behavior while claiming the opposite for polyandary without religion.

Now you're getting into semantics. Something is natural just cause you can find a couple of isolated examples.

For example, homosexuality is practiced by a small minority of humans and other animals and I doubt anyone would call it natural. Its the epitome of unnatural cause it goes against every biological imperative.

Polyandry in humans is the same way. Its just a weird side effect. Its not natural.
 
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
39,600
Reputation
-17,881
Daps
84,297
Reppin
NULL
Link to the studies ?

Lol Gates, Trump and Zuckerberg are not alpha males. They are white guys who had opportunities and connections and privileges other men didnt. Some just got where they are through nepotism.

Those are the types of wealthy men who would end up buying all the wives in a polygamous society, while most men would end up fukking goats or doing closet gay shyt

Someone cited them a few pages back.

Something about only 17% of men 8,000 years ago mating with over 80% of women.
 
Top