Vox Day seems to argue in The economics of polygamy that we can expect to see women push for legalization of polygamy. Part of his argument is that men have wised up to women using marriage/divorce as a wealth transference mechanism:
The question ultimately boils down to whether women of the politically active sort would prefer half of Prince Charming’s castle to the entirety of a woodcutter’s cottage. The acquisition of male assets through divorce was never going to work for long, as it only took forty years – a little less than two generations – for growing male awareness to break the traditional marital model and reduce marriage rates among the 25-34 age group from 80% to 45% and the overall rate to 52%. In less than three generations from Ronald Reagan’s signing of the California no-fault divorce law in 1969, conventional monogamous marriage will no longer be the statistical norm.
Vox doesn’t cite his source for the statistics, but they fit very closely with the 2010 Census data. I commented on his site explaining that he appeared to be misreading the data, but since I was late to the game and commenter 104 I don’t think he noticed it. Either way he didn’t respond.
As you probably already know the problem with the data he is using is it measures the percentage of the population currently married. But divorce theft doesn’t involve women being married, it involves them getting married and then divorcing. The right stat to look at would be the percent of men and women still marrying, and as I’ve shown these stats tell a very different story. As I’ve said before, marrying a woman when she is older and less hot and having her divorce you doesn’t mean you are on a marriage strike. I shared the latest census data with Vox in my comment to him:
The stats you are looking at are the percent of the population which is currently married. The change is important but doesn’t show that men are wise to divorce theft, at least initially. The vast majority of men (63%) and women (73%) still marry by their early thirties. These numbers are much higher if you look at just whites, with roughly 85% of white women having married by 35.
Either way, I don’t see men refusing to marry (if it does in fact start to happen) as the foundation for a push for polygamy. The feminists will detest the idea and the white knight useful idiots they depend on wouldn’t be willing to carry their water in this case. And even if it somehow became legal, why would wealthy men want to sign up to have their assets even more at risk?
Many women are already willing members of harems for high status males and that may continue or expland. I see no economic advantage for women in marital polygamy since they can already count on the state to sieze wealth and redistribute it to them.
I strongly doubt women will publically support polygamy with words because of social expectations. It’s the actions which already indicate that women will privately share a high status man. As a single man (48 years old), this is currently happening to me and I don’t consider myself particularly high status. The women I am involved with never ask questions about my schedule or other women. I am extremely careful not to mention other women when I am with one particular woman.
Heathcliff nails it in one. We don’t need “official” polygamy when we have child support laws that can take a man’s assets even without marriage. Women will oppose polygamy in word while practicing it in deed, knowing that if they ever get knocked up they can have the financial benefits of a husband no matter who else he might officially be married to.
If we ever see a demand for legal polygamy in this country, it will come from religiously conservative women who see a Biblical model for sharing one really good guy as better than being on the pump and dump circuit. My guess is that, if there is ever a real demand for polygyny, it’ll come from women like Margene on Big Love, an HBO series on a polygamous Mormon family. The third wife, Margene, is a non-Mormon from very disfunctional circumstances. She trades the insecurity of her past life for the secure, traditional, family-centered life that she gets as a part of her husband’s extended family. The trade-off is stability vs. sharing one excellent and dealing with jealousy.
Golddiggers and alpha chasers won’t demand legal polygamy because the “playas” that have modern harems aren’t the sort of guys a woman would make that trade-off for.
That was a good comment, J. I would add that most religions that allow polygamy insist that a man who would have several wives have the financial means to support them. Very few men today are willing to take onthe responsibility of supporting one wife, let alone more than one.
I would also like to address the idea that Christianity condones or allows polygamy. This is actually a line of thought that has been gaining traction in recent years. I really don’t understand why, but it is. Nowhere in the Bible is there any concrete evidence for the notion that God blesses or supports polygamy. Yes, there was polygamy. And yes, there were godly men who were polygamists.
But a thorough reading of the Scriptures clearly reveals that wherever ther was polygamy there was strife, envy, idolatry, and every other kind of madness. There are also numerous warnings in Scripture against having more than one wife and prohibitions in the New Testament against any man who would be a church leader having more than one wife.
