Should polygamy be legal in the USA?

[Adaeva]

Scientists have proven the benefits of polygamy for women

Throughout history only 40% of men produced children but 80% of women have. That implies that throughout history women believed that 60% of men are undesirables. Certainly, women would preferred to share a high status desirable man than to have 100% of an undesirable man. Furthermore, desirable men, having superior genes, will sire superior children. Therefore, society benefits when men with the best genes produce the most children.

Updates

+1 y

If the top 10% of men averaged 4 wives, the next 10% averaged 2 wives, the next 20% averaged 1 wife, and if the 20% of the undesirable women never married, than 60% of men would never marry. And, that is how it should be because 60% of men have undesirable genes.

[Anonymous]

If women were still bought and sold as commodities as they were thou-out most of human history there might be some sense to this.

Otherwise modern women have terrible judgement in terms picking genetically useful men.
Their brains are still stuck in the stone age picking the biggest, and most social of men rather than the smart ones best able to actual be successful in making money in a technological world.


Indeed its unclear given mankind's technological dependency and the hard to foresee traits that are advantageous in such situations that women ever will evolve good judgement.
Regardless Women certantly don't have it now and it would take a major biological cataclysm for women in our civilization to develop it.

As such the only way polygamy is beneficial is if women are commodities bought and sold by the men who ACTUALLY proven they can earn the most money to pay for them.

[flautistnaturist]

this technological world is about to wreck itself with overconfident arrogance. it may not be a lasting standard

[Opinion Owner]

@flautistnaturist If by arrogance your talking about prioritizing making money over providing for the next generation your right. No socility will survive without children.

We have abandoned the limits of a constitutional republic in favor of democracy and promptly set abut voting ourselves wealth and money via restrictions and taxes that crushed those who could not yet vote.(children born and unborn).

All the while adopting a genocidal my-optic attitude centered on immediate personal pleasure at all cost which completely ignored the civilizational numbers to recognize we were dying.

[VikingWarLord]

Read the book "SEX AT DAWN" by Cacilda Jetha and Christopher Ryan then you tell me what the answer should be.

The real question is, with a divorce rate over 50%, should monogamy be made ILLEGAL in America?

[OlderAndWiser]

There are some fallacies in your argument. I offer these comments not to be critical but, hopefully, you wll receive them in a constructive way.

1. "Throughout history only 40% of men produced children but 80% of women have." I am curious about the sourc of this claim, because it does not sound right to me.

2. "That implies that throughout history women believed that 60% of men are undesirables." Assuming the 60% is accurate (which I question,) some of those men undoubtedly were homosexual, some were infertile, and many of them probably died before puberty.

3. "Certainly, women would preferred to share a high status desirable man than to have 100% of an undesirable man." SOME women may feel that way but I doubt that most women would agree with that statement. Some women - probably most - want a husband who will be fathful and loyal, and who will be a devoted father to their children. A man who has three wives will probably spend far less than one third of his time with you and your children (not only does he have two other wives and sets of children, but he also has a job, and will also want some time away from family.)

4. "Furthermore, desirable men, having superior genes, will sire superior children." This statement contains three fallacies. First is the idea that you can define "superior" genes. What is it that makes certain genes superior? Do you think, e. g., that colorblindness is an undesireable trait? There is a concept if population genetics called heterozygosity vigor, or sometimes called hybrid vigor. Google it.

Second, all "inferor" genes are not outwardly apparent to others. That tall hunk that you have the hots for, the on whose baby you want to have. . . may actually be colorblind, or have a genetic heart defect, or sickle cell anemia. t doesn't stop them from lookng like a hunky beefcake.

Third, the offspring of the woman-hot man pairing will receive half of their chromosomes from the mother. So, don't you also need to restrict breeding to the top 40% of women?

Do some research wth an open mind, and I think you may want to refine your ideas on this topic.

[abc3643]

No, of course not.

For a few reasons, but these are the big ones.

1. When you are in real love with someone, there is only one other person; not more than one.

2. It would take trillions of dollars and decades of time to rewrite all relevant laws and regulations at all levels and resolve all court cases before that could happen.

3. It will create new problems... MANY new problems. For instance, how does marriage and divorce work? (That's a rhetorical question; don't answer.)

>>> No, it's a logical and logistical nightmare. The only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

But, mostly, anyone who understands real love understands that polygamy is out of the question. It serves no purpose biologically or otherwise neither.

[loveslongnails]

Hmmm... funny isn't it, that a parent can have the full capacity to REALLY love many children, but can only REALLY love one woman at a time? Oh, but that's comparing apples to oranges, they say, and here, I always thought REAL love means real LOVE.

So nice to be talked down to by "anyone who understands real love".

[Adaeva]

The legal problems would be solved by a law stating that all marriage laws passed after 1900 are null and void. And, the husband is the head of the household and, in the event of divorce, unless there is sufficient justification to rule otherwise, retains all assets and custody and it is a felony subject to not more than 10 years in prison and not more than a $1 million fine if any family court judge rules otherwise without sufficient justification.

