Polygamy seems bad to me but also good

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Polygamy seems bad to me but also good

«‹›4 »

Necros: Jul 23, 2003

if you wanna see what happens when most people try polygamy check out the r/relationships thread. its real good.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 09:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 00:45

The Dennis System: Aug 4, 2014; Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth.

Coolguye posted:

dawkins and a bunch of other biologists did a bunch of cross disciplinary things with sociologists in the late 90s to early 2000s and their basic conclusions went something like:

- the primary reason polygamy isn�t more of a thing with humanity is because women won�t allow it
- that�s because the primary thing they get out of a pair bond that they can�t get elsewhere is support raising kids, and obviously if a dude has like 3 wives that means her kids get 1/3rd of the attention
- the above is also why there�s no multiple husband polygamous relationships - a woman does not gain much of anything by having more dudes around, and the men lose interest pretty much instantly if they can�t be sure the kids are theirs anyway
- the rare polygamous relationships arise because the men in question are so rich and powerful that they can afford better raising despite having less time individually
- but the women in question also tend to have way, way, way worse options, to the point where money matters to that degree - so, yes, the multiple wives of an emperor or whatever were very likely to be offered up farmgirls because their only other real prospect was to marry another shitfarmer and die of tuberculosis at 24, probably childless. merchant daughters wouldn�t put up with it because even if the local blacksmith�s boy was never gonna rule a country he would make enough to teach their kids a real trade and be there to raise them right
- one of the primary reasons you see even less of it today is because of the above; even if you compare a billionaire to a gas station clerk the gulf between them is monumentally smaller than the king and the seed of yesteryear

before someone jumps all over me for writing some poo poo I�d like to remind you all that I�m just regurgitating information from cross disciplinary studies led by a respected expert in the field (who was, at that point, managing to not step outside his area of expertise and spout his dumbshit philosophies to anyone he could accost). i personally don�t have a take on the situation because I know fuckall about it

e: well no wait my take is that if polygamy were legal today it would probably primarily be practiced by creepy predators who would obtain their wives from human traffickers

i base this off a gut feeling from watching wife collectors like donny t

You're probably right. Except that I think the gulf between a gas station attendant and a billionaire of today is mind-blowingly huge.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 09:24

Tiberius Christ: Mar 4, 2009

gently caress my wife, please

# ? Mar 18, 2019 09:31

CountryMatters: Apr 8, 2009; IT KEEPS HAPPENING

The Dennis System posted:

You're probably right. Except that I think the gulf between a gas station attendant and a billionaire of today is mind-blowingly huge.

Yeah I call bullshit on that part too.
The difference between a shitfarmer and a king was that the shitfarmer would starve to death and die of disease, and the king would not starve and then would die of disease a bit later, and maybe had a couple hundred people he could order around and some gold trinkets

The difference between the bottom of the rung and the top now is that the people at the bottom starve and die of easily preventable diseases, and the people at the top are living gods with literally unlimited power, who can buy and do anything they want, and can affect the entire world on a global scale to make entire countries bend to their whims. Disparity has never been bigger

# ? Mar 18, 2019 09:41

Palpek: Dec 27, 2008; Do you feel it, Zach?
My coffee warned me about it.

Thots and Prayers posted:

If I were rich then I'd just sort of retire/disappear and get another wife who'll be good friends with current wife but we won't say anything to anyone and anytime someone visited only one of the wives would be there and then the next time the other wife and so on but we'd never say anything about the changes and keep it up until the guest finally snaps

It would be hilarious and amazing every time and we could just gently caress with other people constantly

It would totally work

You're not off because that's literally Warren Buffett's situation, except that it's been going for so long that people kinda figured out who the real wife is by now.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 09:46

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

Why exactly would a billionaire of today get married? I guess it's like a status thing. Not being married is trashy etc. It's certainly not like they need to do so to have access to women.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 12:06

Coolguye: Jul 6, 2011; Required by his programming!

