The polygyny thread

There were a few threads touching on the topic of polygyny, but since there are so many issues within that topic to cover, I thought I'd create a broader thread.

ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS
One of the main arguments against polygyny is that it will destroy civilization or, at best, make it run less efficiently. A small number of men will hoard all the available women, removing the incentive of the rest of the men to be productive.

Beta bux scenario
Let's assume that women are primarily interested in a man's beta bux, and will go with the guy who brings the most money to the table. And suppose society tolerates polygyny. Adam, a guy who makes $50K/year to support himself and his wife, realizes he can support a second wife if he increases his income to $75K/year. He works harder/smarter until he reaches that income goal, and gets his second wife.

Meanwhile, there's another guy, Bob, who is making $25K/year to support himself, and would have been interested in raising his income to $50K/year if he could've gotten married. But because Adam already took the woman Bob wanted off the market, Bob doesn't bother to work harder/smarter. Instead, he focuses on leveling his character in World of Warcraft.

How is society poorer because of this? How does this destroy civilization? The market measures productivity in dollars. The $25K/year increase in Adam's productivity to be able to support his second wife offsets the $25K/year in productivity that Bob didn't feel motivated to pursue. In fact, society might become richer if, rather than giving up, Bob competes with Adam to be the most productive and bids up the price of wives.

Of course, one could argue that as men, we shouldn't support this, since it's going to make us have to pay more to get a wife. It depends on which you value more: the security of being able to have one wife even if your income is below average, or the opportunity to have more than one wife if your income is higher than average. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where by taking risks, I can hit the jackpot, even if there's a chance I could instead lose everything.

Alpha fux scenario
On the other hand, suppose that women choose men based on their alpha fux. Therefore, they all gravitate toward the alphas (regardless of how much those men earn), leaving the betas without any incentive to be productive.

Suppose Adam is making $50K/year to support himself and his wife, and because he's so alpha, he's able to attract another woman to be second wife, based solely on his confidence, masculinity, etc. Adam doesn't feel the need to increase his income to $75K/year, because he can get two women to marry him even when he's only making $50K/year. Meanwhile, Bob doesn't bother to increase his income above $25K/year, because Adam took the woman that he would've married. Theoretically, society just lost $25K/year in productivity because of polygyny.

This is still offset, though, if one of Adam's wives enters the workforce and earns $25K/year to help support the family. With three parents in the household, two of them can work while the third stays home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids. There is no need for every woman in a polygynous household to be a housewife.

SOCIAL STABILITY ARGUMENT
The other argument against polygyny is that some of the men who can't get laid are going to become violent because they have little to lose. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. It depends on whom they're directing their violence against. If they're risking their lives to overthrow bad leaders whose policies are keeping them poor (and therefore celibate), it could be a good thing.

Monogamy arguably makes society too stable, by creating too much equality in how wives are distributed. Even if the government is corrupt in such a way that the politically powerful are enriched at the expense of the oppressed, men may be reluctant to rise up and rebel, because they are content as long as they are able to have a wife and family. The government uses monogamy like bread and circuses, to keep the masses appeased by offering them enough to keep them happy.

A little more revolution might help society function more efficiently in the long run, or even save civilization from bad leaders whose actions would otherwise go unchecked until it's too late. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Quote

(10-01-2016 04:43 AM)RaymondKertezc Wrote:  There were a few threads touching on the topic of polygyny, but since there are so many issues within that topic to cover, I thought I'd create a broader thread.

ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS
One of the main arguments against polygyny is that it will destroy civilization or, at best, make it run less efficiently. A small number of men will hoard all the available women, removing the incentive of the rest of the men to be productive.

Beta bux scenario
Let's assume that women are primarily interested in a man's beta bux, and will go with the guy who brings the most money to the table. And suppose society tolerates polygyny. Adam, a guy who makes $50K/year to support himself and his wife, realizes he can support a second wife if he increases his income to $75K/year. He works harder/smarter until he reaches that income goal, and gets his second wife.