I told a friend of mine recently that if ever there was a man in history who needed more than one wife, it would have been Adam. “be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth” God tells him. And gives him Eve. One wife. That should count for something, lol.
“And even if it somehow became legal, why would wealthy men want to sign up to have their assets even more at risk?”
Also, each new wife a man takes would diminish each of his current wives’ shares of his assets. If you’re wife number two and your husband takes two more wives, your share is cut in half, just like that. I don’t think that many women will be willing to sign up for a deal like that.
The “soft polygamy” Zammo describes will continue to be popular though.
We will eventually have legal polygamy, not because women will push for it, but because some religious groups will (FLDS anyone?) and simply deploy the arguments that are now gaining traction in the gay marriage cases being decided today. Once you “buy” those arguments, from a constitutional perspective, there isn’t really a very firm distinction as to why people who voluntarily wish to enter into a marriage with more than one person should be prohibited legally from doing so — in fact, the arguments weigh more favorably for polygamy than they do for same-sex marriages, really. It’s going to happen at some stage, for certain. There are a pair of cases that are already making their way through the Canadian legal system, and it’s expected that the courts there will eventually rule that prohibiting polygamous marriage violates the Canadian charter. It will eventually be the same in the US.
Having said that, I don’t expect polygamy to really “catch on”. There’s no need for it to do so. Women who are willing to share male resources — either simultaneously or, more commonly, sequentially — are already able to do so under the current regime, without the legal formalities of polygamous marriage. And there isn’t really an incentive for men to sing onto simultaneous marital obligations, financial and otherwise, to multiple women — there’s no social prestige in it, as there is in some cultures, nor is there increased access to sex as compared to the unmarried state. I would say that most of the polygamous couples will one religion or another, and will do so because the religion supports and legitimizes it — perhaps some Mormons and a much smaller handful of American muslims. I don’t expect that the still tiny yet increasingly vocal “polyamory” community (e.g., “Sex at Dawn”) will stump much for legalized polygamy, because the bonds of marriage, even polygamous marriage, will still seem too restrictive to them.
One wildcard is whether we will see in the years ahead a growth in polyandry. Polyandry has been noted to be extremely uncommon historically (one can surmise several reasons why this might be the case). However, under today’s circumstances, might legalized polygamy permit some, presumably breadwinning/professional, women to have multiple male partners (perhaps one is the primary sex partner while another is the primary child care giver and so on) in a stabilized context? I have my doubts about that, given how the reverse-hypergamy marriages seem to be often floundering today, but anything is possible in this wild culture we live in.
Hi Terry,
That was a good comment, J.
Thanks, Terry.
I would add that most religions that allow polygamy insist that a man who would have several wives have the financial means to support them.
Not just the financial means, but the emotional wherewithal to treat them all fairly.
Nowhere in the Bible is there any concrete evidence for the notion that God blesses or supports polygamy.
God built up Israel through polygamy. The twelve tribes of Israel are the sons of two wives and two concubines. It’s condoned in the Bible….
Yes, there was polygamy. And yes, there were godly men who were polygamists.
…but it wasn’t common or without difficulties. It was reserved for the patriarchs, for morally superior men, and even for them it wasn’t easy.
But a thorough reading of the Scriptures clearly reveals that wherever ther was polygamy there was strife, envy, idolatry, and every other kind of madness.
Maybe the Mormons are right in calling themselves the Latter Day Saints. You have to be a saint to make it work. 😉
There are also numerous warnings in Scripture against having more than one wife and prohibitions in the New Testament against any man who would be a church leader having more than one wife.
To be serious, I think it was a part of early Hebrew society because there was a man shortage among the nomadic and war-like Hebrews and polygamy protected women. As Israel became more urban and less Bedouin-like, polygamy became very uncommon. Jesus was born into a 99.9% monogamous society. It was a freak show thing by Jesus’ time. That’s why the NT isn’t enthusiastic despite the godly polygamist of the Bible. It would take another man shortage, perhaps one caused by a “marriage strike,” to make religious women of any stripe demand legal polygamy. If we ever reach a point where large numbers–a critical mass–of high quality women can’t find husbands, they will share rather than go single and childless. But sharing will require a threshold of desperation we haven’t met yet.
