Hello friend,
Only Hindu no can have more one wife. Those who Islam can have more one.
Good luck bro
Polygamy - let's do it!
- Thread starter jdomaha
- Start date
Hello friend,
Only Hindu no can have more one wife. Those who Islam can have more one.
Good luck bro
There have been some studies done on this subject.
The result is pretty much as follows: polygamy - bad for men, good for women.
The reason for that is when a society is built on one-to-one relationships, even the biggest losers among men can get women.
If successful men only "consume" one woman each as a life partner, that leaves a lot of women without much other options other than to settle down with a loser.
On the other hand, if successful men ended up getting multiple wives, then many women would be faced with a choice of being the n-th wife of some successful man or the only wife of a loser.
That would lower the number of women who would opt for the latter option.
As a result, more losers would end up pussyless for the rest of their lives.
For women, it would mean more choices.
In this context "success" is defined by any desirable trait such as good looks, ability to make money, being a caring and loving father or anything else that projects an image of a good mate for the opposite sex.
The result is pretty much as follows: polygamy - bad for men, good for women.
The reason for that is when a society is built on one-to-one relationships, even the biggest losers among men can get women.
If successful men only "consume" one woman each as a life partner, that leaves a lot of women without much other options other than to settle down with a loser.
On the other hand, if successful men ended up getting multiple wives, then many women would be faced with a choice of being the n-th wife of some successful man or the only wife of a loser.
That would lower the number of women who would opt for the latter option.
As a result, more losers would end up pussyless for the rest of their lives.
For women, it would mean more choices.
In this context "success" is defined by any desirable trait such as good looks, ability to make money, being a caring and loving father or anything else that projects an image of a good mate for the opposite sex.
That sounds like a pretty big load of horse shit (even for WF), got any links to "some studies"?
It's been a while since I read it. So I don't remember where it was.
Besides, I laid out the logic behind the argument right here in the post.
So it's pretty moronic of you to call it horse shit because I didn't reference the source.
If you disagree with the logic presented, then post your thoughts on why you think it's flawed.
Let me simply the stupidity you are demonstrating so it's easier for you to digest.
First, let's start with an example in which your response would be appropriate.
Me:
Bush and Obama are gay lovers.
You:
Bullshit, show me where you got the info so we can all judge the competence of the source.
And now, an example which illustrates how retarded you are.
Me:
If a>b and b>c, then a>c.
You:
Bullshit, show me the link where it says so.
See the difference?
Tom Leykis has this covered pretty well - too bad he's not on the air anymore...
The real question here is "What is the benefit to a man to being married in this day and age?".
The answer - nothing - UNLESS he wants kids and stability. Then there's a variety of legal protections, etc.
Otherwise there is NOTHING that marriage brings to the table for a man that he can't have as a single guy.
The opposite is true for women - there is social stigma (lessening over time) to being a single woman long-term. Being married offers social proof for women. Marriage is also statistically a transfer of wealth from men to women in the event of divorce.
This is not true in all cases of course - and is changing over time - but as of right now the state of marriage is pretty well described above.
Note that I am not saying what my personal views are.
The real question here is "What is the benefit to a man to being married in this day and age?".
The answer - nothing - UNLESS he wants kids and stability. Then there's a variety of legal protections, etc.
Otherwise there is NOTHING that marriage brings to the table for a man that he can't have as a single guy.
The opposite is true for women - there is social stigma (lessening over time) to being a single woman long-term. Being married offers social proof for women. Marriage is also statistically a transfer of wealth from men to women in the event of divorce.
This is not true in all cases of course - and is changing over time - but as of right now the state of marriage is pretty well described above.
Note that I am not saying what my personal views are.
Following the rules that consulting adults should be allowed to pursue their happiness i the ways they see fit then I would argue the legality of restricting the marriage to one man and one woman.
That being said I think it's a horrible practice mostly for the children as most nontraditional relationships combined with poverty (usually there's only one source of income in these families) bring in the social aspects of hazy or non existent boundaries which at the very least is confusing for childen and at the worse can lead to other anormal social behaviors such as abuse. This would decrease as the acceptability of the practice increased...so if it was something that caught on then it would work, but since it would not become widespread, it would probably remain outside the norms of society.
That being said I think it's a horrible practice mostly for the children as most nontraditional relationships combined with poverty (usually there's only one source of income in these families) bring in the social aspects of hazy or non existent boundaries which at the very least is confusing for childen and at the worse can lead to other anormal social behaviors such as abuse. This would decrease as the acceptability of the practice increased...so if it was something that caught on then it would work, but since it would not become widespread, it would probably remain outside the norms of society.
EXACTLY - there's ample examples of cults, etc, that have allowed polygamy and encourage welfare so the mothers could just stay home with their 7 kids.
