MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > women want polygamy...

women want polygamy...

posted 2 months ago by 123Guy (7281)
94 replies | jump to latest

it's super obvious if you examine the facts, and history:

- KINGS (the top men) used to have harems of women, granted, part of it was probably slavery, yet it set the pace: one man keeping alive many women. because he could. he was king. and don't tell me the hot young women of that time did NOT prefer living with a king's palace rather than some desperate sheep herder's grass hut. let's be real.

- droves of women line up to boink rockstars, actors, politicions, astronauts... again, many women, one man. they are all SHARING a man.

- dating apps have proven, and also related studies, and also also the obvious truth by using your own eyes, that ALL WOMEN would prefer the 1% of men today*, the kings, the winners, the rich, healthy and successful. long/short they are driven to make offsping from the best of the best stock. that drive is hard wired but for another discussion elsewhere.
* it doesn't matter what they VERBALLY TELL YOU, because that doesn't always match reality

If men are wealthy enough to be able to afford to pay for the existence of multiple women, and the women are fine with sharing (do basket ball players EVER get laid? do the math...) then, polygamy is the desired state of natural relations.

currently, the laws are all fucked up and it wouldn't work because one divroce would ruin many other women's lives, but that is correctable by making laws that would prohibit 1 of 10 poly wives from taking the guy to the bank, recognizing that she is one tenth of the equation, not half.

Am I in favor of this? Oh, hell no. But I'm not blind to the overwhelming evidence that the natural desired state.... FROM WOMEN THEMSELVES..... is polygamy.

[–] BuckleBilly (1150) 2 months ago

You really need to spend less time online.

Go out with a few friends and talk with people. Be sure your phone is either turned off or left at home.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

this TOPIC has nothing to do with me

[–] BuckleBilly (1150) 2 months ago

It totally does.

[–] tcrum (31533) 2 months ago

Hilarious...Love it:)

[–] parkerbot (9075) 2 months ago

Tell me you've never lived with a woman without telling me you're never lived with a woman.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

this TOPIC has nothing to do with me

[–] parkerbot (9075) 2 months ago

Sure it does.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

I'm not for polygamy, quite the opposite. But I can see trends with my eyes....

[–] parkerbot (9075) 2 months ago

I can see dead people with my eyes.

No wait, they're just junkies on the street.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21466) 2 months ago

Just relax. You are going to be fine.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

this TOPIC has nothing to do with me

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 months ago

Ffs.

So what this post is telling me is that you are not part of the 1% and are having difficulties finding a woman on a dating site. Perhaps if you didn't generalize ALL WOMEN, as having the same desires you might have better luck.

Just out of curiosity, are you holding a fish in your profile picture?

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

this TOPIC has nothing to do with me.

I have always done fine with women.

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 months ago

So if it has nothing to do with you, how do you know what ALL WOMEN want?

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

I never once said ALL women. Had I said ALL women, I would have meant ALL women, which I did not say.

In order to talk on topics, one must assume a certain level of GENERALITIES. Like GENERALLY women, but I don't usually type the word GENERALLY after each place where it is assumed.
I understand, everyone does not discuss/debate/argue in the exact same fashion so some people don't get it. And that is fine. It's just a silly little online discussion about a thing.

I made a statement, I backed it up with examples from history and common known facts, to see where people take it.
Instead, in some weird tangent, most ASSUME it was all about my personal life. It's just a topic. I even stated I was not in favor of it, just pointing out something that is under the radar in life.

Waiting for someone to prove why it's wrong ratther than tell me I have issues or some random thing hahahhaa

this TOPIC has nothing to do with me.

I'm not even calling it right or wrong morally, just it is a condition that exists.

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 months ago

and also also the obvious truth by using your own eyes, that ALL WOMEN would prefer the 1% of men today.....* it doesn't matter what they VERBALLY TELL YOU, because that doesn't always match reality

Ummmm???

Waiting for someone to prove why it's wrong ratther than tell me I have issues or some random thing hahahhaa

Well where did you prove that anything that you said was true? You made comments. If they aren't based on your own experiences, where are you getting your opinions from?