Polygamy is very possible because most women want the Alpha male. Women are willing to share a alpha male with other women than be monogamy with an avg guy. They compete inside themselves on which woman is his favorite. Womens own big fat egos allow Polygamy. Polygamy benefits most women and very few men just like It is now for the alpha male getting the chicks. With Polygamy it’s the majority of men who lose. For every male with let’s say five wives, that’s five men without a wife.
We will eventually have legal polygamy…. it’s expected that the courts there will eventually rule that prohibiting polygamous marriage violates the Canadian charter. It will eventually be the same in the US.
That’s brilliant, Brendan. Ever read Heinlein’s Friday? It was one of his last books. He predicts the same scenario as in your paragraph.
I live in Mormon central, and my understanding is that the LDS are against polygamy while the FLDS are for it. The FLDS squeeze out a lot of young men because there would not be enough girls to go around otherwise, and the cast-outs are called Lost Boys.
Also, supposedly how the FLDS polygamy works in practice is that there is one officially married wife, and several unofficial ones. The unoffical wives still have children and collect government benefits as a single mother. Thus the families often live relatively cushy and comfortable middle class lives.
The mainstream LDS church frowns upon this conduct but has been unable to stop the public perception of Mormons = polygamists. The mainstream Mormons tend to be married with lots of kids, but not practicing polygamy, primarily for legal reasons. The western states had to have anti-polygamy laws on the books before they were allowed into the Union.
Once gay marriage is legal the “one man, one woman” concept is toast and legal polygamy is rounding second base and heading for home. All the same arguments for gay marriage generally apply to polygamy.
At this point you can basically cohabit with however many women you want it most States anyway.
It’s unquestionably coming, but without the social control of intense religious groups running the polygamy, if it catches the culture will become increasingly dangerous to men.
It’s one thing having a few thousand “lost boys” dropped off in Utah and told to get lost. It’s quite another to have ten million “lost men” without hope for a wife. Legal prostitution on an epic scale being a possible solution.
Even so, there is an element of monogamy being an agreement between men… you have your wife, I have my wife and we all get along. If it’s you have your wife and the woman I want to be my wife and I have nothing. Well I have nothing to really lose then do I…. and men with nothing to lose can become very dangerous creatures indeed.
As others have said, de facto polygamy exists already–in the form of an unmarried player and his constellation of willing single women. Ironically, it’s perfectly legal to cohabitate with multiple women without a marriage contract, but it’s illegal to do so in a way that confers upon these women the claim to that man’s resources (i.e., through marriage). Bottom line is… When allowed the choice between sharing a man who has a lot of resources/alpha qualities vs. having sole claim to a man who has few resources/beta qualities, many women will choose the former. Polygamy, if made legal, would thrive.
I suspect–but I can’t prove–that a polygamous marriage would tend to motivate a bit of competition among wives. This could benefit a husband. Women are highly competitive with each other when it comes to gaining a man’s attention. (Sorry, feminists, but it’s true.) I might suspect that a man in a polygamous marriage might be shit-tested a bit less, might find a little less snark, when wife #1 is in competition for his attention with wife #2 or #3. There’s a bit of this dynamic shown in the HBO show Big Love, though one can hardly count on Hollywood to portray the true dynamic.
But polygamy would come at a great cost. As others have pointed out, there’s one thing to have a few dozen “lost boys” shunned out of an FLDS Arizona community. But what happens when there are millions of such “lost boys”? Historical research shows that societies that practice monogamous marriage suffer fewer civil wars and more social harmony than polygamous ones*. Young men enriched with testosterone who realize they have zero prospects of passing along their genes can become volatile. For the have-nots under polygamy, there’s simply less motivation to invest in the social order when one knows one’s genes won’t be around to benefit. China is currently facing this threat (same symptoms though different causes) as result of its “one child” policy that has encouraged female infanticide and produced a surplus of single males. Read Bare Branches by Valerie Hudson. and get scared. I suspect there are sound reasons that most societies that practiced polygamy didn’t survive Darwin’s test and were replaced by those shaming it and favoring monogamy. (Failure to acknowledge this point is where the book Sex at Dawn goes horribly, horribly wrong. Some commenters at his blog have pointed this out. But the author fails to respond other than to indirectly shame them.)