The Dennis System posted:

You're probably right. Except that I think the gulf between a gas station attendant and a billionaire of today is mind-blowingly huge.

i actually raised my eyebrow at that one too but when they justified it they basically quantified that the way it used to be, a peasant used to be between 4-7 inches shorter than nobles just from food availability (today the difference is closer to 2-3 inches) and the peasant would never have been schooled, ever, whereas basically everyone today has 12 years of formal education.

i feel like that shoves a whole bunch of poo poo under the rug and reads like thisisfine.jpg but

CountryMatters posted:

Disparity has never been bigger

this was the exact sentiment they were hoping to counterpoint, it's a big claim to say that disparity's never been bigger when in yesteryear being poor meant you were literally smaller than your 'betters'.

Coolguye fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Mar 18, 2019

# ? Mar 18, 2019 18:19

underthecube: Dec 5, 2018

doverhog posted:

Why exactly would a billionaire of today get married? I guess it's like a status thing. Not being married is trashy etc. It's certainly not like they need to do so to have access to women.

"am i going to marry someone whose probably close to my status and age or just assume my harem of bottle waitresses arent going to pierce these condoms on the way to selling my sexts to tmz"

# ? Mar 18, 2019 19:01

Zane: Nov 14, 2007

in relative terms the wealth disparity between rich and poor is higher today. in absolute terms however the wealth floor for everyone is much higher and people don't feel unequal because they can all plausibly get an education, get air conditioning, eat good food, watch television, etc., which is what most people actually care about.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 19:22

naem: May 29, 2011

Blurry Gray Thing posted:

imo, it would be better if all the wives were into eachother, too. But then they won't need you at all, OP.

can confirm

# ? Mar 18, 2019 19:26

CountryMatters: Apr 8, 2009; IT KEEPS HAPPENING

Coolguye posted:

i actually raised my eyebrow at that one too but when they justified it they basically quantified that the way it used to be, a peasant used to be between 4-7 inches shorter than nobles just from food availability (today the difference is closer to 2-3 inches) and the peasant would never have been schooled, ever, whereas basically everyone today has 12 years of formal education.

i feel like that shoves a whole bunch of poo poo under the rug and reads like thisisfine.jpg but

this was the exact sentiment they were hoping to counterpoint, it's a big claim to say that disparity's never been bigger when in yesteryear being poor meant you were literally smaller than your 'betters'.

The poor are better off now than they were in the past, yes, but the scope of the wealthiest people has expanded to the point that it's hard to even quantify.
Bezos is worth 131 billion dollars. That's an absolutely incomprehensible amount of money. The wealthiest and most privileged people of the past couldn't even visualise that amount of wealth. It would be impossible to even store it, and it makes their most extravagant palaces and jewels look like chump change. Bezos could make ten Buckingham Palaces and it wouldn't have any material impact on him at all.
And yet there are STILL people in America, today, who are generationally malnourished, and yes, shrunken from lack of good food, and who have basically no proper education. There are parts of America that are practically on the level of a third world country.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 21:26

naem: May 29, 2011

CountryMatters posted:

The poor are better off now than they were in the past, yes, but the scope of the wealthiest people has expanded to the point that it's hard to even quantify.
Bezos is worth 131 billion dollars. That's an absolutely incomprehensible amount of money. The wealthiest and most privileged people of the past couldn't even visualise that amount of wealth. It would be impossible to even store it, and it makes their most extravagant palaces and jewels look like chump change. Bezos could make ten Buckingham Palaces and it wouldn't have any material impact on him at all.
And yet there are STILL people in America, today, who are generationally malnourished, and yes, shrunken from lack of good food, and who have basically no proper education. There are parts of America that are practically on the level of a third world country.

if these insanely rich people supported basic universal income in the us, guaranteeing adequate food, shelter and healthcare for all, with one one-thousandth of one percent of their wealth, i�d be 100% a-okay with wealth disparity or at least somewhat less disgusted with the society we live in