I and my children would be far better off sharing a husband earning $1 million annually than if I did not share a husband, earning $50,000 annually. However, I would insist he not have more than two other wives and preferably not more than one other wife.

[abc3643]

You wrote this in your update:
"how it should be because 60% of men have undesirable genes."

First, if those men were undesirable, they wouldn't exist already because that's how evolution works.

Second, you don't need marriage to reproduce. Ask bunnies about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shUMWpGvlwE

But, who defines undesirability?
HINT: It's not always us...

The critical benefit from sexual reproduction is the increase in variation in the gene pool.
Because male gametes are plentiful and female gametes are not, males are the ones who increase genetic diversity from reproducing with multiple females. However, females are more selective and so they often chose who to mate with and that drives evolution.

But, females aren't that choosey because, like us, they get horny and have sex drives and need release. ... ANY dick will do... and, from an evolutionary perspective this is a good thing.

Why? This has to go with what I said about desirability...

NATURE doesn't give a shit what you look like, but it is happy to constantly provide new pathogens to kill members of your species. So, the more the members of a species is alike (that is, the less diverse it is), then the more likely that species will go extinct.

Put another way, if 60% of men were undesirable, then 40% of men are desirable and if those same 40% of men are also "desired" by a lethal pathogen, guess who gets selected for death?
It's not the 60% of "undesirable" men who, amazingly because the other 40% are now dead, have suddenly become more desirable... because they are alive.

[abc3643]

No, you are WAY too naïve about this.
You have no understanding of the interconnectedness of the world and its institutions.
You don't just pass some grand fiat like the Burning Bush writing the 10 Commandments.
In the real world, there are "ripple effects".

Meanwhile, about the hyperconservative lifestyle you want, I will simply say this.

"Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it."

Spock said it less directly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itXRtEJUOPI

[Adaeva]

"First, if those men were undesirable, they wouldn't exist already because that's how evolution works."

Hardly! Of course they exist because not all birth defects result in miscarriages. Therefore, undesirables exist but they don't mate because women don't choose them. I'm certain you recall the study that women consider 80% of men below average.

[abc3643]

I think we are getting off track...

Anyway, no, polygamy should not be legalized. Legalizing it disregards human nature and would only will lead to problems.

>>> Whenever the have-nots do not have for a long period of time, they become violent so that they have.
Proof of principle: You live in the United States of America - a nation born of violence by people who did not have rights so they created a new nation to give it to themselves.

Survival is less esoteric than democracy and people will always do what is necessary to survive and outlet their anger regardless if they are "undesirable" or not.

[Adaeva]

"Whenever the have-nots do not have for a long period of time, they become violent..."

Obviously that is false. For 2,000 years, the areas now known as Korea have been ruled by kings and nobles. And, many people were slaves and the peasants and servants were little more slaves. Watch some historical Korean dramas to see bad they were treated. The 20 eposide "Maids" is a good example. Nevertheless, for 2,000 years they never rebelled.

[loveslongnails]

" However, I would insist he not have more than two other wives and preferably not more than one other wife." LOL And therein lies the rub. Are you "that special" that a guy making a million bucks or more is going to accept those terms because you want that? The only way you'd get that is if he himself didn't want more than one or two wives.

[abc3643]

@loveslongnails You are welcome to be talked down to if you deserve it.

I am talking romantic love which is different than familial love.

At 37, you should know that and the fact that you didn't saddens me because you apparently have never been in that sort of insane hyperfocused "real" romantic love.

[abc3643]

That's not obviously false because there is a critical difference.

When you have no power to be violent, that doesn't change the fire inside you to become violent when you can.

Besides, people who are have-nots don't necessarily believe they are; they consider themselves "have-enoughs" which is tantamount to being a "have". For instance, look at prisoners. Some prisoners actually fear being released - they are "institutionalized". In prison, they have food and shelter and healthcare. Once released, sure they are freer, but those critical things aren't guaranteed and that induces fear.

[Adaeva]

@loveslongnails $1 million annual earnings is like less than the top 1%. With my looks, athletic ability, and intelligence, I rate high but probably not that high. I'll try but if not, I will find a top 5% guy with annual earning potential between $100,000 to $200,000. I certainly rate that high and, if a top 5% guy, I will demand that I will be his only wife. Those guys can marry 2 or 3 wives but not 2 or 3 like me.

[loveslongnails]

According to the data I found. if your INCOME is $500k or more in the USA, you're in the top 1% of earners. If your net worth is $11 million or more, you're in the top 1% of the net worth category. If you make $150-$200k annually, you're in the top 5%. At that level, you wouldn't need to demand to be the only wife.

Though I haven't done a study on the subject, I'd wage that the vast majority of men do not want multiple wives. I'd also wager that at least 50% of married men would love to have a mistress if their wives didn't object, but wouldn't be so thrilled about their wives having a lover! LOL

[Daniela1982]

Isn't this country in enough trouble without adding moral decay to the mix? Having more than one wife - as a spare? - does not make a good marriage and brings to mind some sheik with a harem of women. God decreed between one man and one woman. Any more and you will not be blessed by Him. And believe me, in today's world, we need God's blessings or we are doomed. The United States is not a player in the end times. So either we are toast or are destroying ourselves from within and will no longer be a world power.