Yes, legalized polygamy will happen. Just as current sexual morality very much mirrors the ancient multi-mate mating strategies of the tribal African Savannah, I suppose the next step (a mirroring of tribal polygamy) is only natural. The argument in favor of polygamy will be innocuously framed as one of “free choice”, “empowerment”, as “economically beneficial” and a basic “legal right”. Those who oppose will be framed as naive, morally repressed, and even outright stupid. Wait for it.
*Kanazawa, Satoshi (2009). Evolutionary Psychological Foundations of Civil Wars. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 25-34.
This could benefit a husband.
Or drive him out of his mind. The reason that polygamous familes are not the norm even in the Muslim world is that the antics of a pack of competitive women are hard on a man too.
There’s a bit of this dynamic shown in the HBO show Big Love, though one can hardly count on Hollywood to portray the true dynamic.
I think the true dynamic is actually more destructive than on Big Love. The husband Bill is a pretty saintly guy. Check out the abuses of both young men and women that come out of the real-life FLDS compounds to get an idea of what it’s really like.
That’s brilliant, Brendan. Ever read Heinlein’s Friday? It was one of his last books. He predicts the same scenario as in your paragraph.
I know he spoke of “line marriages” — something which hasn’t really been tried before. I suppose anything is possible.
@J
To be clear, I’m no advocate of polygamy. But the female abuses that come out of the FLDS community result more from the community’s autocratic leadership and odd, dictatorial religiosity than they do from polygamy per se. The polygamy practiced there is nowhere near volitional.
The reason polygamous cultures gave way to monogamous ones aren’t because men like Solomon were driven out if their minds by their 700 wives. Rather, there are only so many disillusioned single men willing to die protecting that king and his harem. There’s less social investment overall on the part of these men. Eventually, cultures full of “bare branches” or “lost boys” become socially unstable.
In fact, I suspect men like Solomon didn’t get terribly frustrated trying to address the antics of wife #234. He just moved on to wive #673. …Just as the modern “player” does today in playing-off his rotating “empowered” harem.
MNL: I have read a study somewhere that says that all periods of social unrest and wars have been preceded by a period of lack of women.
@Brendan
Yeah, line marriages in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and short-term contract marriages in Stranger in a Strange Land. Atypical marriage seems to have fascinated him though he and his wife seem to have been ver devoted to one another.
@MNL
To be clear, I’m no advocate of polygamy.
I understood that.
The reason polygamous cultures gave way to monogamous ones aren’t because men like Solomon were driven out if their minds by their 700 wives.
When the Bible uses numbers like that they generally just mean “lots.” I was exaggerating a bit about being driven crazy, but I was trying to make a point. Generally if one relationship is a challenge, balancing it with several more is more challenging yet. When ever I think the poyandry would be a good idea, it later occurs to me that another husband would mean another husband’s BS. I can barely handle one. 😉
Rather, there are only so many disillusioned single men willing to die protecting that king and his harem. There’s less social investment overall on the part of these men. Eventually, cultures full of “bare branches” or “lost boys” become socially unstable.
Yep. Even Big Love hints at that in its back stories. Disinherited and cast out boys are always getting revenge.
Interesting post and comments. I will try to offer some food for thought.
I don’t really see any causality between institutionalized Muslim polygyny, military weakness and social instability. The Ottoman Empire was a formidable military power until its dissolution. To say that the average Turkish soldier was less effective and motivated than the average Russian or Austrian soldier is preposterous.
As far as Ottoman rulers and other Muslim “big men” are concerned: correct me if I’m wrong, but most of the women in their harems were bought as slaves from Eastern Europe and Persia or abducted during armed raids into enemy territory. These guys weren’t robbing their own male subjects from potential wives.