# ? Mar 18, 2019 21:38

Kuato: Feb 25, 2005; "I CAN'T BELIEVE I ATE THE WHOLE THING"; Buglord

Being trapped with two women in matrimony sounds like hell imo

# ? Mar 18, 2019 21:44

phasmid: Jan 16, 2015; Booty Shaker
SILENT MAJORITY

naem posted:

if these insanely rich people supported basic universal income in the us, guaranteeing adequate food, shelter and healthcare for all, with one one-thousandth of one percent of their wealth, i�d be 100% a-okay with wealth disparity or at least somewhat less disgusted with the society we live in

Truth.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 21:52

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

The Dennis System posted:

women are only attracted to 20% of men, and find the other 80% "below average

what?

# ? Mar 18, 2019 21:54

Milo and POTUS: Sep 3, 2017; I will not shut up about the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. I talk about them all the time and work them into every conversation I have. I built a shrine in my room for the yellow one who died because sadly no one noticed because she died around 9/11. Wanna see it?

divorce law would be a nightmare

# ? Mar 18, 2019 22:01

FoolyCharged: Oct 11, 2012; Cheating at a raffle? I sentence you to 1 year in jail! No! Two years! Three! Four! Five years! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
Somebody call for an ant?

The hit film "paint your wagon" taught me that polygamy will undermine the towns it is practiced in until they are swallowed up by the earth itself.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 22:15

unpleasantly turgid: Jul 6, 2016; u lightweights couldn't even feed my shadow ;*

The Dennis System posted:

I think that in practice polygamy has usually meant a bunch of young women, or even girls, being married by force to powerful but creepy old men. But, in theory, since women are only attracted to 20% of men, and find the other 80% "below average", maybe, if there was no cultural stigma against it, a lot of women wouldn't mind sharing the best 20%? I don't know.

it seems unintuitive to call 80% of a population below average

# ? Mar 18, 2019 22:41

bagual: Oct 29, 2010; _{_{inconspicuous}}

what about gay polygamy? non ironically asking btw

# ? Mar 18, 2019 22:54

naem: May 29, 2011

unpleasantly turgid posted:

it seems unintuitive to call 80% of a population below average

�incels� are guys who notice that silly young people in their early 20�s who are in that brief �dating around having a good time during your college age years before you have adult responsibilities� period of life concentrate mostly on humping other attractive people, and decided the entire human race is flawed and doomed

rather than focusing on careers and friendships and planning marriage and families and all the other forms of longer lasting human interactions that exist

because they felt frustrated that they couldn�t hump a supermodel this one time

# ? Mar 18, 2019 22:54

bagual: Oct 29, 2010; _{_{inconspicuous}}

Coolguye posted:

dawkins and a bunch of other biologists did a bunch of cross disciplinary things with sociologists in the late 90s to early 2000s and their basic conclusions went something like:

- the primary reason polygamy isn�t more of a thing with humanity is because women won�t allow it
- that�s because the primary thing they get out of a pair bond that they can�t get elsewhere is support raising kids, and obviously if a dude has like 3 wives that means her kids get 1/3rd of the attention
- the above is also why there�s no multiple husband polygamous relationships - a woman does not gain much of anything by having more dudes around, and the men lose interest pretty much instantly if they can�t be sure the kids are theirs anyway
- the rare polygamous relationships arise because the men in question are so rich and powerful that they can afford better raising despite having less time individually
- but the women in question also tend to have way, way, way worse options, to the point where money matters to that degree - so, yes, the multiple wives of an emperor or whatever were very likely to be offered up farmgirls because their only other real prospect was to marry another shitfarmer and die of tuberculosis at 24, probably childless. merchant daughters wouldn�t put up with it because even if the local blacksmith�s boy was never gonna rule a country he would make enough to teach their kids a real trade and be there to raise them right
- one of the primary reasons you see even less of it today is because of the above; even if you compare a billionaire to a gas station clerk the gulf between them is monumentally smaller than the king and the serf of yesteryear