The number of women who line up to boink rockstars, actors, and politicians are hardly comparable to the entire population of women.

You have stated that

If men are wealthy enough to be able to afford to pay for the existence of multiple women, and the women are fine with sharing (do basket ball players EVER get laid? do the math...) then, polygamy is the desired state of natural relations.

You are ignoring other considerations like love, jealousy, lack of trust....that sort of thing.

If you want to go this way, wouldn't a woman be better off with multiple husbands? I mean that way none of the have to be particularly rich, and she could still be supported by multiple incomes. Why would just have to be husbands? I mean why not just mix everything up and have multiple men and women in relationships together building a great life?

The answer is still the considerations which I posted above. Humans by nature seem to suffer from jealousy. A lot of men and women would like connection with their partners. They want love. Polyamory can work for some people sure, but it's not something that is sustainable for most people, even if they try it out.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

oops you are correct. I was wrong there. :) It's a super busy day and my head is all over the place.

I DID say ALL WOMEN - in that ONE particular instance, and I stand by that, and meant it in that ONE particular instance. I'd jumped to conclusion you thought I was saying ALL women with my subject line. bad on me, and I am sorry. I got cofused.

All women WOULD choose high value than lower given the option. Which is exactly what dating apps do.
The simplest example is: if you had the choice to choose getting a free One Dollar Bill, or getting a free One Hundred Dollar bill -- no strings attached to either -- which would someone choose? Exaclty. When the oportunity is there, the choice/answer is obvious.
ALL WOMEN would PREFER - >>given the opportunity<< - a 1% man...
I followed it with the turth women hate, in that what they SAY OUTLOUD is not always truth to themselves or others.
Would you rather have a rich guy or a poor guy. It's kind of a non-question really. So, I meant ALL WOMEN there. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but prudence suggest an obvious answer that does include ALL.

--- I'll address the rest later, I got busy again. thank you for reply to the topic and not my personal life. that this is not related to at all :D

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 months ago

All women WOULD choose high value than lower given the option.

Wouldn't everyone choose something high value than lower? But what is high value? What I might consider high value might not be important to someone else. Wouldn't everyone take the hundred dollars over one?

ALL WOMEN would PREFER - >>given the opportunity<< - a 1% man...

Proof for that?? What is a 1% man? Just rich?? Money doesn't equal happiness in a relationship. The are gold diggers of both sexes, and I don't think anyone really wants to struggle in life....but, you are forgetting that a lot of people just want someone to love and who loves them in return.

People want connection. You keep saying that it's a truth that women don't say out loud. I would ask which women and in what way? If I'm entering the dating pool and looking for a partner for life, I have a bunch of criteria that I'm looking for, stability is only one of those factors. I'm not going to date someone who is a complete dick over someone who is struggling a bit with whom I completely meld with just because the dick has more money. Would I prefer someone who has stability, and who can take care of themselves?? Of course. Who wouldn't want that. But is it a deal breaker? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on my situation at the time, and of course the man. Everything about him, not just his bank account.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

circling back up first...

anything I said true:
- are you saying kings didn't have harems?
- are you saying droves dont line up to boink rockstars, or Diddy?
- are you saying dating apps don't let women go for the top percetage? And that they DON'T do that?
These are my opinionated comments, these are facts. Easily findable looking, I'm not going to look them up as I assumed pretty much everyone already knew those. It's why I used them as examples.

I fully agree about love and jealousy, and that affects women hugely, of course. BUT, going back to my point of ALL WOMEN would pick the 1% if possible, that means the door is open to ignore love and jealousy for protection of money, maybe even sharing the provider. This happens time and again, but you probably won't read about it on the front page because everyone wants to save face. I've read examples of this, I've seen videos about it, I personally have noticed in some circles I'm in... I've never called it wrong, because that works for them. It's literally none of my business.

Women having more husbands:
I've never seen this happen except in maybe one news article once, over in India or someplace. This is one of those things where men and women are just different. Call it a double standard, but it is just the way things are.