Meanwhile, there's another guy, Bob, who is making $25K/year to support himself, and would have been interested in raising his income to $50K/year if he could've gotten married. But because Adam already took the woman Bob wanted off the market, Bob doesn't bother to work harder/smarter. Instead, he focuses on leveling his character in World of Warcraft.

How is society poorer because of this? How does this destroy civilization? The market measures productivity in dollars. The $25K/year increase in Adam's productivity to be able to support his second wife offsets the $25K/year in productivity that Bob didn't feel motivated to pursue. In fact, society might become richer if, rather than giving up, Bob competes with Adam to be the most productive and bids up the price of wives.

Of course, one could argue that as men, we shouldn't support this, since it's going to make us have to pay more to get a wife. It depends on which you value more: the security of being able to have one wife even if your income is below average, or the opportunity to have more than one wife if your income is higher than average. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where by taking risks, I can hit the jackpot, even if there's a chance I could instead lose everything.

Alpha fux scenario
On the other hand, suppose that women choose men based on their alpha fux. Therefore, they all gravitate toward the alphas (regardless of how much those men earn), leaving the betas without any incentive to be productive.

Suppose Adam is making $50K/year to support himself and his wife, and because he's so alpha, he's able to attract another woman to be second wife, based solely on his confidence, masculinity, etc. Adam doesn't feel the need to increase his income to $75K/year, because he can get two women to marry him even when he's only making $50K/year. Meanwhile, Bob doesn't bother to increase his income above $25K/year, because Adam took the woman that he would've married. Theoretically, society just lost $25K/year in productivity because of polygyny.

This is still offset, though, if one of Adam's wives enters the workforce and earns $25K/year to help support the family. With three parents in the household, two of them can work while the third stays home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids. There is no need for every woman in a polygynous household to be a housewife.

SOCIAL STABILITY ARGUMENT
The other argument against polygyny is that some of the men who can't get laid are going to become violent because they have little to lose. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. It depends on whom they're directing their violence against. If they're risking their lives to overthrow bad leaders whose policies are keeping them poor (and therefore celibate), it could be a good thing.

Monogamy arguably makes society too stable, by creating too much equality in how wives are distributed. Even if the government is corrupt in such a way that the politically powerful are enriched at the expense of the oppressed, men may be reluctant to rise up and rebel, because they are content as long as they are able to have a wife and family. The government uses monogamy like bread and circuses, to keep the masses appeased by offering them enough to keep them happy.

A little more revolution might help society function more efficiently in the long run, or even save civilization from bad leaders whose actions would otherwise go unchecked until it's too late. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Another argument is the social energy argument:

Quote:Monogamy Has Been Important as a Condition of Social Energy

The records of history show a series of different
societies in different places, each rising to a civilization as they
become predominantly monogamous, achieving high culture when that
predominant monogamous state is preserved and falling into decline
as it is modified or discarded. In the same manner as societies have
advanced from savagery to civilization, and then faded away into a
state of general decrepitude, so in each of them has marriage first
previously changed from a temporary affair "based on mutual consent
to a life-long association of one man with one woman, and then
turned hack to a loose union or to polygyny. The whole of human
history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming
civilized unless monogamy has been the prevailing form of union,
nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it
has adopted less rigorous customs. Marriage as a life-long
association (Monogamy) has been an attendant circumstance of all
human achievement and its adoption has preceded all manifesta-
tions of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in con-
quest, in art and science, in the extension of the social vision,
or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism, and the
exaltation of the conception of one God.

The historical data given here, it is my purpose to show,
is not only coincident with monogamous practices, but intimately connected by causal relationship. Monogamy must be recognized as
a mainspring of social energy, and a necessary condition of human
development*