The situation hasn’t changed much since. Wealthy Muslim men in Arab oil monarchies recruit infidel Eastern European and Asian girls into their de facto harems and use their wives for procreation instead. The brothels of Arab countries are also full of Eastern European, Russian and Chinese prostitutes. So it’s not like alpha big men are hoarding all the local pretty girls.
Syria and Egypt haven’t performed well against Israel but that is largely due to conditions other than polygyny (the lack of previous Arab experience in mechanized war, nepotism in the military and the overall lack of meritocracy in society etc).
The soft polygyny practised by Western big men, enabled by female sexual freedom, is more problematic because it isn’t regulated in any way:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/what-does-it-mean-to-be-off-the-market/
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Redhead Appreciation Edition
If the bare branches in the West or their counterparts in Asia were going to rebel, wouldn’t they have done so already? Isn’t it more likely for them to just disappear into hobbies, gaming, etc? As bad as thing are, I don’t think there would be much in the way of unrest until people started going hungry.
I think that what we see these days in London and what we saw in Norway just a week ago is the beginning of the revolt of the bare branches. We have a growing amount of males, immigrants and low status male of the original population who have no stakes in society and who just don’t care about anything. Some of them make noise, most are silent but they will refuse to intervene for the best of society – and therefore Western civilization will fall.
It’s worth noting Salt Lake City is now the new gay capitol that SF was 20-40 yrs ago.
I agree that unless a monogamous system is enforced in some way, female preference will devolve it to a functionally polygamist one, which is ‘hard’ polygamy no matter what it’s called.
Even “serial monogamy” is a form of polygamy, because (some) men are much more capable having second families following divorce, whereas women put themselves in the custody trap and then get stuck on match.com waiting for their (2nd) prince to arrive, and he never does. Women basically have one reproductive life, whereas men can have several if they can swing it.
H. L. Mencken observed almost a century ago that the arguments against polygamy never come from women.
Previous comment from above stated:
“I don’t really see any causality between institutionalized Muslim polygyny, military weakness and social instability. The Ottoman Empire was a formidable military power until its dissolution. To say that the average Turkish soldier was less effective and motivated than the average Russian or Austrian soldier is preposterous.”
Actually the soldiers of the Ottoman empire was called Janissary and where eunuchs. They were typically brought in from the Slavic regions of the Ottoman empire.
This is from Wikipedia
“The Janissaries became the first Ottoman standing army, replacing forces that mostly contained tribal warriors (ghazis) whose loyalty and morale were not always guaranteed.[1] From Murad I to 1648, the Janissaries were gathered through the devşirme system. This was the recruiting of non-Turkish children, notably Balkan Christians; Jews were never subject to devşirme, nor were children from Turkic families. In early days, all Christians were enrolled indiscriminately; later, those from Albania, Greece, Bosnia, Serbia and Bulgaria were preferred.[4][5]
The Janissaries were kapıkulları (sing. kapıkulu), “door servants” or “slaves of the Porte”, neither free men nor ordinary slaves (Turkish: köle).[6] They were subject to strict discipline, but they were paid salaries and pensions on retirement, and were free to marry; those conscripted through devşirme formed a distinctive social class[7] which quickly became the ruling class of the Ottoman Empire, rivaling the Turkish aristocracy in one of the four royal institutions: the Palace, the Scribes, the Religious and the Military. The brightest of the Janissaries were sent to the Palace institution Enderun, where the possibility of a glittering career beckoned.
According to military historian Michael Antonucci, every five years the Turkish administrators would scour their regions for the strongest sons of the sultan’s Christian subjects. These boys, usually between the ages of 10 and 12, were then taken from their parents and given to the Turkish families in the provinces to learn Turkish language and customs, and the rules of Islam; these boys were then enrolled in Janissary training. The recruit was immediately indoctrinated into the religion of Islam. He was supervised 24 hours a day and subjected to severe discipline: he was prohibited from growing a beard, taking up a skill other than war, or marrying. ”
So the Ottoman army was not your typical Turk.