One thing that I haven't read in this thread that to me is a strong argument against legalized polygamy is the whole genetics thing. Assuming that polygamy is legalized and takes off, you'll have a very small subset of men spreading their genes around. After a few generations, you'd have a whole lot of people walking around who'd be sharing similar DNA. When they start to procreate, you have inbreeding and all the wonderful things that brings around.
I oppose polygamy. Nothing wrong with the poly part of course. The more the merrier. It's the gamy part. Why have to get married first?
When you're married, governments decide the rule of your marriage. That means the interest of billions of cocks that will not get any comes to play. Hence polygamy is illegal.
Just get rid marriage all together and we'll all do fine.
When you're married, governments decide the rule of your marriage. That means the interest of billions of cocks that will not get any comes to play. Hence polygamy is illegal.
Just get rid marriage all together and we'll all do fine.
Nothing prevents people living in a polygamous household; the only legal restriction is "official" marriage. It's perfectly legal to shack up with more than one woman.
Hmm since legally you're considered common law married after living together for a year; I wonder how that would work if you lived with three women for example...and they all claimed "common law" marriage...
Hmm since legally you're considered common law married after living together for a year; I wonder how that would work if you lived with three women for example...and they all claimed "common law" marriage...
I was originally an Anthropology major and the findings on polygamy were pretty cool. Tons of tribal level societies operate this way.
This whole thread seems to be dealing with the subject in a very narrow minded view. There are many people who practice these kinds of relationships, but they take any number of forms you can think of. It wouldn't be limited to one man and two women. What about one woman two men? Quads?
I do believe people should be allowed to marry multiple partners if they're serious about it. If you do take the stereotype of one man and two women and this man is happy to support two families, is it really fair that one woman should have the security of marriage and the other doesn't? It doesn't make sense to me.
And as far as kids go, the polyamourous community are extremely sensible people and boundaries are very important, as well as trust and communication and the ability to deal with your emotions. I think these are all qualities the world could use more of, regardless of sexual preference.
Where the whole idea goes wrong is society's general distaste for multiple partners or sexual freedom for that matter. its not a widely explored or supported practice and most people just don't know how to do it right. The people who do are given constant hassle for it.
I could rant about this all day, but really why does it matter? do what makes you happy, if no one is getting hurt you're doing nothing wrong.
I also have no objection to a bunch of lonely people being left behind by the movement. If this happened it would probably mean the thumb has left the ass and we'd get round to giving sex work a decent status.
I do believe people should be allowed to marry multiple partners if they're serious about it. If you do take the stereotype of one man and two women and this man is happy to support two families, is it really fair that one woman should have the security of marriage and the other doesn't? It doesn't make sense to me.
And as far as kids go, the polyamourous community are extremely sensible people and boundaries are very important, as well as trust and communication and the ability to deal with your emotions. I think these are all qualities the world could use more of, regardless of sexual preference.
Where the whole idea goes wrong is society's general distaste for multiple partners or sexual freedom for that matter. its not a widely explored or supported practice and most people just don't know how to do it right. The people who do are given constant hassle for it.
I could rant about this all day, but really why does it matter? do what makes you happy, if no one is getting hurt you're doing nothing wrong.
I also have no objection to a bunch of lonely people being left behind by the movement. If this happened it would probably mean the thumb has left the ass and we'd get round to giving sex work a decent status.
ever more reason for every man to get a life - pussy or should I say pretty pussy is enough motivation to make every man strive to be doctors or lawyers.
less losers in this world mean less crime, also if women know that they can still get the rich man with 4 wives then they would maintain their looks and figure in order to get in on the marriage, competition amoung the 5 wives would keep them all skinny and pretty = happy man.
I think polygamy in its traditional form (multiple women, 1 man) is a slap in the face to equal rights for women. When do you ever see multiple men and 1 women? It's an obvious power move for the man with its deeply rooted religious ties.
Anyone who is interested in polygamy is probably 99% interested in it due to religious reasons. If you really want to be with multiple women at a time, you don't need to get married to them to do that.
I believe "marriage" shouldn't even be a legal issue. It should be taken up with the church since it's a religious act. The state should create unions that carry all the legal benefits of being traditionally married.
That being said, anyone should be able to marry (join/union) whomever they want and as many as they want as long as it doesn't interfere with other people.
Anyone who is interested in polygamy is probably 99% interested in it due to religious reasons. If you really want to be with multiple women at a time, you don't need to get married to them to do that.
I believe "marriage" shouldn't even be a legal issue. It should be taken up with the church since it's a religious act. The state should create unions that carry all the legal benefits of being traditionally married.
That being said, anyone should be able to marry (join/union) whomever they want and as many as they want as long as it doesn't interfere with other people.