I'd say if poly wasn't a largely noticeable thing, it wouldn't be on the table. Yet it is. And I was pointing it out using "natural" examples in the wild. Using commonly known examples is the best representation of it, because everyone has access to that knowledge. What we DON'T hear about (because no one cares) is the thousands of private, one off situations of poly that are hidden away from media.
You know the saying: When you see one cockroach, there are 100s more in hiding.

High value:
You kind of descibed it: yes, everyone would take the MORE option. That's why I said ALL WOMEN about that. ... which circles back to support my point about polygamy:

ALL WOMEN want higest value = women want polygamy because that's how all women can get highest value. Sharing

[–] Kowalski (75537) 2 months ago

FALSE.

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 months ago

I didn't deny that kings had harems, not did I deny that some women do want to boink famous people. Don't men fantasize about the same thing?

When it comes to dating apps....

These are my opinionated comments, these are facts. Easily findable looking, I'm not going to look them up as I assumed pretty much everyone already knew those. It's why I used them as examples.

If they are so easily findable looking, why aren't you sharing actual stats on that?

I fully agree about love and jealousy, and that affects women hugely, of course. BUT, going back to my point of ALL WOMEN would pick the 1% if possible,

Men are jealous as well you know. Also, wouldn't men pick the 1% if possible as well? Seriously? I don't know why you are making this about women.

I really don't know any women who want polygamy. Not one. Not even my Muslim friends....so yeah...I don't know what to tell you.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

Truth women don't say outloud:

My EXAMPLE of truth women won't say outloud was that all women want the high value. What I meant by not saying out loud is because, yes, ALL women DO WANT that. But shame or embarassment or whatever would make MOST women flat out deny that: "NO I don't care how much he makes, that's not important." Simple self lie. And a perfect example, because we already established that ALL women DO want high value. Again... who wouldn't? Fact proving proof that all do.

What my post tries to point out is that even with all our advancement, all our growth, evolution, liberal progress or whatever, STILL, since the dawn of time, the guy with the biggest....

wallet...gets the girlS. :) Polygamy still happens, people don't admit it because it is frowned upon by our modern society. Yet there it is.

Guys ALWAYS want lots of women. We're dogs and wired very different from women.
But the women are the ones showing up, proving what they want.

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 months ago

Again...I am really confused at the ALL WOMEN, and not ALL PEOPLE. You are implying that only women want rich men, but men don't want a woman who has money? I mean if they had the choice?

The problem I see with your stating facts is that fantasy isn't reality.

I will also say that if the guy with the biggest wallet might be able to get girls, but if all he has is money going for him, he will have a really hard time keeping the girls.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

Polygamy is maybe 99.99% multi wives over multi husbands. just how it is. EXCEPT in those rare countries people mentioned that have way more men than women. so that is their isolated (not the standard) situation. thus... women. Men GENERALLY are not onboard with multi husbnads.... but....

FACTS Harems were/are a thing
FACTS droves boink(share?) music and famous guys (GENERALLY - or in my case, I've NEVER heard it the other way around
FACTS dating apps they go for 1%
not Fantasy, actually proven facts - or am I not understanding what you mean there?

[–] sslssg (34222) 2 months ago

You can't just say something is a fact without backing it up, and yes I am referring to the dating app comment.

If you are looking at why it's men who have multiple wives and not the other way around, you might also want to look at women's rights and place in society in places where it is acceptable.

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 months ago

And what does 123Guy want?

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

for people to understand topics and reply to them with some thoughtful responses instead of assuming I'm talking about me.

this TOPIC has nothing to do with me.

BUT, I guess some thought experiments are too uncomprehensible to people.
It's not the first time. :)

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77424) 2 months ago

Nice troll buddy, keep it up, you are funny😄

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

if it's wrong, please point out how.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77424) 2 months ago

Reread what you posted and you may possibly grasp how silly this OP was. You were clearly posting an ironic screed OR you are mentally retarded.

Either way I find you amusing.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

other than you maybe not LIKING it, where am I wrong?
which parts are not true? (beyond being a thing you may not approve of)

it would help me avoid misteps in the future

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77424) 2 months ago

Women happen to be human beings, fully capable of charting their own career and even earning a living, making important choices…Holy heck, we even allow these lady folk to drive automobiles and vote now if you can believe that!