I disagree with a lot of the comments. They are interesting and there are good points. But I have a lot of experience in Colombia. I will speak specifically of Medellin. The 2005 Colombian census listed 1.3 million woman and 1.1 million men. There is no other explanation for this other than violent death. I can quickly count three boys that I know that have been killed violently. One, was killed smuggling gasoline from Venezuela by paramilitaries, another in gang violence, a third was a policeman shot at point blank range while on duty along the border of Colombia and Venezuela. I am sure there were others if I scratched my head for a bit. I know not a single American killed by violence. And these demographic differences are confined to a particular age bracket. The level of violence in Colombia has considerably diminished in the last 10 years so you see a more balance demographic in people under 25. Also you see a dramatic changing in attitude and arrogance of the girls under 25. Disney, Nick, MTV have been standard fare on cable and penetration of cable in houses is fairly universal. So the soft culture of the US is very pervasive in the country. People do spank children in Colombia; they give them timeouts. Sexual harassment and sexual discrimination do not have the same legal prohibition but the ideas exist in the minds of the people as if it did. Domestic violence is the same way. But most of their attitude is due to more equal numbers of young men and young women.
But in people over 25 there is a great imbalance between the number of women and men. That’s why the Colombian women are so active in the “mail order bride” scene. In 2008 out of 5000 K-2 Fiancee visas issued for the whole world, 1800 were to Colombians. I was once was in a mall and every table in the food court had a couple, boy and girl, and some second unaccompanied girl. Also this is aggravated by the economics of Colombia. I would estimate that maybe 30% of the men do not earn enough money to be capable of forming and supporting a family. Also prostitution is legal in Colombia and the men have a running debate about whether it is better to stay single and use a prostitute or to suffer having a wife. There is no definitive opinion. Colombian put extreme economic pressure on their men. Also, add a third factor that any man who makes enough money to afford to start a family and to afford the expense of dating has so many women to pick from that he has no reason to get married. Now, keep in mind that on a basis of per capita income, a Colombian woman is more expensive to a Colombian man than an American woman is to an American man. Colombian women are going hit their man up for money for her life and bills. She has no qualms about asking for money to pay her electric bill. One said to me “I want more from my boyfriend than that he buys me Ice Cream.” The Colombian custom is to just hand the woman money at the end of the date and say “For your taxi” or “Buy yourself something nice”. So that’s why the men debate about using hookers or not. Often the hookers are much cheaper.
So take into consideration the imbalance due to violent death, involuntary non-participation for economic reasons, and players who have no incentive to marry, you can have a situation where 50% or more of the women have no man. If she is over 40 forget it, it’s over. Really over 35. And if they have kids maybe 30.
So even in a harsh a disparity as this, there still is no polygamy. There is very “soft” sorts like married men with mistresses. Also prostitution provides a lot of women with options. A lot of attractive girls that had kids very early work as prostitutes. Their mother watches the kids which are actually sleeping when the woman leaves to go to work. She comes home before they wake up and she makes 10 times more money than a girl that works in a shop. She supports herself, her kids, and her mother. The saying is “A wife has 1 husband; a prostitute has many” And despite the lore in the US about prostitutes, most of the ones in Colombia are fairly happy. Because it is legal there is no need for pimps. If a man doesn’t pay, she calls the police. (Witness the scene with Secret Service guards in Cartagena). If a man beats her she calls the police. She has the same rights as any businessman or tradesman and the police protect her as an ordinary citizen. They aren’t drug addicts. Mostly they are normal women that need to support kids. And most are happy.
And certainly there are situations where a married man will date a woman and she will tolerate him being married if he gives her money and supports her. Or if she thinks there is possibility that she can mate poach him from his current wife. That happens a lot. Given that I meet most Colombian woman online via match sites then most would be divorced and not married. So my anecdotal estimation of percentages of what causes divorce in Colombia is skewed based on what the women on those sites tell me. But my view is that almost all divorces in Colombia are caused by infidelity OR the man losing the ability to provide economic support to the woman. But according to the women, the man cheated. So the single woman are poaching. I have watched a married guy get flirted with by a girl who knew that he was married and that his wife was pregnant. A lot of time when a man got caught, his mistress wanted him to get caught and set him up. Serial marriage is common.