Quote:6. Among the Romans

The patricians were the original people of Rome. They were
married by a very solemn ceremony before at least ten witnesses in
the presence of the high priest called "confarreatio" while the union
of the plebs admitted to citizenship under the Tullian constitution
was by a mock sale of the bride or sometimes simply coming together.
These unions not being in accordance with the old Sabine religion of
Numa, were regarded by the patricians as irregular. After a long
struggle marriage between the orders were legalized in 445. And in
the meantime and immediately thereafter, the patricians began to
depart from their indisoluble institution; the tendency is seen in the story of Clandins and Verginia; and Antonins was excluded from
the senate for putting away his wife without consultation with the
family. The plebs married by mock sale ceremony are rising, the
patricians are losing their domination. A little later there is the
poisoning episode of the Matrons; the Licinian law passes and all the
offices of the state are in turn opened to the plebs. (The Ogulinan
law throwing open the office of high priest to them shows they have
adopted the higher ceremony performed before ten witnesses and the
high priest.) During the Third Samuite War the wife of Volumuius
sets up in her house the worship of Plebeian Pundicitia, "td bfi

honored with a holier observance and by purer worshippers than that of 2
the patricians." Matrons are put on public trial for adultery.
Two centuries after the expulsion of the kings, therefore, the patricians are giving up their old rigorous customs and are
falling in influence and power. The Plebians are adopting them, and
they attain to power, Rome still expands and her population becomes
homogeneous •

By the middle of the third century Rome is mistress of Italy,
The Punic Wars put the Mediterranean under her rule. But this century
also sees the changes in customs. Marriage sine in manum convent ione
came in with the ius gentium. These were not laws of marriage (iustae
nuptiae) nor did they involve power or right. Marriages of this kind
became frequent. Women acouired economic independence. The Maenian
Law transferred the judgment of divorce from the family council to the
indicium de moribus . The procedure for dissolution of marriage was
thus facilitated. At the beginning of the third century Pyrrhus
received a glowing account of the dignity of the Roman Senate. The
power and influence of Rome was paramount*

After the Punic Wars divorces increased, marriage became an
affair of temporary attachment and the upper classes declined to an
alarming extent. Confarreatio disappeared and civil war arose. The
plebs followed the patricians and the modification of their monogamy
followed the same line as before.

It took over thirty years to pass the Lex Julia and Papia
Poppaea, such was the opposition to the tightening of the marriage law,
which this was designed to do. The operation of the law was assisted
by the introduction of Christian marriage amongst the proletariat.
There followed two centuries of oeach such as have seldom been enjoyed
in history. But what effect there was could not be permanent, and in

the time of Diocletian marriage has become a very loose union indeed.
Husband and wife had separate estates, the lady kept her own name, and
the bond between them could be easily dissolved, no reason being
assignable. In the next century the Germans came down and Rome fell*

I encourage you to read the rest as to why monogamy is the absolute ideal state:
https://archive.org/stream/anargumentfor...m_djvu.txt

And the gold standard for marriage.

Quote

Those in the West already live in a polygynous society.

Quote

(10-01-2016 04:43 AM)RaymondKertezc Wrote:  There were a few threads touching on the topic of polygyny, but since there are so many issues within that topic to cover, I thought I'd create a broader thread.

Did you make that page to go along with this thread? Seeing as it was last edited today.

Quote

(10-01-2016 07:44 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  Those in the West already live in a polygynous society.

Given that women in the Anglosphere are only interested in fucking the top 5-10% of men these days, this observation is on the money.

Quote

(10-01-2016 07:44 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  Those in the West already live in a polygynous society.

You could certainly argue that. The double-digit notch counts even average women are able to rack up by the time they're 30 via periods of serial monogamy interspersed with random hook-ups shows that they're pretty much able to rapidly adapt themselves to whatever situation feels like it's going to give the best deal at the time.

An optimist might say that we still live in a monogamous society where women have brief bursts of polygamy between long-term partners. A pessimist might say that women are perfectly comfortable with being polygamous, and simply humor men who want to LTR them if he's bringing a lot to the table, as some kind of charming relic of a bygone era.

The reality is likely somewhere in between. As always, women seem happiest when they're getting exactly what they want all the time, so if monogamy seems like the best option in a certain area or stage of life that's what they'll do, but if it's nothing but players as far as the eye can see (as many places in the West are turning into) then they'll just shrug and plate themselves to different dudes for different purposes.