before someone jumps all over me for writing some poo poo I�d like to remind you all that I�m just regurgitating information from cross disciplinary studies led by a respected expert in the field (who was, at that point, managing to not step outside his area of expertise and spout his dumbshit philosophies to anyone he could accost). i personally don�t have a take on the situation because I know fuckall about it

e: well no wait my take is that if polygamy were legal today it would probably primarily be practiced by creepy predators who would obtain their wives from human traffickers

i base this off a gut feeling from watching wife collectors like donny t

as a sociologist, this is a misinterpretation

it may provide an explanation for the biological aspects of patriachal socio-sexual relations in a context of a property system, but if you read anthropological sources as old as Margareth Mead you can find multiple societies where gender roles are completely different from western society, off the top of my head there was a book on a paraguayan tribe that believed more men having sex with pregnant women meant more health for the baby, and the children were raised by the community, so the fatherhood question was never even relevant.

so it's not like biological human nature says poligamy is powerful men with multiple vulnerable women wives, it's more like that in societies like ours, with patriachy and the property system, poligamy generally plays out this way

bagual fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Mar 18, 2019

# ? Mar 18, 2019 23:17

numberoneposter: Feb 19, 2014; How much do I cum? The answer might surprise you!

take my wife

PLEASE!

# ? Mar 18, 2019 23:20

Oscar Wild: Apr 11, 2006; It's good to be a G

numberoneposter posted:

take my wife

PLEASE!

Take my wife and wife and wife and wife and wife...

Please! I'm begging you. I dont know their names.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 23:30

SardonicTyrant: Feb 26, 2016; BTICH IM A NEWT
熱くなれ夢みた明日を
必ずいつかつかまえる
走り出せ振り向くことなく
&

Tiberius Christ posted:

gently caress my wife, please

I'm not loving your wife without haggling first. That's just good business

# ? Mar 18, 2019 23:36

Coolguye: Jul 6, 2011; Required by his programming!

bagual posted:

as a sociologist, this is a misinterpretation

it may provide an explanation for the biological aspects of patriachal socio-sexual relations in a context of a property system, but if you read anthropological sources as old as Margareth Mead you can find multiple societies where gender roles are completely different from western society, off the top of my head there was a book on a paraguayan tribe that believed more men having sex with pregnant women meant more health for the baby, and the children were raised by the community, so the fatherhood question was never even relevant.

so it's not like biological human nature says poligamy is powerful men with multiple vulnerable women wives, it's more like that in societies like ours, with patriachy and the property system, poligamy generally plays out this way

the studies tended to acknowledge exceptions like this, hence the way i tried to grant their existence with it being 'more' of a thing without belaboring the point, but in general they didn't want the existence of a couple of tribal societies that never scaled past a couple hundred or couple thousand people to conflate with the context of the larger civilizations that would routinely cover hundreds of thousands to millions (which is what the question was basically about because that's the context 99% of the planet lives in today).

they specifically called out a bunch of incan emperor writings in the justification for this being a #notjustwhiteppl thing where the emperor would go on record saying, more or less, "it's a literal 'fuckin problem' for me to gently caress the literal thousand women in my harem so can we please cut that poo poo back so i can govern more and gently caress less"

i won't pretend that i understand how valid or invalid this is i just remember it because it those quoted letters were hilarious

Coolguye fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Mar 18, 2019

# ? Mar 18, 2019 23:43

hevnz 2 murgatroyd: Apr 13, 2018; by Smythe

I can see polyamory being a response to the middle class getting hosed. If you had a 3-adult household you could actually afford to have a stay at home parent and nice things.

# ? Mar 18, 2019 23:47

Kuato: Feb 25, 2005; "I CAN'T BELIEVE I ATE THE WHOLE THING"; Buglord

numberoneposter posted:

take my wife

PLEASE!