But there are no situations where more than one woman lives in the same house with a man. In no way. Maybe there is and it was masked. But I never saw a single situation that would make me think it might be a polygamous situation. Even with an amazing demographic imbalance that only exists after a major war coupled with challenging economic conditions there was no Polygamy. None. Polygamy could only exists where a few men have significant economic and political control. And there is no other means for the women to find support. One essay on Evolutionary Psychology said male sexual nirvana was Polygamy and the woman’s nirvana was Monogamy with the alpha. So even though Ev Psych predicts that she would tolerate monogamy and has it in her genes, the circumstances where she would tolerate it have to very extreme and only in rare cases, at least in western society. The biological requirement of being a man is merely to have orgasms. The biological requirement to be a woman is have babies. That is her motivation. If she can have a baby and figure out how to support it, she doesn’t need or nor often want a husband. And modern society offers her many mechanisms to support the baby. Her motivation is the baby not the husband. Like the German girls profile on MillionaireMatch said “Der herr ist accessorie fur die frau” The husband is an accessory for the wife.
There was this weird outbreak in Medellin during the height of the most violent times, the 90s. The Pablo Escobar wars dominated the first part of the decade and the civil war with the FARC dominated the second part. Teenage boys were dying in huge numbers and teenage girls had babies in massive numbers, girls as young as 14. Today you can walk around the shopping malls and see these young attractive women, at least young by American standards, early 30s, when a lot of American women still haven’t even married yet, with a 16 year old daughter and the mom was probably better looking, sexier, MILFish. It still goes on. But a massive education program to couple poverty with early childbirth has backed it down. But even today I saw on profile of a woman that is 27 and she has 14 year old. That meant she got pregnant at 12. But even today in Colombia, waiting to get pregnant is waiting until 22. And many do it without a husband. So I think a lack of marriageable men causes the women to adapt to getting pregnant, to having and raising the children without a husband far more than I think they would ever consent to Polygamy.
You’re kidding yourself if you think men are so important to women that they would ever consent to polygamous relations, especially not in America where the police and courts act as muscle and bill collector to extract money from fathers of their children.
Now perhaps, IF, this male birth control method that is under testing in India (where a type of silicon is injected into the Vas Deferens and destroys the sperm when it is ejaculated) becomes widespread in use among men and Princess can no longer trick men into getting her pregnant then there will be massive social changes, as massive as with female birth control. I think it will be incredibly widespread if it performs as claimed. It is in clinical testing and supposedly available in 2015. I am sure there will be a huge fight politically to get it approved here in the USA.
There was a Brazilian doctor that had been to China where they were using an extract from cotton seeds to make male contraception. It worked. It had some side effects, low potassium level and it took longer to wear off the longer you used it, sometimes years. After 10 years of use it was discontinued. But also after the Chinese population had gotten under control. But this doctor took his findings during the early days of its use when it was still thought to be effective at male birth control to a global conference. In the middle of his presentation, Gloria Steinem interrupted him and said “We didn’t fight all these years to leave contraception in hands of men. They will lie and say they are using it and get the woman pregnant” and the whole feminist contingent began chanting “NO MALE PILL”. and it never came to introduction in the west. Her reasoning was nonsense. They wanted not only control of when they didn’t want to get pregnant but also when they did. I have no idea where this idea that men wouldn’t take a functioning contraception with minimal side effects comes from. I would take it in a minute and when it comes out, I would march my son right over to the doctor and stand there in the treatment room to verify it was given to him.