The women were generally best for making babies and cooking but now they have evolved!!!

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

it's JUST a discussion about a modern topic, bro. not a big deal.

women, and men, have more options in life as any generation ever had ever. yet this practice keeps existing - whether we like it or not.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77424) 2 months ago

Kewl, carry on.
I do enjoy your trolling, it’s good silly traffic for MC✌️

[–] VinceD (9805) 2 months ago

Women, and men, have more options in life as any generation ever had ever. yet this practice keeps existing

I'm not sure this supports your argument. I agree that women have more options now than ever before in history, especially in the Western world, but polygamy is practiced far less now than, say, hundreds of years ago -- due to changes in cultural norms and shifting views on marriage and equality. This seems to run counter to your argument.

Also, in your OP, you seem to be conflating polygamy and hypergamy.

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

I think hypergamy is totally related and supports all this. I was just pointing out that polygamy is still an active thing - only seeing the public displays here and there (rockstars etc) but that means it is also out there hidden in the wild more than we think.

Don't more options make polygamy closer to reality? One example to me is the marijuana laws.... it used to be oh so bad, illegal... now reality kicked in, its mostly legal, and expanding to medicine even.

Shifting view of marriage involve the 29 different versions of relationships, like "Situationships", coed room mates, open relationships etc etc etc, so polygamy no longer seems like a streatch and may even have a future, from my seat.

[–] VinceD (9805) 2 months ago

Don't more options make polygamy closer to reality?

No, not if it happens less frequently in the modern era than it did historically. It does not support your argument.

[–] AndyKing1967 (38134) 2 months ago

I was with you all the way until you said, “we even allow these lady folk to drive automobiles.”

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77424) 2 months ago

They even let women vote here now!

The world is upside down!!

[–] AndyKing1967 (38134) 2 months ago

I’m definitely going to live in Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 months ago

I wonder why you give it all THIS much importance 123? Why do you care so much about it all?

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 months ago

Also, does this also concern women who are completely INNOCENT and also decent human beings WITH common sense, intelligence and nary a single prejudiced or wrongful thought or action, does this apply to them AS WELL?

[–] Bloodshot77 (13779) 2 months ago

He must not have a sister, daughter, or mother.

Signed, million man.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77424) 2 months ago

I have a mother, a sister, a daughter and a wife. Women are every bit the equals of men.

This dude has just done a fine job of trolling!

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

well... we're EQUAL in human rights and stuff, but completely not equal physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually etc... not equal does not mean lesser or greater value, just "Different" from each other.

An apple is not EQUAL to an orange. Yet, both have their place and value.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77424) 2 months ago

Bro, you are clearly an accomplished troll!
I bet this post gets a hundred responses;)

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

I don't CARE... it's just a topic for discussion

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 months ago

Cool - hope others are also OK for it, including any controversial statements on the order of "Laws not always being fair" and the potential topic of female gender in say less than always 100% positive light in plain view.

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 months ago

Although I notice, you DO give it emotional importance and whatnot, and this isn't the first time either. )

[–] 123Guy (7281) 2 months ago

I'm a passionate debater, but I really don't care and it doesn't affect ME at any level. JUST an interesting topic. Most of my topics are like taht.

[–] Kowalski (75537) 2 months ago

NO...NOT REALLY...YOUR TOPICS ARE SLIGHT AND JUVENILE...USUALLY BADLY EXPRESSED OR CONFUSED.

[–] Bloodshot77 (13779) 2 months ago

Show me on this doll where the bad woman didn't touch you.

👦

Signed, million man.

[–] VinceD (9805) 2 months ago

😂🤣💀

I must of read this message like 5 times before I read it correctly and it hit me lol

[–] TheMan18 (13016) 2 months ago

Do we HAVE to go into this direction Bloodshot? (I'd rather not, personally.) More so - is this even relevant to THIS topic overall?

[–] Bloodshot77 (13779) 2 months ago

I could say the same thing about all the garbage you post. But I'm usually a nice guy so I will keep you on my virtual ignore list.

Signed, million man.

[–] samoanjoes (56726) 2 months ago

Yes he did. It's a harmless insult.