One might feel uncomfortable with the term but I think in some sense most players here are "soft-poly" at the vary least. The "alpha ideal" is to have a harem of women who are sexually exclusive to him, while he is allowed to sleep around, but I think most of us realize that this ideal is pretty much unattainable in the real world - while women may readily agree to put out without you giving them exclusive commitment, I know very few who are going to sit around waiting on your call while you're out banging other chicks.

I think the difference between us and the girls who are receptive to that type of relationship (which seems to be quite a decent fraction of young women) vs. the "polyamory" community, which is full of nutjob chicks and cucks, is that those guys who talk about their "primary female partner" and so forth feel like they're somehow gaining something in the relationship by having some kind of open dialogue with their girl, while really they're just learning about what fashion of cuck they are and how often it happens.

The difference between having plates and being one of those guys who claims to be polyamorous is that those guys are having dread game run on them, while with a plate you're sorta running dread game on her. "Let me fuck all the other guys I want and not have to keep it on the DL or I'll find another cuck" vs. "Let me not be exclusive to you, and if you keep pushing for that or start telling me about some guy you banged last week because you felt lonely, I'm out the door."

Quote

I love saying it should be made legal while they are making gay marriage legal, for all the same reasons.

SJWs go chimp because they hate the idea of polly but they can't criticise is "love is love" argument gets turned against them!

Quote

(10-02-2016 02:47 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  I love saying it should be made legal while they are making gay marriage legal, for all the same reasons.

SJWs go chimp because they hate the idea of polly but they can't criticise is "love is love" argument gets turned against them!

Get government out of the game of defining/legalizing marriage period. It should be a contract like any other, with rules defined by the contract that is signed. Benefits of that approach would be:
- Ending the current horribly unfair situation where the rules of marriage are redefined by the government on a regular basis. Men who got married 30-40 years ago didn't think they were signing up for what they have now. Defining it on the agreement that is signed means that you know what you are getting into and that doesn't change based on the shifting of political sentiment during the period of the marriage. Conditions regarding what happens in a divorce should be part of the original contract.
- Gay marriage, polygamy, "open marriage", whatever ... you make up your own mind, the government doesn't forbid or validate or encourage anything. End of that debate, at least at a legal level.
- Here's the nugget for the religious folks ... no one is saying that each contract has to be written individually. I would expect that most churches would have their own version of a marriage contract, with rules about how much if any leeway there is for customization and things like intermarriage with other religions. Of course, while enforcing the contract itself could involve the government, enforcement of any requirement that church members use the church version of the contract is between those private parties. In this way, the definition of marriage for a religious community is in the hands of that community and not the government.

All of that will never happen of course, but it's the solution I'd propose, at this point in my life anyway. It's always possible I'll evolve into a theocrat eventually and change my mind.

Quote

(10-01-2016 04:43 AM)RaymondKertezc Wrote:  There were a few threads touching on the topic of polygyny, but since there are so many issues within that topic to cover, I thought I'd create a broader thread.

ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS
One of the main arguments against polygyny is that it will destroy civilization or, at best, make it run less efficiently. A small number of men will hoard all the available women, removing the incentive of the rest of the men to be productive.

Beta bux scenario
Let's assume that women are primarily interested in a man's beta bux, and will go with the guy who brings the most money to the table. And suppose society tolerates polygyny. Adam, a guy who makes $50K/year to support himself and his wife, realizes he can support a second wife if he increases his income to $75K/year. He works harder/smarter until he reaches that income goal, and gets his second wife.

Meanwhile, there's another guy, Bob, who is making $25K/year to support himself, and would have been interested in raising his income to $50K/year if he could've gotten married. But because Adam already took the woman Bob wanted off the market, Bob doesn't bother to work harder/smarter. Instead, he focuses on leveling his character in World of Warcraft.

How is society poorer because of this? How does this destroy civilization? The market measures productivity in dollars. The $25K/year increase in Adam's productivity to be able to support his second wife offsets the $25K/year in productivity that Bob didn't feel motivated to pursue. In fact, society might become richer if, rather than giving up, Bob competes with Adam to be the most productive and bids up the price of wives.