[Gent207-2]

You're whole reasoning is backwards - men can't get pregnant. Marriage is a commitment between two people forever. Contrary to popular belief - sister wives do struggle with jealousy and God forbid the man has ADD and forgets something important

[Adaeva]

Marriage has lots of definition and varies depending on the country. In the Joseon dynasty, a Korean dynastic kingdom, all the women in palace were the King's women.

[Berethor]

A man is like a key, a woman is like a lock, but polygamous societies are more violent.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124093142.htm

[BaileyWillow]

Both Biden and Hillary said that marriage is between a man and a woman. But of course now they both flip-floped on that.

So as long as we're going to change the rules, sure, let polygamy be legal. But the government and employers should not have to pay benefits to all of the wives. Husband can pick his favorite wife and put her under the insurance plan.

[RealMarek]

The problem is that monogamy was not artificially imposed for no good reason. It evolved due to the incredible level of violence common to polygamous societies. All those men with “undesirable genes” get up to mischief when left unable to marry, so much so that polygamous societies are at a competitive disadvantage in evolutionary terms to monogamous societies in most circumstances.

[FilmGuy93]

I think so... If most of your romantic options in life aren't great, and you are open to the thought of sharing someone you find desirable, why shouldn't you be allowed to do that?

I think most people would live more fulfilling lives sharing an extremely desirable partner than they would being monogamous with someone that doesn't really excite them.

[loveslongnails]

If a man can handle all that estrogen coming at him, and can afford it, go for it. It's an insurance company nightmare however, and you'd see a lot of restrictions of policies and a lot of surcharges for your 2nd, 3rd, 4th wives, etc. So the kids would have a mom and multiple step-moms, natural siblings and lots of step-siblings. LOL

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

Me no understand all these fancy words you use. But me do understand that having more partners means more humping and more pleasure. Me no see why anyone would want to limit that.

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

Update: do you know that these fugly men have fugly sisters? So who's gonna screw a 1/10 when he has access to multiple 5-10/10 chicks?

[PraviteliNahuiValite]

Oh shit didn't read it properly. Anyway I think if we get rid of the chemicals in the water, there are as many undesirable men as women, actually more than enough for a woman for every man.

Drinking chemicals in the water is going to make you soyish regardless of your genetics.

[Jersey2]

I wouldn’t want 4 wives. What a mess and a burden. The Sister Wives show showed what happens both with ending up with frumpy women and then the drama and breakup. I would rather stay single and have what I want. It’s interesting that the top 40% of men still produced 60% of undesirable boys. Anyway I married one but had girlfriends or my wife all for about 8 months since I was 14 when I got my first BJ. I have been successful in career and finances so on the top 10%’s behalf, I’ll pass.

[LiamJHayden]

A much larger, more in depth study than the Florida one, done by the National Institutes of Health, found a much, much lower number:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2833377/

[Whatthefluff]

I think they don’t allow this because of cults. I’m fine with it because it makes things a little too complicated, and with 3 people involved instead of 2 divorce rates would be even higher.

[Adaeva]

The divorce rates would go down because if a wife divorced her husband, he keeps the children and his assets.

[KostasKouvalis]

I'll say, YES. It's not hurting anyone. And it's double standardish to allow gay marriage, but not polygamy. I think the government should just stay out of people's relationships and sex lives

[flautistnaturist]

genes are not the only undesirable element

attitudes, spiritual beliefs, etc can render someone undesirable sometimes profoundly moreso

[Spongebobssocks]

I think it should be legal for both women and men to marry more than one husband/wife.

But personally I would never!

[Dargil]

It could end up Polyandry, since most Western women are unworkable. I don't agree with it but am not horrified by it, either.

[Quackthulu2]

No it should not. But polyamory is already legal.

[TonyMetal___86]

Don't know about the others but i believe that 1 wife is enough for me, marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman, not 1 man and 100 women, even though that's the wish of a lot of guys 😄

[PointTaken]

Not sure yet I'd feel bad for the guy if all 3 wanted a divorce. Lol. I had a friend that was the youngest in a polygamy family. He said he would never do that. Just one woman.

[RavVid]

Yeah... but. A high value man doesn't have to marry them.

[slatyb]

Yes, between adults. No one under 18 should be allowed to marry under any circumstances.

[notwoke]

No, and get rid of gay marriage too. We'd be better off encouraging or mandating women to be thinner and less obese, then a man has a good chance to be satisfied with his wife

[terrysweet]

not sure what to think about polygamy it's a interesting idea

[In_Trance]

the opposite of control is not chaos

more laws don't make fewer criminals

[call_me_scar]

Yes you should have that right

[Avicenna]

Absolutely not- it would be destabilizing.

[NostalgiaSenpi]

Not at all.

[brandon1122]

Nope