# ? Mar 18, 2019 23:52

kickascii: Mar 30, 2010

DNA analysis has shown that throughout most of history, only around one in five men were fathers. Kings, chieftans and warlords were monopolizing all the puss.

With tons of data available from all these online dating sites, the 1 in 5 rule holds steady, the top guys get the vast majority of messages of interest from the ladies. That stat cited earlier about how when ranking men on their attractiveness, 80% of men score "below average" about sums it up.

The handful of puritan generations where 10s paired up with 10s and 5s paired up with other 5s is going to be a minor blip on our DNA ancestry.

# ? Mar 19, 2019 00:50

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

kickascii posted:

DNA analysis has shown that throughout most of history, only around one in five men were fathers. Kings, chieftans and warlords were monopolizing all the puss.

With tons of data available from all these online dating sites, the 1 in 5 rule holds steady, the top guys get the vast majority of messages of interest from the ladies. That stat cited earlier about how when ranking men on their attractiveness, 80% of men score "below average" about sums it up.

The handful of puritan generations where 10s paired up with 10s and 5s paired up with other 5s is going to be a minor blip on our DNA ancestry.

This thread owns, I love that we have unironic incels here.

# ? Mar 19, 2019 00:52

The Protagonist: Jun 29, 2009; The average is 5.5? I thought it was 4. This is very unsettling.

i lik puttin my peener in snug cavities

# ? Mar 19, 2019 00:56

Gay Weed Dad: Jul 12, 2016; cool dude, flyin' high

Only one gamy for me, thanks!

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:00

kickascii: Mar 30, 2010

FactsAreUseless posted:

This thread owns, I love that we have unironic incels here.

It's a polygamy thread! I didn't start it, blame the OP.

I'm married, the best part about it, is that no one else can have it. And also I can't have it. Unless she says I can.

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:00

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

kickascii posted:

It's a polygamy thread! I didn't start it, blame the OP.

I'm married, the best part about it, is that no one else can have it. And also I can't have it. Unless she says I can.

You have a super unhealthy relationship with women, but you do you man. You nut.

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:01

underthecube: Dec 5, 2018

Don't be so cynical, I'm sure before this guy got married he tested his and his wife's DNA to ensure they were within +/-1.7 twerks of each other on the bootylicious scale, ensuring maximum compatibility

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:15

Devils Affricate: Jan 22, 2010

naem posted:

if these insanely rich people supported basic universal income in the us, guaranteeing adequate food, shelter and healthcare for all, with one one-thousandth of one percent of their wealth, i�d be 100% a-okay with wealth disparity or at least somewhat less disgusted with the society we live in

Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk both support universal basic income

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:15

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

underthecube posted:

Don't be so cynical, I'm sure before this guy got married he tested his and his wife's DNA to ensure they were within +/-1.7 twerks of each other on the bootylicious scale, ensuring maximum compatibility

I think with white people they measure it in millitwerks.

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:16

Telebite: Aug 23, 2018

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:17

FoolyCharged: Oct 11, 2012; Cheating at a raffle? I sentence you to 1 year in jail! No! Two years! Three! Four! Five years! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
Somebody call for an ant?

kickascii posted:

It's a polygamy thread! I didn't start it, blame the OP.

I'm married, the best part about it, is that no one else can have it. And also I can't have it. Unless she says I can.

Guess that answers my incel or overly valuing himself.

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:19

Devils Affricate: Jan 22, 2010

Telebite posted:

one on the right has a serious case of Ted Cruz face

# ? Mar 19, 2019 01:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 00:45

Riot Bimbo: Dec 28, 2006

that guy is quoting uhh a lonely island song yall

its not good but its from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V35jvY0u7I

# ? Mar 19, 2019 02:01

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Polygamy seems bad to me but also good

«‹›4 »