Of course, one could argue that as men, we shouldn't support this, since it's going to make us have to pay more to get a wife. It depends on which you value more: the security of being able to have one wife even if your income is below average, or the opportunity to have more than one wife if your income is higher than average. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where by taking risks, I can hit the jackpot, even if there's a chance I could instead lose everything.

Alpha fux scenario
On the other hand, suppose that women choose men based on their alpha fux. Therefore, they all gravitate toward the alphas (regardless of how much those men earn), leaving the betas without any incentive to be productive.

Suppose Adam is making $50K/year to support himself and his wife, and because he's so alpha, he's able to attract another woman to be second wife, based solely on his confidence, masculinity, etc. Adam doesn't feel the need to increase his income to $75K/year, because he can get two women to marry him even when he's only making $50K/year. Meanwhile, Bob doesn't bother to increase his income above $25K/year, because Adam took the woman that he would've married. Theoretically, society just lost $25K/year in productivity because of polygyny.

This is still offset, though, if one of Adam's wives enters the workforce and earns $25K/year to help support the family. With three parents in the household, two of them can work while the third stays home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids. There is no need for every woman in a polygynous household to be a housewife.

SOCIAL STABILITY ARGUMENT
The other argument against polygyny is that some of the men who can't get laid are going to become violent because they have little to lose. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. It depends on whom they're directing their violence against. If they're risking their lives to overthrow bad leaders whose policies are keeping them poor (and therefore celibate), it could be a good thing.

Monogamy arguably makes society too stable, by creating too much equality in how wives are distributed. Even if the government is corrupt in such a way that the politically powerful are enriched at the expense of the oppressed, men may be reluctant to rise up and rebel, because they are content as long as they are able to have a wife and family. The government uses monogamy like bread and circuses, to keep the masses appeased by offering them enough to keep them happy.

A little more revolution might help society function more efficiently in the long run, or even save civilization from bad leaders whose actions would otherwise go unchecked until it's too late. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

You're assuming you can measure how "well off" a society is by looking at dollar amounts. I suppose a country like Sweden is far better off than, say, Russia, because the average salary in Sweden is higher than it is in Russia

Also, you're assuming that a technologically-advanced high GDP industrial society is the ideal to begin with. I don't think that can be taken for granted.

Quote

By the way, a possible contradiction I notice --

Some red pillers will say, "We can't allow polygyny, because then a few alphas will hoard all the available women, leaving none for the hard-working betas!"

But if someone says, "I would never want to get married, because I need to constantly have a supply of fresh young pussy" a typical red pill response is, "Hey, don't worry, you can always have a side piece in addition to your wife."

Isn't having a mistress also a form of hoarding the available women? So either way, the betas lose out. Unless, of course, these side pieces are going to be servicing multiple men; but I thought we were opposed to women being sluts. Or is having a side piece only something we would do during degenerate times, as part of our enjoyment of the decline?

Is there anything that this "enjoy the decline" thinking couldn't justify doing? If the theory is that society is going to collapse anyway, why bother restraining ourselves from doing anything at all that we think we can get away with? For example, when arguing against the Paris Agreement, we could say, "Even assuming that the climate change models are correct, who cares about the environment, given that humanity has no future anyway because of the cultural decay?"

Suppose the world is ending tomorrow. It then becomes okay to ransack the grocery store and take whatever you like, because their profitability is no longer a concern. If your neighbor catches you banging his wife, you can say, "Hey man, look at it this way, the world is going to end long before she has a chance to give birth to my bastard child, so maybe it's not such a big deal. Any jealousy you you feel about this will be over tomorrow when we all die" although I guess he could come back with, "Yeah, and when I pull the trigger on this shotgun, you're only going to have to worry about having a hole in your chest for one more day too."

Quote

At least spell the word right. It's polygamy.

Quote

(06-02-2017 10:30 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  At least spell the word right. It's polygamy.

No he actually had it right.

Polygamy means having multiple spouses.
Polygyny means having multiple wives.
Polyandry means having multiple husbands.

Anyway for my .02, I don't see anything wrong with polygyny from a moral standpoint. But it's not good for a stable society. Even women who are "born-again sluts" give the hardworking beta something to work toward, if he has a good chance of marrying her. If he thinks he can never get a woman in any way, shape, or form he may just give up and decide to coast through life.