I don’t think there are as many “accidental” pregnancies as are claimed. I think there are a lot more lying women than accidental pregnancies. How can a woman not know when she is fertile, something that is so life changing, so disastrous when it is ill timed? All any woman has to say to me is “I’m fertile right now” and I’m out of the bed. I don’t think very few men deliberately impregnate women. A British study from last year said that 65% of marriages occurred due to some sort of “Dirty trick” on the part of the woman. Something like 65% of the “Dirty tricks” were simply ultimatums “Marry me or I leave you”. But the other 35% where deliberate pregnancies, false claims of pregnancies, making the partner jealous with other men. So less than 1/3 of marriages are mutually agreed decisions and probably some trivial amount with the man getting on a knee. I didn’t. I got an ultimatum. Liz Jones from the Daily Mail set off a firestorm when she wrote about trying the steal her boyfriends sperm even though he had stated he wanted no children and used a condom. She acted as the good girlfriend and handled the condom after intercourse. She would carefully set it into the trash. She would later go back into the trash and use the sperm to try to impregnate herself. It didn’t work for her. But she said when her girlfriends said they got pregnant she would ask “if they stole the sperm” like it was quite common in the feminine arsenal for getting pregnant. And none acted like it was idea was so foreign and abhorrent. There is a case in Allegheny country where a man sued a fertility clinic because his girlfriend stole his condoms, took them to the fertility clinic and they used the sperm to inseminate her. He has to pay child support.
Now if princess can’t have a baby by hook or by crook. then maybe she’ll accept something different. But there are a lot of other alternatives before she accepts Polygamy. In 2000, Time magazine wrote an article stating that pressure to allow human cloning would come from women., particular 33-39 year old women that didn’t want to gamble that they might not find an acceptable genetic match and establish a monogamous relationship. Through cloning they could have a copy of themselves as a baby. The article stated that most women wanted a girl.
Also, one last thing. Nietzsche stated in “A Will to Power” that “Christianity is a woman’s religion”. Everything about it supports women, despite some claims that it oppresses women. This whole notion of “The Family” and monogamy is I think more to the benefit of women than men. Christianity reinforces a personal and societal behavior that benefits her desire to have children and claim all the resources of the man in her biological goal. It condemns any behavior that allows men to have access to sex other than via the institution of marriage with his wife. Women and the church despise pornography and prostitution. What both do is minimize the need to have a wife. It commoditizes an orgasm. One orgasm is a good as another. Both break the monopoly that women have over sexual access. And that sexual access is the coercive power that women have over men. The religious right fights gay marriage because it says the Bible defines marriage “as between a man and a woman” not between “men and women”. To me, the fundamental essence of Christianity is monogamous marriage and everything else is just invention and construct designed to support it. The morality of it defines what is the “Good man” and that man is married, has children, is faithful to his wife, works to support her and the children, abstains from alcohol and drugs, doesn’t even think unclean thoughts about women including his wife. We have been at war for over 10 years against Islam and probably will fight them for 100s more. And there are no massive street demonstrations against it, no great social upheaval like during the Viet Nam war. There is little criticism at all about it, the deaths, the money spent from neither the left or the right. The reason is that it is a woman’s war. It is fight against a religion that seizes power from women and gives it to men. It is a war against Polygamy.
Christianity is too ingrained in this society and America is a woman’s country as Christianity is a woman’s religion.
Besides, any man that marries one woman is a fool. Any man that marries two is an idiot. If you had enough money to convince a woman to be your second wife would be far better of having no wives and playing the greedy witches against each other. They would steal his money. My observation is that once a woman has an income that when coupled with what she can extract from the man in child support or alimony that adds up to more than $100,000, his days are numbered. Richard Gilder wrote a book called “Sexual Survivor” that discussed how welfare mothers push the man out of the house once they have independent income and Reagan used it as his basis for pushing welfare reform. I saw that $100,000 in my life. My wife divorced me once it was apparent she could get it.
Move to Colombia. There are two women for one man. Pay her a flat rate. Have an economic pistol to her head and she will stay with you. Maybe if you pay enough you can have two.
Never marry nobody.
This is the model in Islam. A man is allowed up to 4 wives but they must be provided for EQUALLY, and whatever money a Muslim woman makes is her own and she is under no obligation to share it with her husband or children, the collective family expenses are SOLELY the responsibility of the husband. If a wife voluntarily shares, that’s up to her, but in Islam she is under no obligation to do so. As we would imagine, very few Muslim men have more than 1 wife at a time.
Lulz. That’s why they need male escorts. They only work with their husband’s permission!