(10-01-2016 04:43 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  The other argument against polygyny is that some of the men who can't get laid are going to become violent because they have little to lose. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. It depends on whom they're directing their violence against. If they're risking their lives to overthrow bad leaders whose policies are keeping them poor (and therefore celibate), it could be a good thing.

Okay, but if the entire point of people revolting is to overthrow people who are keeping them down, why not try to make sure they aren't kept down in the first place? Discrediting feminism in the court of public opinion is a better option than introducing polygyny on a wide scale.

(10-01-2016 04:43 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  Monogamy arguably makes society too stable, by creating too much equality in how wives are distributed. Even if the government is corrupt in such a way that the politically powerful are enriched at the expense of the oppressed, men may be reluctant to rise up and rebel, because they are content as long as they are able to have a wife and family. The government uses monogamy like bread and circuses, to keep the masses appeased by offering them enough to keep them happy.

A little more revolution might help society function more efficiently in the long run, or even save civilization from bad leaders whose actions would otherwise go unchecked until it's too late. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

I'm pretty sure monogamy was the norm for most Americans in 1776. It's not monogamy that's the problem, it's the quality of the people.

Quote

To the OP, I don't know whether you are thinking out loud/playing devil's advocate or really want this.
But anyway, why on Earth would men support what is, for most of them a negative thing? Monogamy might be a bit grim for some. But why would they want something far worse? ie less women available, or even none at all. Your comments suggesting it will make men work harder just don't make sense to me. Men work to support families, win a decent quality wife. They don't work to drop out into a life of loneliness, or marriage to a pig, while some other guy has 3, 4, SIX wives. You suggest polygamy might even set society into chaos or revolution. How on Earth is mass bloodshed, even civil war a REMOTELY good thing?

It all sounds like one of those Establishment wheezes like "lets mix transsexualism and radical Islam and see what we get".

Quote

The existence of institutionalized polygamy, when placed in contrast to modern promiscuity, tells us simply that traditional society placed importance on marriage and family even when morality could not be expected.

In the past, we had more men dying in wars and occupational hazards. In exchange for concubinage, untended women who would have otherwise had no good way of making a living could find a husband of sorts, have kids, and be fed.

For older men whose wives were no longer as attractive or fertile, this was a reciprocal relationship.

Today, we have a situation where most men survive, theoretically leaving no surplus of women, but there are a huge number of men who are not disciplined, intelligent, or lucky enough to marry and support a robust marriage. Hopeless betas and “enjoy the decline” type PUAs fall into this category. So they do not marry.

This leaves a massive number of second-rate women, from office feminists to cat ladies, ideological lesbians to single mothers, who in more ancient times might have become concubines along with their more desirable or lucky sisters.

Quote

(06-09-2017 04:55 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  The existence of institutionalized polygamy, when placed in contrast to modern promiscuity, tells us simply that traditional society placed importance on marriage and family even when morality could not be expected.

In the past, we had more men dying in wars and occupational hazards. In exchange for concubinage, untended women who would have otherwise had no good way of making a living could find a husband of sorts, have kids, and be fed.

For older men whose wives were no longer as attractive or fertile, this was a reciprocal relationship.

Today, we have a situation where most men survive, theoretically leaving no surplus of women, but there are a huge number of men who are not disciplined, intelligent, or lucky enough to marry and support a robust marriage. Hopeless betas and “enjoy the decline” type PUAs fall into this category. So they do not marry.

This leaves a massive number of second-rate women, from office feminists to cat ladies, ideological lesbians to single mothers, who in more ancient times might have become concubines along with their more desirable or lucky sisters.

I would say though that if monogamy were more prevalent and polygyny is much more harder. Quality of woman would become much more important and more 2nd rate women will be left out.

I think that the reason Europeans have their unique characteristics is because of sexual selection because the icy north forced monogamy much more often and men died more frequently since they need to hunt more and there is nothing to gather on the icy fields of the tundra which would make women dependent.

Paper worth checking out:
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInform...erID=46104

Quote